Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/08

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

Category:Economy by century

[edit]

We have Economy by century, individual Economics by century subcategories and a Economic history parent category, individual Category:Economy by decade subcategories, and individual Category:Economics by year subcategories. I think we can pick economic history to be consistent. There is also Category:Economic history by century which should be merged into this category, whatever the final naming is. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682 enwiki also uses en:Category:Economic history by century Estopedist1 (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 Okay, but each subcategory is X-century economic history not Economics in the X century. We don't have to follow English. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red Tarn (Helvelyn)

[edit]

Should be moved to Category:Red Tarn (Helvellyn) per usual spelling Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eliza O'Neill

[edit]

Duplicate of Category:Elizabeth O'Neill Iamthecheese44 (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dinkytown, Minneapolis

[edit]

Not sure if I put this category in the right category. It's not one of the main neighboorhouds, but more of a district of one of the neigborhoods (see wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinkytown) thibaultmol (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks fine to me. As there is media and a referenced article on en:w, a category for it is legitimate. There are other cases where neighborhoods or sections of a city have a name and identity historically recognized by locals that are not the same as official city government divisions, nothing wrong with having categories for such. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big hinamatsuri

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/08/Category:Sakamoto ohina kaidou.

Not a very clear name: Define “big” as to why this should be a separate category. Especially since almost all images are taken in one location in Tokushima. Rename acordingly or move images to general cat. Zenwort (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zenwort the "big" may be a transliteration of the Japanese-language word. The category in question has two interwiki links. Japanese help may be necessary here Estopedist1 (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sakamoto ohina kaidou

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/08/Category:Big hinamatsuri.

According to WP conventions “kaidou” should be transliterated as “kaidƍ” (i.e. Hepurn-shiki). Even better rename to English so non-Japanese speakers get an idea what this cat is about. Zenwort (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Junction City, Union County, Arkansas

[edit]

Is this category necessary? Every one of the maps here are maps of both Junction City, Arkansas and Junction City, Louisiana which is covered by Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Junction City, Union County, Arkansas and Junction City, Clairborne and Union Parishes, Louisiana. It seems like the combined category is better than splitting this into this category and a Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Junction City, Clairborne and Union Parishes, Louisiana category since the maps cover both and there are no maps for each one separately.. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Darwin

[edit]

The category has been redirected to Roman Catholic Churches in the Northern Territory. While the Northen Territory and the Diocese of Darwin cover exactly the same territoty they come down two completely separate category trees. Mattinbgn (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both categories are important. On the one hand the category for the church area and on the other hand the area with the state area.--NeverDoING (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think both should be kept. The boundaries of the diocese or the territory or both could change in the future. (Probably not likely with the territory, but not impossible.) --Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LurblĂŠserne

[edit]

Copyright issue: The author has not yet been dead for 70 years + running year Fnielsen (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the copyright will first disappear at 1 January 2023. — Fnielsen (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:La Samaritaine quai du Louvre

[edit]

I'm not sure we need this category, can't we upmerge to Category:La Samaritaine? Mike Peel (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

La Samaritaine était composée de quatre magasins voisins les uns des autres et communiquant entre eux par des passerelles ou par les sous-sol. Ainsi, les façades des différents magasins donnaient sur sept rues différentes :
  • le quai du Louvre (magasin 2) ;
  • la rue Baillet (magasins 2 et 4) ;
  • la rue Bouchet (magasin 3) ;
  • la rue de l'Arbre-sec (magasin 2) ;
  • la rue de la Monnaie (magasins 1, 2 et 4) ;
  • la rue de Rivoli (magasins 1, 3 et 4) ;
  • la rue du Pont-Neuf (magasins 1 et 3).
J'ai donc créé une sous-catégorie par rue, afin qu'on puisse trouver facilement les photos des façades de la Samaritaine donnant sur une rue donnée. Ces catégories sont-elles utiles ? On peut en discuter comme pour toutes les catégories et sous-catégories mais cela me paraissait constituer une classification intéressante des photos des façades de la Samaritaine.
Vous vous interrogez sur la catĂ©gorie « La Samaritaine quai du Louvre » mais la question se pose autant que pour les six autres catĂ©gories de rues que je cite ci-dessus. Si fusion il devait y avoir, cela devrait concerner les sept catĂ©gories. Je ne suis pas favorable Ă  une telle fusion car je ne vois pas ce que la fusion apporterait Ă  Commons, ce serait enlever quelque chose qui peut ĂȘtre utile sans rien apporter de plus, je pense.
O.Taris (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@O.Taris: Ah, I see. Could you create a Wikidata item that describes this, and link it to this category? At the moment there is no context, which doesn't help. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a bot that create the items on Wikidata  ? I never did that. O.Taris (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WLM-UK 2013 unfiltered

