Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Craters

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category:Craters

[edit]
See also: en:User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization of craters.

IMO it is nonsense to disambiguate this because of a) subcats that have to dab'd too and b) of many interwiki links pointing here. Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters and Category:Explosion craters can be subcats of this one and everything is fine. Achim (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies for Category:Crater lakes. --Achim (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You posted a little bit ahead of me, but not the same list as I was going to suggest. I suggest keeping Category:Craters and Category:Crater lakes as disambiguations because, as happened on English Wikipedia, some well-meaning editor will probably just re-create them again anyway. But we should remove the array of Craters by continent, Craters by country, Craters in (country name), Crater lakes by continent, Crater lakes by country, Crater lakes in (country name), etc. I hadn't assembled that whole list yet. For background on the related cleanup on English Wikipedia, see w:User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization_of_craters. Ikluft (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I agree that it is helpful to distinguish. We should have and use the three cats Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters and Category:Explosion craters. The question is: Does a disambig suit our needs better that keeping these 3 cats as subcat members of Category:Craters in a regular manner, same way like d:Q109391 and d:Q55818 are subclasses of d:Q3240715. Regards, --Achim (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do what you want (the category system in general isn't worth much anyway...), I will generate a list of pages pointing to these disambigs that have to be fixed then. --Achim (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the definition of a disambiguation category prohibits any contents including subcategories. Ideally we'd want to limit the subcategories to Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters and Category:Explosion craters, and then force subcategorization into those. Unfortunately, experience has shown that if Category:Craters isn't a disambiguation then people will drop stuff in it, partly because tools like HotCat show the name without a definition. (HotCat re-prompts for the suggested alternatives if a disambiguation is selected.) Given those constraints, the suggestion for reorganizing the categories that I was working on would look like this... (total: keep 2 as disambiguation, delete 101)
So now you can see why that list was taking a little while to assemble... Ikluft (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. So we will have an assignment problem if the cats of 49 wikis + 42 wikis are regular ones linked with 2 disambiguating cats on commons. Do you intend disambiguating these 91 cats as well? Btw, on a wiki I saw a disambig page distinguishing between -Greek vessels and -landforms, then keeping the landforms as regular cats. But I think we will have to live with many wikis not disambiguating "Craters" and "Crater lakes" except just Commons. Good luck! --Achim (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This cleanup was already done on the English Wikipedia in 2009 and is getting maintenance cleanup right now. On Wikidata, the craters category is a disambiguation matching English Wikipedia. Most other wikis tend to follow the big ones. We can proceed one step at a time, and the next step is to clean up the crater ambiguity on Commons. Ikluft (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the first one who tries to transfer en:wp naming or structures to Commons. I'm tired, for the record I strongly  Oppose your suggestions and am off now. --Achim (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's about reducing ambiguity. Nevermind that the same problem exists on multiple wikis - we're dealing with Human nature. If you're giving up, please withdraw your CfD. Ikluft (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will post a CfD as listed above for removal of ambiguous unqualified crater-related categories after this one is closed. It currently blocks my proposal by holding the head of the category tree under process discussion. Ikluft (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no logical reason for Category:Craters to be a disambiguation page. There are different variety of craters, but they are all craters by the same definition. Disambiguation are for wholly unrelated things by the same name. Yes, people might put content into Category:Craters instead of the appropriate subcategories, just as they put content into Category:Vehicles instead of the appropriate subcategories. But we don't turn every category with sub-categories into a disambiguation page. If people put it there, it has a greater chance of being sorted appropriately by someone who can properly identify what time of crater it is. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is logic to it. See the "Categorization_of_craters" essay for background if you haven't already. The Category:Vehicles is a false analogy - vehicles are made of wheels, frames and (usually) motors and have much in common. Craters have a long history across the wikis of causing confusion among well-meaning editors over the apparent similarity in being forms of depressions, but being otherwise unrelated except by a broad definition in the English dictionary which separately lists impact, volcanic and explosion craters in order to fit them in because they're so different. The confusion goes further as people unfamiliar with craters mistake them for other kinds of depressions, such as sinkholes, and vice versa. It is worthwhile to provide some additional help to well-meaning editors. We also have the problem that tools like HotCat don't provide definition info, but will re-prompt for alternatives for a disambiguation category. Disambiguation categories are required to be empty. It would have been ideal if there had been a way for a disambiguation category to contain only their listed alternatives. But that option is not available - since the 3 kinds of craters actually have Category:depression (geology) as their common factor, this isn't a bad choice. Of the imperfect choices available, it's a good compromise which provides assistance for well-meaning editors to avoid a recurring trap of confusion. Ikluft (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the different types of craters are conceptual enough to have a container category so there should probably be a DAB here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a new update on my estimate of what a CfD reorg would take to implement this, after looking at how the categories are used. (total 128 categories = 3 disambiguation + 44 rename + 34 merge + 12 delete redirects + 35 delete ambiguous)
  • Keep as disambiguation categories
  • Rename categories (change "in" to "of" for consistency)
  • Merge categories
  • Remove redirect categories with ambiguous unqualified uses of crater
  • Remove categories with ambiguous unqualified uses of crater
If I understand correctly, since all those categories will need notices posted in them, it has to be a separate CfD/CfR/CfM reorg after this CfD closes. I don't think there's a way for this CfD to turn around and redefine itself to such a wider scope. Ikluft (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2019/11/Category:Craters&oldid=896363981"