Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Terminology

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

Category:Terminology

How should Category:Terminology and its subcategories be implemented? Josh asked this question in Category talk:Energy supply.
I had the same question when I saw Category:Marketing terminology while reorganizing Category:Marketing, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Marketing terminology. Because there were no usable answers, I thought the category could solve the problem of findability of subcategories that are deep down in the category structure. But perhaps that should be discussed.

Questions

How should Category:Terminology and its subcategories be implemented? What is their purpose on Commons?
Can these categories be used to improve the findability of subcategories that are deep down the category tree?
1. If yes: Do you agree on the notes I wrote in Category:Marketing terminology?
2. If no, can categories X by topic be a solution for this problem? (See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/09/Category:Alaska by topic.)

JopkeB (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer, I do not really understand why this category exists, and it seems to miss the point of what we are categorize on Commons. Not so much the parent category...it makes sense as the place to gather all 'X terminology' categories, but specifically the media in the subs seem miscategorized. We have media of words to be sure (text, pronunciations, etc.) but 'terminology'? I mean every category name is a form of terminology. But then this is just a meta category of category names (not even the category itself).

More specifically:

No, I do not find any use in the 'terminology' tree to find sub-categories. That isn't to say there isn't such a use, but I've not found it myself.
Certainly in some cases, though for "X by topic", it is more for grouping "Topic in Field" under a "Field by topic" index. But you hit the nail on the head I think...what is the real difference between 'terminology' and 'topics', really?

It is pretty well used, so I hesitate to simply take an axe to it, but I kind of avoid the whole 'terminology' tree as I don't know a right way to fix it either. Maybe migrating away from it would be a start. Josh (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Joshbaumgartner, for your reaction. My conclusions from it:

It is unclear why this category and its subcategories exist and how they should be implemented.
It is unclear what (in Commons) the real difference is between 'terminology' and 'topics'.
The category tree is well used (about 45 subcategories, so a lot of people have put time and effort into it), and therefor we will not (yet) want to have them gone or replace them.
Sometimes it is possible to improve the findability of subcategories by using "by topic".

Question What do you mean by "migrating away from it"? I do not know this expression. JopkeB (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: Sorry, I just mean that if there is overlap with another, better way to organize this content, then over time, just put more and more of the content correctly into the better tree. At some point the remaining content will be down to a manageable amount to consider a more normal delete/merge proposal. Josh (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Thanks for the explanation. What is according to you a better tree to improve the findability of subcategories that are deep down in a category structure (including the possibility of overcategorization)? JopkeB (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that the existing topical category structure works fine. As for improving findability of deep categories, that is where I have looked to indices (including 'by topic' but also others). For anything more specific I guess we should probably look at a specific case and break it down. If terminology is really just a shortcut to deeper cats, the problem is that it works fine for a few categories, maybe okay when more categories use the method, but if it is used for all categories then we've just duplicated the topic tree and haven't solved the issue. Josh (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So to improve findability of deeper categories:

We can use indices, like 'by topic' categories. I guess you are still investigating possibilities. Can you provide an overview of those indices once this has taken shape, or perhaps even give a recommendation, including details (when and how to use them)? By then, we can also discuss what to do with the currect Terminology categories.
- I have looked into Template:Category tree all, which User:Prototyperspective recommended, but I am not a fan of this tool. It shows too many subcategories, or you still have to click many times to find what you are looking for, and in a large category you have to scroll a lot to find the parts with the files and the gallery pages, if there are any. I prefer curation, though that costs a lot of time. But perhaps you can include this tool in your overview and recommend in which cases this is a good tool to use.
I can complete the Terminology category I am working on (Category:Economic terminology). Until now I have used Terminology categories for specific cases (perhaps they can be converted when there is a better/recommended tool). The tool I usually use for shortcuts to deeper cats is the gallery page. But for more theoretically subjects, like Economics and Marketing, that is not a useful tool. Images that show at a glance what a subcategory is about, are hard to find or not present at all in categories about theoretical subjects. So uptil now I have only used the terminology categories for theoretical subjects, while I prefer gallery pages for more concrete topics. So I certainly would not use it for all categories.
If I want to start a new category to improve the findability and there still is no overview or recommendation for another tool, I'll use a 'by topic' category, with the same conditions as mentioned in Category:Marketing terminology.

