Category talk:Hydroelectricity

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

Cleanup proposal[edit]

Hi. I would like to make the following proposals;

Hydroelectricity[edit]

Hello Foroa. I noticed that you are an administrator. May I ask a favor? I noticed a bulk of wrongly named categories that I don't know how to request a bulk rename. Category:Hydroelectric power by country (and all its subcategories) are supposed be titled as "Category:Hydroelectricity by country". The titles should either be Hydropower for energy from water, or Hydroelectricity for electrical power from water. And Hydroelectric power definitely refers to Hydroelectricity. Perhaps we could request a bot to do this? Rehman(+) 11:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, we are (sometimes) kind of more analytical, precise and structured on Commons than on wikipedias. I guess that Hydroelectricity refers to everything that has to do with the generation, transport, technology related to the generation of electricity with water. Electricity is not the same as electric power/energy, why they chose to use Category:Hydroelectric power by country which is not the same as Hydroelectricity. Hydropower is not the same neither because the power of water can be used for other purposes, at least in theory. In a multi-language context, we have tendency of using the simplest possible words and avoid contractions: we have users in close to 300 languages, so simple naming is paramount. You can always issue a COM:CFD if you feel compelled to do so. Category renaming, even with bots takes significant human power, why we have a Category:Requested moves (all) backlog of 600 renames and more than 6 months delay on some of them. --Foroa (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for the info. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 12:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I originally intended to take this directly to COM:CFD. But, for such a proposal relating to many different types of categories, it seems more reasonable to discuss here, summarize, and then post there. Please do share your views below, with reference to the relevant proposal. Rehman(+) 07:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think all the proposals are good and should be started from #1 on down. Just in case the work burden becomes too big. For the specific types of power plants in each country, some categories will have very few to no pages under them though. So, specific types may be unneeded. In #4, Option 1 is best but with no 'Hydroelectricity in Canada' category because as it is now, that parent category usually only has one category below it, "Hydroelectric power stations in Canada". I am willing to help but won't be able to dedicate a terrible amount of time to the project.--NortyNort (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
For the specific types of power stations in each country; as mentioned, it will only be created if the parent is too big. But either way, I think its best not to deal with it now; the workload is tough enough. :) I mentioned it just for clarification. Regarding "Hydroelectricity in Canada", I strongly agree with you, but if you see Category:Hydroelectric power by country, it is full of such categories. And as you said it would, most subcats currently has only one entry below it. Good idea to delete the whole lot instead of renaming? Rehman(+) 08:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yea, I can see a dam by type in Canada, USA, China. Good point. No sense in having the "Hydroelectric power in [Country]" categories. What else can there be pictures of in there aside from power stations or something associated with a power station? I can't think of anything.--NortyNort (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Please, don't disperse discussions because you don't like the outcome.
The idea of having only more categories when the parent overflows is a bad idea ingerited from wikipedia. The most important is making good and stable structures, they will fill up easily and quickly.
So 1. is a bad idea.
2 and 3: A power plant is not the same as power station. Don't change such things before they are properly defined. Power plants if the commons name for all types of power generation worldwide. Power stations tend to be smaller generators and distribution centers. --Foroa (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Forora. You being an admin, I assume you know more of Commons. So lets keep "power plants" as it is (I see you fixed "powerplants" as well) based on the facts you provided. Regarding the subcats, I have removed that part of the proposal, your point makes sense; I actually was in the Wikipedian uniform when I thought of that. But for 1, I still think Hydroelectric power categories should be renamed to Hydroelectricity. The correct way of calling it is Hydroelectricity, with no doubt. You may be confused with Hydropower, which is a different topic relating to all sort of energy derived from water, not just electrical; Hydropower topics will be left as it is. What do you think? Rehman(+) 00:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, sorry I didn't see your reply on the very top. And I completely forgot that I have already discussed about this with you; my apologies. Will take the Hydropower discussion to CFD soon. Thanks. Rehman(+) 10:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Power plants and power stations are the same thing. See definiton here and even the Wikipedia article doesn't debate that. Power is produced at 'each' and it includes all the materials involed in the plant or station, We have problems on Wikipedia with it as well. They are labeled power plants in the U.S. categories and power stations for international categories. Personally I like power plant but internationally, power station seems more popular.--NortyNort (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that "power station" is popular internationally, but I also agree with Forora that "power plant" is very much widely used in Commons. Perhaps we should one day take it CFD too, just for the sake. But i'll tell you, if we do accept station, we have one hell of a task to carry out. ;) Rehman(+) 09:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)