Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Apertural views

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

[edit]
 Info: I'm now listing this very old Request to the deletion page og 14. Nov. 2011 to reactivate the discussion and to get a decision. --JuTa 19:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not useful at all. Majority of 70.000 species of gastropods have a shell which is usually depicted in an apertural view. --Snek01 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question Would further sub-categorizing be more useful? I agree that the category name seems too broad to be of much use, but maybe if it were "Apertural view of <insert specie of gastropod here>" it might be more useful. Killiondude (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I edit only gastropod related articles on wikipedia, I have no idea how theoretically or practically this could be useful. It is so broad category similarly to "Images of humans with head depicted" or "Buildings with walls depicted". This category can not form useful hierarchical structure and it is against Commons:Categories. Normal categorization according to the biological system will be fine. --Snek01 (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Ideally apertural views would be completed by other categories: e.g. apical, basal, abapertural views, etc.
    I agree with Snek that apertural is the standard view for gastropods. If we had a static number of single-view images and all other images were sorted by type of view, it might not be needed, but MediaWiki isn't exactly perfect in this regard and I don't think it's easy to sort them without. The mere number of items in the category isn't problematic. MediaWiki's categories aren't limited that way.
    The presence or absence of any of the categories listed above shouldn't affect the biological categorization. If it helps, we could even make apertural views a hidden category. -- User:Docu at 23:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to the name, I agree that it might not be ideal. One could be tempted to add it to anything with an aperture (or seen through an aperture), but the term seems to be in use primarily in the field. If problems arise, we can sort this out later. -- User:Docu at 23:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This has a use - we should not forget that not only is a Wiki not paper (i.e. there is no limitations caused elsewhere by having this cat), this category also is useful EVEN if only a small fraction of all appropriate images are categorised accordingly (because people might need images regarding aperturial views, even if they have no need to be certain that all Commons images that would possibly be appropriate are sorted here) and EVEN if this category ends up containing 70,000 images. With Commons having several million images, even that would a very distinct, and %tagewise very small subset - and thus useful for categorisation. Ingolfson (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For this case is an exact example in Commons:Categories#Why is over-categorization a problem:
“

It's often assumed that the more categories an image is in, the easier it will be to find it. Another example: By that logic, every image showing a man should be in Category:Men, because even if you know nothing more about the person you're looking for than that he is a man, you'll be able to find it. The result is that the top category fills up, making it necessary to go through hundreds, or in this case more likely thousands of images to find the one you want. You probably won't find what you're looking for, and what's more, those who are looking for a generic picture of a man to illustrate an article like en:Man will find that they've drowned out among the movie stars, scientists and politicians.

”
This category has no use. Nobody provided en example, how this could be useful. There is no evidence that "people might need images regarding apertural views" and if so, then there is not useful for them to see tens of thousands of images. If user:Ingolfson wants, he/she can start his a gallery containing reasonable amount of images. --Snek01 (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide two images that explain how you compare this? e.g. File:MurexPecten.jpg is in both Category:Murex pecten and Category:Apertural views, but neither is a subcategory of the other. -- User:Docu at 02:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This question is quite misleading. The file you mentioned will be in one category Category:Murex pecten. Category:Apertural views will be deleted without compensation. --Snek01 (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying Category:Apertural views should be deleted because of over-categorization and quote the sample of Category:Men. That sample can mean that this file shouldn't be in Category:Men as it's in cat1 (and cat1 is in cat2 which is in cat3, a direct subcategory of Category:Men). It doesn't explain anything about why File:MurexPecten.jpg couldn't be in both. -- User:Docu at 06:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete As snek01 pointed out: the apertural view is the standard in depicting gastropod shells. This having said there should be a huge amount of such images. As a malacologist of profession I should bring forward that this site is not meant nor suitable for identification of shells. This is the only reason that I can think of, for being the underlying reason for making such a category. We should not want to give the impression that this may be possible. If this is not the reason for having this category, could in that case anybody explain to me what the reason for such a category is? In my opinion this hardly adds useful information (if any). I should like to see good arguments. Do we have categories for showing buildings from above, next to categories for buildings shown in front view?Tom Meijer (talk)
  • delete I agree with Snek01 and Tom Meijer. There is no use for such category. JoJan (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry to read that you consider that it's "not .. suitable" for that. Is there something that can be done about it? -- User:Docu at 02:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably no. --Snek01 (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm wondering what Tom Meijer and JoJan think of it.
        After some thought, it would probably involve three things:
        1. Creating some sort of decision tree (e.g. WikiBooks:Dichotomous Key/Mollusca), either here on Commons or on another wiki. It could also involve looking at a printed one. Specialists probably wont need that, they already have it memorized.
        2. Categorize images and/or categories of taxa with these criteria. This can be done either here or by importing descriptions/template elements from other wikis (e.g. Wikipedia)
        3. Create an interface that allows to select/deselect images based on these criteria to compare it with a speciem. To some extent this can already be done through internal search, CatScan or CatScan2.
      • If one of the criteria in (1) involves looking at the specimen in apertural view, we'd need such a category. Personally, I made this category as I thought File:MurexPecten.jpg was somewhat under-categorized. Categories by type of view are used in many fields and it was missing there. -- User:Docu at 10:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The principle of categories is not that there is theoretically or technically possible to categorize something but every category must be practical for somebody. It is not good idea to think, that "I see few categories, then I will create some additional strange ones". --Snek01 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. As it's practical for me, it's ok then. Thanks. Let's close this then. I set it to "hidden" so you wont have to look at it. -- User:Docu at 23:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. It may be unnecessary from the viewpoint of a wikipedia editor. But it may be useful for a user from outside, like a website or advertizing designer. Sometimes they just want "a woman in red on a black background". Weak because the category is obviously not filled properly, and the prospects of such filling are very thin. Not me, but maybe someone? NVO (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 04:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Apertural_views&oldid=62794996"