Do you agree? JopkeB (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping @Joshbaumgartner: . JopkeB (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: Perhaps it would be helpful to have a concrete example to work with, namely a particular category that you find is a bit too deep in a topic and thus you would like to see it more easily findable from the main category without having to navigate down through too many levels to reach it. Or at least this is what I am assuming you mean by 'improving findability', or do you mean something else?

As for a list of indices, I'm not sure if we have a good comprehensive list, but Category:Categories has quite a number. As for a guide on how to use them, I think we probably are lacking on such a thing, that is a good point.
As for {{Category tree all}}, I'm not sure what utility that adds to a category page, as we now can expand sub-cats directly without having to navigate to them (though this may be an optional setting...check your preferences). It still involves significant clicking to travel down, even if it skips having to actually load the intermediate pages. Personally, I almost never have found a real world application for {{Category tree all}} in my category edits.
I think you are fine to go forward with your current efforts in Economic terminology for now. We certainly haven't made a call to kill the terminology tree, and it represents a currently valid tree...just one we may look to modify somewhere down the road.
As for galleries, if they work for you that is great. I admittedly do not do much with them myself, so I probably can't shed much light on that approach, but it is certainly a good way to do things that fit within the scope of galleries.

As said, I'd love to maybe break down one or two use cases to see if maybe we can get to the nuts and bolts on this. Josh (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner:

Examples:
Yes, that is what I mean whith 'improving findability': more easily findable from the main category without having to navigate down through too many levels to reach it.

JopkeB (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: Okay, interesting good examples, thank you. I think for each of these, I am looking at what is the core nature of the target category (i.e. what are returns to scale?), what is the field in which they are relevant (i.e. main cat topic), how it fits into the hierarchy of the main topic, and how we can use an index to provide 'quick access' directly from the main topic to the sub-topic.

Category:Returns to scale is fundamentally a concept (Commonese: Concepts)
1. Category:Economics or Category:Economy would be the field/main cat/topic here. I am not sure on this one as both are listed as parents of Economic terminology which is a COM:OVERCAT violation. This probably should be figured out to nail this detail down. I'll assume Economics for the sake of this exercise.
2. Category:Concepts in economics would be an accurate topical sub of Economics into which this target could be placed, but once populated, it is likely to be hierarchically sorted as a sub-concept of other broader concepts in economics, so it may not be the quickest way to get from main cat to target cat.
3. Category:Economics by concept would be an index which would be directly under Category:Economics. The target cat could always remain directly under this index, regardless of the hierarchy of the topical category, and thus this would provide quick access from main cat. In lieu of creating one specifically for concepts, a general Category:Economics by topic index could be used as a catch-all, regardless of whether the topic is a concept, activity, object, or what.
Category:Personal selling is fundamentally an action (Commonese: Activities)
1. Category:Marketing is the main field topic (derived from Category:Marketing terminology)
2. Category:Activities in marketing would be an accurate topical sub of Marketing. Personal selling can be placed here, but may get diffused further down as this category is populated with broader activities which personal selling is a sub-cat of.
3. Category:Marketing by activity would be an index (directly under Category:Marketing. This would offer the quickest access from Marketing down to Personal selling. Alternatively, Category:Marketing by topic would be a catch-all index if there are not enough activities to warrant their own index.
Category:Commodities is fundamentally an object (Commonese: Objects)
1. Category:Business is the main field topic (derived from Category:Business terms)
2. Category:Objects in business would be an accurate topical sub of Business for all objects within the field of business. Commodities would be one of these, and would be hierarchically sorted under broader types of objects.
3. Category:Business by object would be an index for quick access to specific objects within the field of business in a flat list regardless of hierarchical position. And as before, a catch-all like Category:Business by topic could be used if a specific 'by object' category.

