Commons:Deletion requests/Template:AlbanyNY

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.

Template:AlbanyNY and Category:Albany, New York Collection

[edit]

A "collection" Albany, NY images. An inappropriate subject for template, duplicating the purpose of category of Category:Albany, New York or gallery Albany, New York. The language appears to be needlessly flattering to the city, as well. GrapedApe (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow the keeping as a category, if changed to a personal hidden one, otherwise allow the creation of a personal gallery, template can be disabled (keeps appearance but no longer adds files to its category) and used if so desired as an intro for either. In either case remove template from images. Declaring a bias, I hate categorisation by template.--KTo288 (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete both template and category as superfluous to Category:Albany, New York. No need for such unnecessarily broad categorisation methods. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Meh, I don't really care to argue this point again, but I'll make my case.
  1. This is not redundant to Category:Albany, New York because the geographic category is meant to host sub-categories (this one is not);
  2. This is not redundant to gallery Albany, New York, as you'll note, because the gallery has a total of three images in it and requires manual update (this does not - it updates automatically as the template is added to photos);
  3. This is not meant to be a personal category or collection of photos, it's meant to be a publicly accessible way to discover new things about a topic; and
  4. The template is useful because it offers readers (typically coming from Albany, New York or a related article) many options for other photos to peruse. This category drops all photos regardless of other categories and creates an album for the city/area removing the need to dig down into many subcategories, allowing the viewer to stumble across photos and images they may not have if they went through the geographic category.
Commons does not offer a way to show all the photos related to a large topic like this. It also is the prime location to offer related content in template form just below the photo for those that may be interested in learning more about a certain place/topic/thing. It's basically a 'project template', relating to WP:NYCD, used in a similar way to any user template such as User:Fir0002/20D. These arguments against have never held much water. Just because Commons has yet to jump on a certain idea or bandwagon does not mean said idea goes against policy or automatically makes Commons a worse-off place and project. upstateNYer 01:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're shooting yourself in the foot you know. The arguement that you're creating a category that holds all the images that Category:Albany, New York does, but in a way that all the images can be seen without going through the subcategories really is admitting to the fact that you are creating a duplicate category, and an inferior one at that because the images are sorted only by whatever name an uploader gave them and not by theme or subject. If it is meant to be an aid to other users to find superior images from Category:Albany, New York to use, then what you are admitting to is that what you want is Albany, New York, but don't want to put in the work.
A duplicate category or gallery isn't one in which the contents at this moment in time are the same, they are ones which when systematically and logically populated will in future result in them having identical contents.--17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's opposite of what you're saying with respect to putting in the work. I have put in the work and have subcategorized and sub-subcategorized Category:Albany, New York. And the downside to such organization is that you can't just peruse. You can't just look around. Therefore those that might want to are likely to miss some jewels that relate to the parent category but could take some serious time to come across. Sure, the files are listed in order of arbitrary names, but what does that matter? They are that way in the subcategories anyway. The contents of the categories might be identical (hypothetically; they aren't in this case) but they are not redundant because their display (i.e., their utility) is notably different. upstateNYer 19:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended, I meant the gallery not the category. Having a go at expanding it and trying to make it more useful, it could do with your obvious knowledge and love of the subject.--KTo288 (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It's accepted that this approach is unique, yes? So rather than arguing about whether to allow this unique approach on the basis that it's not forbidden, or reject it on the basis that it goes against the standard way of doing things in a rather significant way, why not consider the approach instead of just this particular example? Let's put this DR on hold, and have a RFC on whether this sort of approach is something that can be made to work, and if so what (if any) guidance should be given for how to apply it. A clear outcome from that RFC will then make this DR easy to decide. Rd232 (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per other keep votes and lack of a clear rationale for this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's kept just because there's no policy against it, it risks being used as a precedent instead of developing a policy that allows or disallows or regulates it ("look, DR X allowed it..."). That's why I suggested above pausing this DR to develop a policy first. Rd232 (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Duplicative and unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete redundant/additional structure (category and templates) that complicates significantly maintenance with little added value. Unclear what images should use the template, in principle all the 1000+ images ? --Foroa (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Unfortunately Commons:Requests for comment/galleries produced no useful input or real conclusion. Personally, I would suggest

  1. Renaming the category to Category:Albany, New York gallery, and making it a maintenance category to support the gallery Albany, New York, in Category:Gallery maintenance, within Category:Commons maintenance content.
  2. Delete the template, replacing it with a generic {{Gallery link}} template which notes that there is a gallery for topic X, and optionally adds the relevant gallery maintenance category.

Rd232 (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: While I agree that we need a better way to show and maintain a selection of images on a subject, this method has serious systems and resources implications that must be discussed broadly before implementation.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:AlbanyNY&oldid=68829407"