[edit]

Do we still need these categories? The competition was in 2013, and has other tracking categories. The 'unfiltered' ones probably arent' needed any more? Mike Peel (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created the categories on request of the local organizers of that year. Probably the best to ask them if they are still needed. Romaine (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Pinging @MichaelMaggs, Katie Chan (WMUK), Richard Nevell (WMUK), and HJ Mitchell: . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Woods

[edit]

Multiple different meanings of "Woods" have been used to put photos in this category. Perhaps it should be turned into a disambiguation. Relevant categories where media and subcategories could go include Category:Forests, Category:Wood, Category:Woods (surname), and possibly others. See also Commons:Help_desk#Woods. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just mention again here the existence also of Category:woodlands, and the question of whether "woodlands" are distinct from "woods" (in the "treed area" sense), and moreover whether it is useful to distinguish in categories between "forests" and "woods" (in the "treed area" sense) -- whether a clearly defined distinction can be maintained here. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... and if we decide that it is not useful to differentiate "woods" and "forests" then IMO the category encompassing both should be called "Woods and forests" (or "Forests and woods"). ITookSomePhotos (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Woods" is generally the term for a small forest (the current scope of the category) and it generally doesn't mean the material as its generally uncountable however its debatable we need to make a distinction between woods (small forests) and normal forests just like the distinction between rivers and streams probably isn't appropriate. If we use "Forests" it makes sense to have this category as a DAB category as there are several other uses and Wikipedia has a DAB here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:17th-century culture, sciences and education in painting

[edit]

This seems to be the only category for "culture, science and education in painting" by century. It's a very vague category and separate categorization to me. Category:Education in the 17th century is also a subcategory of Category:Culture in the 17th century so it is sort of duplicative to use education and culture together. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:November observances in the Philippines

[edit]

This category seems excessively granular and down to a single subcategory. There aren't any other observances in the Philippines but that's likely underpopulated so I think we should delete this category and upmerge the Feast of King subcategory to the three respective parent categories. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Paintings by Nicolas Poussin in the Musée des Beaux-Arts André Malraux

[edit]

Empty category : there is no recent "catalogue raisonné" of this artist which can tell that there is a painting by poussin in this museum Mel22 (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uploaded by King's College Special Collections

[edit]

Title should be slightly different. Should read: King’s College London, Foyle Special Collections Library LCHMA (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Diagrams of interchanges in China

[edit]

Still useful? Doesn't have any files categorized for years. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ATTAC

[edit]

There are 2 subcats category:Members of attac‎ and category:Members of Attac‎ without description. Unless these two cats are distinct and get a suitable description, these cats should be merged. Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Females with dresses by color

[edit]

This appears to be a duplicate of Category:Females wearing dresses by color ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamthecheese44: With is not the same as wearing: for example, there could be an image of a fashion designer surrounded by some of their dresses in a single color. But since the category is empty anyway you could just tag it with {{Empty page}}. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your speedy response. That is what I had initially assumed, but upon further inspection I noticed that multiple with and wearing categories appear to redirect to one another (with no noticeable rhyme or reason). One example of this is Category:Women wearing necklaces, which is empty aside from a redirect to Category:Women with necklaces.
Admittedly, I am the one who emptied out Category:Females with dresses by color, but that was because, a) I assumed it was a duplicate category given the redirect issue, and b) all the of the items it contained were examples of women wearing dresses. ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another wrinkle: there is also Category:Female humans wearing dresses by color. Clothing categories seem to use both "Females" and "Female humans" with no apparent difference. (The same is true of male categories.) --Auntof6 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hanjin Venezia (ship, 2001)