This same process can be applied to most all of the contents of the three terminology categories you listed. It may seem redundant at first glance to have, say, both concepts in economics and economics by concept, but these are two fundamentally different types of categories that operate two different ways. Ultimately they should have the same aggregate content, but it is organized differently. The first is a topical category and thus should be hierarchically organized with nested categorization which can go very deep and which must avoid overcat violations and other loops (i.e. a very vertical structure to dig down through with ever increasing specificity). The second is an index category which is a very flat structure in which all contents can be listed at the same level regardless of how specific they are and not necessarily subject to overcat limitations. Again, kudos for some good examples you brought up. Josh (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Joshbaumgartner: for your well thought out proposal. And to be complete, these new categories should perhaps be created. But is it a solution to the replacement of Category:Terminology?

In the subcategories of Category:Terminology people who search for a specific subject only have to go to one page, they can search alphabetically and/or with Ctrl-f.
In your proposal, in the worst case, they have to look into three (or more?) subcategories. Because, a presumption in your proposal is, that searchers as well as editors know exactly where the subject which they are looking for, should be categorized in. I have doubts about that. Therefor I prefer simplicity.
If it is necessary to cancel the Terminology categories, then I'd still rather have a 'by topic' category to replace them, where all the subjects can be in one page and overcategorisation is allowed.

And thanks for the compliment, but I did not pick on purpose three examples about three different kind of topics, that was a coincidence. JopkeB (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: Well here's to happy coincidences, then! I think 'by topic' works just fine as a catch-all, perhaps that got a bit lost in everything was trying to lay out above. We don't need to go down to 'by concept', 'by activity', and 'by object' unless there is enough content to warrant it. I guess it could boil down to simply replacing, say, Economic terminology with Economics by topic/Economy by topic. All subs should also be in their correct topical hierarchy in addition to living under the 'by topic' index. Josh (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'by topic' it will be then. And I prefer one category, not both Economics by topic and Economy by topic, because end users who are not an economist wouldn't/shouldn't bother about where to find the subject that they are looking for. That is why I placed Category:Economic terminology in both categories and I would like to do so with the 'by topic' category again.

I'll convert the terminology categories about Economics, Marketing and Business, because of those topics I have more than average knowledge (and while working on the first two, I noticed that it is necessary to have some knowledge about a subject to be able to judge what should be in the terminology category and what can be neglected).

Question What to do with the other subcategories in Category:Terminology and with this main category itself?

And I am planning to copy the text/description on top of Category:Marketing terminology as well to the new categories, also for the other two.

Question Can I put this text, adjusted of coarse, also in the main category Category:Categories by topic? Before we had this discussion, it was not quite clear to me why this category and its subs existed, so I think a description would be appropriate. JopkeB (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I see now I forgot to ping you. I would like to close this discussion. Could you please still answer these two questions? JopkeB (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: Thanks for pinging, it is helpful! I agree that these require some familiarity with a topic to correctly handle. Your text at the head of Marketing terminology looks fine to me. I might call them 'guidelines for editors' as that seems to line up with Wiki terminology for that kind of advisory vs. policy thing. Either way though, I think it is a good idea to include that, maybe adjusted as you see fit, to the top of Marketing by topic.

As for what to do with the rest of Category:Terminology, I think if we can set up marketing/economics/business (which it seems is well within your area of knowledge) as a good example of transitioning from terminology to by topic, we can then include a guideline there mentioning this CfD and encouraging users familiar with topics to follow that example going forward and to avoid creating new terminology trees. If at some point you feel maybe a concerted effort might finish up the transition, I'll be happy to lend help where I can. Josh (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe these cats could be used to help determine which subcats to highlight somehow if that's possible at some point. Another idea is that instead of having these in a category page, they get added to a sort of index page (you could even use Template:Category tree all). I largely agree with Josh but found these cats are not "well used" and think they could be useful somehow (just don't know how and if having categories is a good approach). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: Just for clarity, I was only using the term 'well used' in reference to volume, not quality, in that this is not a case of just a few contents or recent changes. I'm not trying to say the use is a good thing. Josh (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions and actions

