Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/06/Category:Innovation

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Innovation

Its not really clear what should (or should not) be in this category. As the term "innovation" can be applied to literally anything and at the moment the category is just a random hodgepodge of unrelated media. For instance, there's both the category Category:Adobe Kickbox (something to do with adobe software) and then images of a trans pride parade in it. Which don't have anything to do with each other and aren't "innovations" (whatever that means) either. So the category really needs to be clarified somehow. Otherwise, if that's not possible then it should be redirected or something instead. Adamant1 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Keep but remove much of the content

I would agree the OP's point. However there are some subcategories here with an obvious lexical relation to "innovation". For that reason we should keep it. However I can't see any files which belong here. In particular there are large groups, like the "Capital TransPride " set, which have no relation at all, but no other categorisation. That was just a careless import task. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure there's a few categories like Category:Innovation economics. Have you read the Wikipedia article "Innovation economics" though? Really that category shouldn't exist either. It likely only does because of the Wikipedia article. Not because it's a real thing. I'm sure the same goes for the other "innovation" categories. I guess I can take a "get rid of the sub categories first" approach, but I rather not or at least in the meantime there should be a clear definition of what goes in this category and what doesn't. Just things that have the word "innovation"? Whatever the particular editor thinks is an "innovation" at the time? Category:Industrial processes is another good example. Sure, some industrial processes are innovations, but so what? Bicycles were "innovations" at the time. So, I'm really at a lose about the whole thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

So what is the nomination here? Delete Category:Innovation, or delete Category:Innovation economics (and others?) as well? Because a DR, at the bare minimum, should be honest in what it's after. Deleting the subcategories would need a rationale for each of those. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)×

I've been pretty clear about what the point in this is. To either define the category in a way that doesn't allow for it to be filled with junk or delete it. Your the one that brought up the other categories as a reason it should be kept. The point is, categories like Category:Industrial processes don't hinge on being in this category. Therefore, this categories extience doesn't hinge on them being in it, because there's zero reason they should or need to be. Like Category:Innovation economics would be perfectly fine just being in Category:economics or one of its sub categories. I could really give a crap. Just because it has the word "innovation" in it doesn't mean we should keep a clearly crap category. In the meantime, I really don't appreciate your insinuation that this DR is somehow dishonest just because I responded to something you brought up. That's a pretty faithed, judgemental way to treat this. Adamant1 (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Keep

• I agree that the dust comb has to go through: we should look critically to the subcategories and files in this category, whether they really should be in it. But we should keep it at least for all the subcategories with "innovation" in the name and perhaps some more. (And what does "OP" mean?)
• Perhaps we should look whether this category could be joined with Category:Inventions one way or another (parent-subcategory, redirect, whatever).
• And/or there should be subcategories with "century" or "decade" in the name, to indicate in what time an innovation was made. We have already Category:Works by date, but they do not indicate whether the works are about new concepts; and I think that "innovation" has to do with new concepts.

JopkeB (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposals

1. Category:Innovation should stay.  Done
2. Add a description.  Done
   1. Suggestion: Practical implementation of ideas that result in the introduction of new goods or services or improvement in offering goods or services. (source: EN-WP).
   2. Add to the desctiption the kind of media and subcategories which should be in it. Suggestions:
      1. Subcategories with "innovaton" or "innovative" in the category name and those who indicate innovation, like product development.
      2. Move subcategories about innovative products to a new category for innovations by period.
3. Look critically to the subcategories and files in this category, whether they apply to the (new) description.  Done for the subcategories.
4. Investigate whether this category could be joined with Category:Inventions one way or another.  Done

@Adamant1 and Andy Dingley:

• Do you agree with the proposal?
• Do you have other suggestions to solve this discussion?

--JopkeB (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Since there was no reaction for over a month, I close this discussion and implement my proposals. --JopkeB (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

---

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	See Proposals
Participants	Adamant1 (talk · contribs) Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)
Notes	@3: Still to do: Look critically to the files in this category, whether they apply to the (new) description and move them to proper subcategories. @4 Because in the EN-WP Inventions is a subcategory of Innovation, and I think that is a good idea, I also implemented that here on Commons. If you do not agree, please start a discussion.
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)