[edit]

There is only one image in this category - an image of the ship under its earlier name. That image should be in the other category, and there is no need for this category, so long as we don't have any images of the ship under this name. Geo Swan (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The part of the name we can see starts with HA. The names this ship had starting with those letters were Hanjin Cairo (2001-2006) and Hanjin Venezia (beginning in 2008). The damage shown was done November 7, 2007, and the photo taken on 12 November 2007 (according to the text with the image). The only name the ship had starting with HA on or after the date of the damage was Hanjin Venezia, so I don't understand how this image is under a name before that. Maybe the category is misnamed, though, and should be called Category:Hanjin Venezia (ship, 2008). -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the company name you're seeing. On all three images where the name is visible on the bow, the name "Cosco Busan" is pretty easily visible.  Delete until some images of the ship carrying the name "Hanjin Venezia" are located. Also, changing the category name to "2008" would be entirely inappropriate, since the vessel was completed in 2001. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blacksmith's tools

[edit]

There was a discussion, in 2016, at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2012#Category:Blacksmithing_tools. Someone there asked about whether "Blacksmith's tools" was proper English. It isn't. This category's name implies the world has only had just one blacksmith, who had multiple tools. Category:Blacksmiths'_tools would correctly recognize that this category is for the tools used by all the world's blacksmiths.

Agreed. I'm not sure how I missed that when I closed. The same is true of Category:Farrier's tools. -- Themightyquill (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WRT that discussion from 2016... I disagree with its closure. Farriers are a separate but related occupation from blacksmiths, and merited their own hierarchy of subcategories. Geo Swan (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might well be right as well. -- Themightyquill (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National animal of Alaska

[edit]

Alaska is not a nation, it is an U.S. state. National animal redirects could be useful but they have to be limited to nations, not for anything else. Similar categories include Category:National fish of Alaska, Category:National bird of Alaska, Category:National tree of Alaska, Category:National aquatic marine mammal of Alaska. MathXplore (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename to "State <foo> of Alaska" if these are legitimate. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we leave this as a category redirect or delete per SD C1 ? MathXplore (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete them. No one is going to be looking for national animals of a state. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships built at Portsmouth Naval Dockyard

[edit]

Commons already has Category:Ships built in Portsmouth Dockyard. Are these two separate shipyards, or should these two categories be merged? Motacilla (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are both names for the same dockyard. Ships built in Portsmouth Dockyard has been found to be the most popular; easier to type. Therefore this one needs a redirect. Broichmore (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Capsaspora owczarzaki

[edit]

Capsaspora taxon is monotypic => no reason for this category A1AA1A (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we just mark the genus as redirecting here due to monotypy, as per e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Amborella_trichopoda HYanWong (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree. Is there any guideline on this topic in Wikipedia, Commons or Wikidata ? Usage is so fluctuating... --A1AA1A (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zoroastrianism by century

[edit]

This seems like it should be merged into Category:Centuries in Zoroastrianism which matches the structure for other religons at Category:Religion by century. It looks to be more like Zoroastrian events by century. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a similar issue with Category:Islam by century. But I actually think all the "Centuries in X religion]]" should be turned into meta categories and renamed to "X religion by century" instead -- that's the pattern followed by essentially all the other century categories; logically and linguistically it makes more sense; and I can't imagine when you would put a file into a "Centuries in X religion" category as opposed to a specific century or more general "History of X religion" category. -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Print shops

[edit]

