Category talk:New Zealand

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

[edit] Related changes - Category:Symbols of New Zealand

Before I get into a spat by doing my change again, I'd like to see what people think - I placed the above category into 'Culture of New Zealand', because I felt that this was in line with Commons policy of placing images AND categories into the most specific location, and because Category:New Zealand already has a lot of categories.

The above was reverted by a user, without any reason given (admittedly, I had not given an edit summary either). I still believe that the policy would support the change, and that 'Symbols' is a specific sub-part of Culture (maybe of Politics of New Zealand too), but that it is too specific (and too rarely used) to be at the top level. What do other people feel?

Ingolfson 06:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The “most specific location” doesn't exist for categories, because each person has his individual way to link concepts together. To by-pass the problem, in Commons, categories are organized according to schemes, which are in Category:Commons category schemes.

In order to standardize the category structures for different countries, I wrote Commons:Category scheme countries and subdivisions: for a given country, symbols is a first-level category. That's the case for most subcategories of Category:Symbols by country.

Therefore, place Category:Symbols of New Zealand in Category:Culture of New Zealand will prevent people to find this category, because it is unexpected. --Juiced lemon 08:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I read [1] as having the 'most specific' policy applying to cats too ("The category structure should reflect a hierarchy of concepts, from the most generic one down to the very specific."). Also, surely, on a Wiki, nothing needs to be cast in stone? Consistency is important, but what about changes and improvements? I strongly assume that the "be bold" rule exists here too. Ingolfson 09:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The category scheme is also by its very nature incomplete, because Commons is growing faster and getting more specific all the time. Use the following example:

• It may be obvious that "Beaches of X" is a subcat of "Geography of X". But what about "Coasts of X", which does not exist in the scheme (but should, NOT ALL beaches are coasts). "Coasts of X" should be an INTERMEDIATE category between "Geography of X" and "Beaches of X" (because all beaches ARE coasts). By sticking strictly to the scheme in such a case, we break the policy of general -> specific. Ingolfson 09:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of classification is to help people to find what they search. When you are classifying files, you have the time to think about logic connections about subjects, and you have also some basic knowledge of the organization. But the situation is quite different when you are just searching a file in order to illustrate an encyclopedic article: so, “hierarchy of concepts” is just a general consideration, which have no practical usefulness in Commons.

A beach can be a coast or not, a volcano can be a mountain or not, a die can be a plastic object or not. Category:Waikiki Beach is a beach, and also a coast. However, as you cannot place Category:Beaches of Hawaii in Category:Coasts of Hawaii (improper generalization), categorizing Waikiki Beach in Category:Coasts of Hawaii would be pointless. --Juiced lemon 10:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

When, please is a beach NOT a coast? Examples? Waikiki Beach would work just fine, logically, being a subcat of Beaches of Hawai, being respectively a subcat of Coasts of Hawai. No double categorization at the bottom end necessary. And why suddenly has "hierarchy of concepts" no usefulness on Commons? The whole structure is decidedly hierarchical - see my above link, which say "The category structure is (ideally) a multi-hierarchy with a single root category.". Sorry, but you are not making sense to me. Ingolfson 10:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets please continue discussing this at Commons talk:Category scheme countries and subdivisions. I copied the preceding discussion over there. Ingolfson 10:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)