Category:Terminology and its subcategories have no purpose on Commons, since every category name is a form of terminology.
1. Action: They should be replaced by subcategories of Category:Categories by topic. Because knowledge of a subject helps a lot in organizing such a category by topic, we can include a guideline in the category mentioning this CfD and encouraging users familiar with topics to follow the examples of marketing/economics/business going forward and to avoid creating new terminology trees. Suggestion: I would rather like to convert them all right away, as they are now, place indeed such a message in the new categories by topic, and make redirects for all, mention this CfD. Otherwise it might take years before they are all converted (or maybe never). Question Do you agree? Done
A category by topic is for improving the findability of subcategories, especially for theoretically subjects because gallery pages are less applicable. Because it is an index category, all contents can be listed at the same level and overcategorization is allowed.
1. Action: They should get a note like the one in Category:Marketing terminology, but the note should be renamed to 'guidelines for editors'. Done for the regular subcategories, not for the categories by location and date (too many).
2. Action: Perhaps a template would be helpful (but I am not able to make such a template). Done by Josh on 2024-01-31.
Other possibilities to improve the findability of subcategories are:
1. Gallery pages with links to subcategories as captions under each image (see for instance Headgear).
2. Template:Category tree all.
3. See Category:Categories for more options of index categories. Index categories have a very flat structure in which all contents can be listed at the same level regardless of how specific they are and not necessarily subject to overcat limitations.
4. Action: We lack a guide of how and when to use indices that can be used to improve findability of subcategories.
5. Action: If there is enough content to warrant it, we might consider adding categories about concepts, activities, objects and perhaps other (index) categories to the current terminology categories, according to Josh' contribution on 21:25, 3 December 2023.

Question @Joshbaumgartner: Do you agree?
Thanks for your offer to help. Pick up any Action you want! The template of 2.2. would be nice to have. --JopkeB (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: if you feel comfortable doing it to all of them, I think that's great, since I agree, it might take a long time otherwise before it is really fixed. I agree with your conclusions, and I would certainly be happy to make a template out of the category header information (it would also permit easy i18n going forward), so if you have the text you think would be right to put in such a template, let me know and I'll do it. Josh (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Ever since I converted over a thousand of categories with "grey" in the name to "gray", all other conversions are peanuts. So I'll convert them all right away.

Text for the template:

{{en|1=Overview of concepts that are used in a [XXX] context, provided they are Commons categories. This category can be seen as a long index list like you can find at the end of a [XXX] book. More information about a term: see the bottom left column for corresponding Wikipedia pages (when they exist).

Guidelines for editors:

Overcategorisation is allowed here.
Subcategories:
- may only be topic categories (so for instance have not 'by' in the category name or is about a medium)
- may be from any level down under the main topic
- but should be directly relevant to that main topic (though aircraft is a vehicle and so a product and thus part of economics, it does not make sense to have aircraft in the Category:Economics by topic).
[Category:YYY] may not be the only parent category of a subcategory here. All these subcategories should have other proper parent categories, so that they also can be found via the regular category structure of [Category:XXX].
Each subcategory should have a discription, either in the Wikidata item and/or at the top of the page.
Suggestion: Try to limit these categories to a maximum of 200 subcategories, so that visitors can also easily search with Ctrl-F. If there are more:
- subcategories with similar names (like Category:Industry and Category:Industrial architecture) can be left out; and/or
- split it into important sub-areas.

[XXX] = Name of the category without "Category:" and without "by topic" (usually the main parent category).

[Category:XXX]: the same but with "Category:" and with a link to the category.

[Category:YYY] = Name of this category (so with "Category:" and with "by topic", and of coarse without a link).

Please adjust the text to proper English if necessary. JopkeB (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: By all means! That all looks good. If I have a chance this weekend, I'll see about setting that up. Josh (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, maybe I just missed this at first look, but I realized this will be an index, so I'm not so sure that the 200 category limit applies to these. That is more for topical categories. As an index, these would not necessarily even really be 'sub'-categories, so much as 'indexed' categories, and indices can have a LOT of contents (e.g. Aircraft by registration) and rely on things like tables of contents and the like for navigation. Splitting into sub-areas would be a more topical approach, but all categories in the index should also be already hierarchically organized in the topical tree (per your guideline #2). I understood the purpose of this index as being a way to access a sub-topic within a main topic without needing to navigate down hierarchically, so these indices could potentially have a very large number of contents. Ideas? Josh (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Technically you are absolutely right. I can rephrase "Limit to a maximum of 200 subcategories ..." as a suggestion.