I believe this category and the subcategories by country should be merged into or retitled "Printing works..." etc, for which we already have a very full set of categories by country and by type of business. I don't think it's easy to distinguish between the two types of business. The difference, between them, such as it is, is very nuanced (print shop would mean a smaller concern and maybe one that does work for customers that show up, printing works larger-scale and maybe part of a bigger business like a newspaper), I don't really think it's possible to have a clear definition of what would get put into which category. I think having two sets of categories on the same topic without any clarity on what goes where is causing confusion. Blythwood (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blythwood: I heartily agree. In my opinion, Category:Print shops should redirect to Category:Printing works and related categories. --Kreuz und quer (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Perhaps these categories should be subcategories of Category:Printing works (they are already in Category:Printing companies‎, which is good), but they really should stay as categories on their own. This category is about real shops, usually in a shopping street, where consumers, students and office workers can make copies theirselves, also bind reports, theses and other documents, and where probably a limited range of office supplies is offered. Other services might be scanning and previously faxing. Category:Printing works is broader, all places where all kind of prints are made, also were only professionals operate the printing machines. Even in the Netherlands we call them "Print shop" or "Copyshop" (and not "Kopieerwinkel", what would be the proper Dutch name), so I would be happy if the name stays as it is. JopkeB (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that Category:Print shops in the Netherlands has a wrong name, should be Category:Photocopying shops in the Netherlands, so I withdraw my comment above.
Instead: Can there please be a good description if this category will be kept? Perhaps for native English speakers the name is clear, but for foreigners it might cause confusion because printing and copying are closely related terms. --JopkeB (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Day River basin

[edit]

It just doesn't make sense to me to have this category. A river basin can have a wide variety of features in it. Currently, the only two files in this category are pictures of the river itself, and these files are already in the river's category. To have this basin category in theory creates unhelpful overlap among categories. It just seems redundant and unnecessary. Jsayre64 (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Not that I disagree categories like this one are totally unnecessary in general, but in this case the basin is an actual, named, geographical feature with an official government website, government lead research papers discussing it, Etc. Etc. Really, I'm kind of surprised there isn't a Wikidata entry for it all things considered. That said though, random non-notable basins that we only have a few images of probably don't deserve to have their own categories. Also as a side to that the category for the river should really be a child category of the basin, not the other way around, and it probably be worth up-merging some of the more zoomed out images of the river into the category for the basin. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its basin is named in research papers and on government websites—you could say the same about almost any large river. Every river has its own basin. What is there about the John Day River basin that calls for its own Commons category aside from the John Day River itself? Certainly nothing that's in the category now. Not that it's a big deal, but I still think this is a redundant category. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the fact that we have multiple images showing the basin as it's own geographical feature separate from the river? I don't really get your whole "all X's have Y. So we shouldn't have a category for Y" thing here. Like most water body have beaches. So we shouldn't have categories for named, popular beaches that we have multiple images of because of it? That doesn't make any sense. "All continents have mountain ranges. So seperate categories for mountains are redundant." OK. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ventanas

[edit]

Can we rename this category to Category:Ventanas, Ecuador? It gets entries for windows (ventanas = windows in Spanish) that aren't in the city. This category could be come a disambiguation page. Auntof6 (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Panthera leo in the Gir Forest National Park in February 2018

[edit]

This seems excessively granular. We do not have Category:Lions by date, let alone lion by individual months. At best, we have parks by a particular year, not parks by a particular and definitely not lions in a park by a particular month. I suggest upmerging past the lions in Gir Forest for 2018 to Category:Gir Forest National Park in 2018 and Category:February 2018 in Gujarat. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Panthera leo in the Gir Forest National Park by year

[edit]

Also:

All of these categories seem excessive. We don't have any structure for Category:Lions by date, so lions in a particular park by date seems excessive I don't think we will get more than a few images in each category (Category:Panthera leo in the Gir Forest National Park in February 2018 is the unique one) so I suggest upmerging all of these back to Category:Panthera leo in the Gir Forest National Park and each respective Category:Gir Forest National Park by year category. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Panthera pardus fusca in the Gir Forest National Park by year

[edit]

Also:

All of these categories seem excessive. We don't have any structure for Category:Leopards by date, let alone for Category:Panthera pardus fusca so a subspecies of leopards in a particular park by year seems excessive. I don't think we will get more than a few images in each category so I suggest upmerging all of these back to Category:Panthera pardus fusca in the Gir Forest National Park and each respective Category:Gir Forest National Park by year category. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soups in art

[edit]

