Commons talk:Category scheme Italy

Here are under discussion the schema for Italian catgories, the principles to manage them and the related applicable rules.

Principles

Depth of the three

1. I strongly disagree with principle 1. The structure of the tree must be organized in a logical way. As we don't limit uploads, there is no end to the categories structure; the end exists only with the planned structure, and this ghostly end is not important.--Juiced lemon 21:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Juiced lemon, we are planning the tree for what we have now and what we will have in the near future. Not what we might have in five years. Having to navigate a tree that is too deep, and when they get to the end there is barely nothing, is extremely frustrating. The best thing to do is to state what the condition is for creating another subcategory, e.g. 15-20 images on that topic.

1. As I said before in village pump, we cannot state such condition for creating new categories, because images are often scattered, and it would be unworkable to create categories, following a cursory and intuitive evaluation. I create new categories with few items, or even a single item for different reasons; the most common ones are: identification of shown objects, translation of page titles in native language, intermediate category in a bigger structure, browsing in the data base.

• This diff illustrates my policy about identification; I added categories matching the names in the description (I checked the names in en.wp), then I created the missing categories (though 2 jazzmen are not shown). Several categories, like Category:Tito Puente, contain only one image.
• Category:Fountain of Neptune, a “translation” category (for Fontana del Nettuno (Firenze)).
• Category:Transport in Wyoming and Category:Roads in Wyoming, intermediate categories I created between [[Category:Wyoming highway shields and Category:Wyoming (I don't let precise categories under general ones).
• Category:Attack submarines, a category I created for browsing (with a single subcategory).

2. However, we have a problem with w:South Tyrol, which matches 3 different categories in Commons: Category:Bozen-Bolzano (Prov), Category:Province of Bolzano and Category:South Tyrol. The debate in w:Talk:South Tyrol#Official Name seems to be held up, and I don't know how to deal with this issue in Commons.

--Juiced lemon 10:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK... you said I create new categories with few items, or even a single item for different reasons; the most common ones are: identification of shown objects, translation of page titles in native language, intermediate category in a bigger structure, browsing in the data base. But categories can't be translated. Galleries don't have to have a category that exactly matches the name, not at all. For example why not put Fontana del Nettuno (Firenze) directly in Category:Fountains in Florence? There is no need for Category:Fountain of Neptune to even exist. Then "browsing in the database" is even BETTER because you don't have to go through the useless unnecessary subcategory.

I also consider Category:Transport in Wyoming and Category:Roads in Wyoming unnecessary if there is nothing else in them...

Person categories like Category:Tito Puente are generally OK, I think, because of all the subcategories, but it would even be equally ok if the image was on a page Tito Puente and that page had all the subcategories.

For South Tyrol, while the page is still at South Tyrol, I say stick with South Tyrol... no reason to change before they do. And just make the other category a RDR.

Anyway, Juiced lemon, I think you simply have to accept that if there are too few items, it is better to use galleries in a more shallow category structure, than have very sparse items in a very deep structure. That is not easy to use, no matter how logical it is. But anyway, let's work on specifics here. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Province of

2. It is necessary to say Province of X because X is very often the capital of the province (check it here). In Commons, the recommended form is of. There are too few exceptions to make more complex the naming of Italian province categories. --Juiced lemon 21:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For #2, OK. I didn't know this. I see it is what en.wp does, too. So, no problem. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Schema

People of Italy

I propose to change the Category Name, People of Italy to People from Italy.--mac 14:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The preposition of is used for several subcategories, like Diplomats of, Military people of, Politicians of. For near all countries, we have a People of COUNTRY category. I strongly disagree with your proposal, if you want to change the only Italian category. I just disagree in the opposite case. --Juiced lemon 22:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Al the subcategories say "from". It is strange to have a parent cat say "of", and all the subcats say "from". We can still do that, but it is strange. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Building schema

Category:Religious buildings

I propose to move all the categories related to religion from category Buildings in Italy to category Religious building in Italy. --mac 15:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean “Religious buildings in Italy”?

Please, set up the subcategories list, and I'll give my opinion afterwards. --Juiced lemon 22:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Houses and apartments in Italy

I propose to change this name to Houses in Italy, otherwise it is too long and unexpected. --mac 14:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cities, towns and villages

I dont't think that it's usefull to have only a directory path in order to reach the desidered page; pages can be reached thorugh different paths according to users knowledge and expectations. If I'm italian, probably I now that Calcata is in the province of Viterbo, but if I'm not italian, maybe I only know that it's an italian city, or that it's located somewhere around rome. I think that here in commons, category are used also to improve pages and photos accesibility; let's see for example, the page in rome category, or pomepi; they're categorized under differents point of view. --mac 09:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comunes

So, from what I can tell, you explicitly plan not to create categories for comunes, is it right? Or only if there is a lot of images? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll propose to let people decide; they can just create a page and leave it under Cities in Italy (+region cat +province cat) or they can create a category always under the same cat. --mac 12:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's completely exaggerated to put municipalities (comuni) in three different categories that are mutually referenced. By this criterion the category "Cities of Italy" (wrong name by the way) will have more than 8,500 pages? Will it be useful? What the point of this exponential multiplication of categories? This is the pattern used in it.wiki but not necessarily should be imported to Commons. Dantadd✉ 22:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're right; there is a common way to categprize. if you don't like it, let's talk, but please respect other's work. --mac 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I respect others work very much. But this is just an indicative policy, it's not the gospel and you can not impose it. On Commons normally a file has just one category of the same tree, for logical reasons. Dantadd✉ 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This page was created on indication of admin Pfctdayelise, to avoid edit wars and to give a common pattern for the cateogires; I don't think there is such a rule, because ther are pages or categorie with more than 4,5,6 categories....just see a page in category rome, for example. Furthemore cats are a way to find out a subject, and with you're proposal ( and alos you ware proposing to use 2 cats ) we must suppose that non italian users must known our administration suddivsion...--mac 23:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)p.s if you respect other work, please first talk and then work

Existing categories

Keep in mind that the category scheme must cover the existing subcategories. That is why I put the categorytree there, so everyone can see what still needs to be covered. For example Category:Sports in Italy will come under Category:Culture of Italy, I guess. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This means that we should use the existing schema as baseline? Or we can propose a new one that must containts all the existing categories? --mac 13:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You can propose a new one, like we are doing, but it MUST contain all existing categories (or else you have to explain what will happen to them!). For example Category:Sports in Italy is in Category:Italy at the moment, but it doesn't have to be. For the schema, I personally would put it in Category:Culture of Italy. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)