Such a split was done for Category:Economic terminology already, with Category:Marketing terminology‎ and Category:Business terms (the last two already existed before I started the Economic one). And personally I would prefer such a construction over having to scroll page after page to find what I am looking for.

IMO The purpose of this index is indeed a way to access a sub-topic within a main topic without needing to navigate down hierarchically. But there may be some flexibility: end users may assume that Category:Production also contains Production diagrams, Manufacturing, Production models and so on. It would become a very long and unclear list when all the subcategories would be included. JopkeB (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that something like "production diagrams" should not be listed here alongside "production". Afterall, the 'topic' of "production diagrams" is still "production". This should be done regardless of the number of items in the index however, even if there are only 10 in "Economics by topic", or if there are a 1000. I suppose production models may ultimately be somewhere down the tree from production or economics, but since categories are not purely a class-subclass relationship, not all sub-categories at any depth are necessarily really a 'sub-topic' of the main topic. For example, the F-16 Fighting Falcon is a model of aircraft, so it is somewhere under aircraft, which are under vehicles, which are under products, and thus economics (I'm probably skipping a few levels here). It definitely does not make sense to put F-16 Fighting Falcon under Economics by topic, so if this is what you are referring to by 'production models and so on', I am in agreement. Perhaps this went unspoken for me, but maybe it should be spelled out in the guidelines that contents of the 'by topic' index can indeed be from any level down under the main topic, but should be directly relevant to that main topic. This is probably a gray zone at some point, so maybe borderline cases will have to be considered, but in general, I think that would work. What do you think? Josh (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Good point, to mention in the guidelines that contents of the 'by topic' index:

can be from any level down under the main topic
but should be directly relevant to that main topic.

I'll add it there.

That leaves us still with two questions:

Should all directly relevant topic categories be in a 'by topic' category, or may you presume that users know how to find closely related subcategories?
Can we split large categories 'by topic' into important sub-areas, like Economics by topic' is split already into Business terms and Marketing terminology (what is again part of Business)? They will be on top of their parents, so you can easily find them.

JopkeB (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additions are made in teal. --JopkeB (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to @Joshbaumgartner: . JopkeB (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @JopkeB, I think we are about good on this. As for the last two questions:

I don't think we should presume too much. If the topics have a similar name (say Category:Industry and Category:Industrial architecture) that is fine (one could presume to find the latter somewhere under the former in that case), but if they have dissimilar names, it is probably best if they are both present. At the very least, it can highlight when similar topics of two different names exist (say Category:Industry and Category:Manufacturing), whereas if only one is listed, that may remain hidden to some users.
I think putting Business by topic and Marketing by topic both under Economics by topic makes sense. Some of the topics may be listed under more that one of these, but I would presume that some of the topics in the lower two would not necessarily belong in economics. I'm not super-familiar with those three categories and their content, so I would be happy to leave it to you to sort appropriately. If there are a few sticky ones that defy clean categorization, we can always revisit it.

I say let's go ahead an start implementing this as you have it. I will do a preliminary template up based on your modified version above (we can always tweak it later if needed). Josh (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I have added your remarks to the proposed template text. JopkeB (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	See "Conclusions and actions". JopkeB will implement action 1.1. Josh is making the requested template (2.2). The rest is still open.
Participants	Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Notes	Because I did need a category about terminology/jargon for files about them, I reopened Category:Jargon, which was merged into Category:Terminology in June 2023, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/05/Category:Jargon. Template: Template:Category navigation/index/hatnote/topic Afterwards was decided to make Hidden categories of the categories by topic.
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Terminology

Category:Terminology

Conclusions and actions

Navigation menu

Search