Soup in art was moved to Soups in art; but soup is a mass noun, and is more appropriate for the category; soups would only be used for types of soups. Prosfilaes (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(aside:) Funny, I'd say "types of soup".
And I think User:Prosfilaes is right about it as a "mass noun", so "soup in art" is better. - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a luxury problem.  Keep "soup in art" for a container categories sounds weird to me. In further ado, you'd have to rename Category:Men in art to Category:Man in art and so forth ... :-/ --Mateus2019 (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A group of men will have sandwiches and soup; each man will have a sandwich and soup. That's why they aren't analogous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Underground rivers and lakes

[edit]

distinguish between UG rivers and lakes, change name to "Underground bodies of water" and make subcat of "Bodies of water" (and consequently omit categorization within "Rivers/Lakes by type" — Draceane talkcontrib. 21:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. --Elkost (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National animal of Australasia

[edit]

Bad redirects as same as Commons:Deletion requests/National animal of Australasia. MathXplore (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC) (Added redirects, MathXplore (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Category:Bavarii

[edit]

Category:Bavarii, Category:Bavarii belt buckles, Category:Fibulae of the Bavarii, Category:Things named after the Bavarii
These categories include the term "Bavarii" as the name of an early-medieval Germanic tribe. However, as I see it, "Bavarii" is neither an authentic Latin name (as found in ancient/early-medieval sources) nor an established name in modern historiography/archaeology. Accordingly, I believe the corresponding English Wikipedia Article is called Baiuvarii for good reason.
So, I'd suggest to rename the categories as follows: Category:Baiuvarii, Category:Baiuvarii belt buckles or Belt buckles of the Baiuvarii, Category:Fibulae of the Baiuvarii, Category:Things named after the Baiuvarii
(Also, let's make sure that there is no confusion with the people of modern-time Bavaria. There is some continuity, but also a clear difference between the first-millennium tribe and the modern-time population.)
What do you think? Martinus KE (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in Kolkata district

[edit]

Not needed. There are no villages in Kolkata district. Bodhisattwa (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There "were" villages in Kolkata district before 1690 viz. Chitpur, Gobindapur, Kalighat, Kalikata and Sutanuti. These were eventually merged to a single city called Kolkata. Sbb1413 (he) (talk ‱ contribs) 05:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you have stripped off this category while nominating it for CfD, which is not a good practice IMO. Sbb1413 (he) (talk ‱ contribs) 18:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old maps of Montreal

[edit]

This category structure needs to be re-evaluated: Please provide a template to go with "xth century maps of Montral", "17X0s maps of Montreal" and only below that the individual years. Check out the structure of Quebec for an example.

Also, consider to dissolve single-year map categories of the city into decade-categories: There are 9 Files deserving to be together in "1720s maps of of Montreal" instead of being distributed over six supertiny categories. Enyavar (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or, better, put everything back in one single category and order it by year, so one can see at a glance how Montreal and maps of it developed.
This current structure that requires one to look at 60 categories to see that is a disaster. It helps nobody. The task of categories is to bring similar maps together (and maps of the whole of Montreal, even decades apart, have that similarity). The present structure splits similar things apart, and makes them impossible to view together.
Pinging @AnRo0002: , who appears to have created this abomination. Jheald (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for it next week anro (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, structures like this make sense with London and Paris etc, when there are 2823 old maps. Depending on how much stuff there is, my recommendation is first make century-categories, and if these overflow, go with decades. Enyavar (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a classic case of excess fineness undermining the usefulness of the category tree. Someone started with "by year" which is too fine since most years have none and the average is fewer than five. One could start with "by century" but that's a bit coarse, so "by decade" will make it most usable. And in any case, do make a parental "by century" category. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently almost nobody is watching this CfD. I'll take that as meaning I can make the decision myself. So, my plan for the first step is to create the decadal categories, patterned on Category:Architecture in Montreal by decade starting with the oldest. Not rushing; I only intend to finish it this month. After that, I'll return and seek possible discussion of which annual categories ought to be deleted and which ones kept. None of this will start today; I'll await comment or a day's silence before proceeding. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support, please proceed. After this got done however, I will have to look for another "bad practice" example to explain what good practice ought to be. Enyavar (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2022/08&oldid=949719453"