Category talk:Road signs in the United States

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

This category's getting a bit large. Would anyone object to splitting this into the state-by-state cats (Category:Roads in Massachusetts, Category:Roads in Delaware, etc)? —Scott5114 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. (O - RLY?) 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
takes long enough to load on my connection 8) I support master sonT - C 21:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Overcrowded categories disturb browsing through the Commons database. Adding more precise subcategories is the custom way to limit the number of files in the parent category. You'll still can access to all the files with the catscan tool. --Juiced lemon 08:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, though of course the state cats should be "Category:Road signs in Massachusetts", not "Roads in Massachusetts". I note a category for Category:Road signs in California already exists. The state road signs categories should have Category:Road signs in the United States as a parent category, in addition to relevent state category. -- Infrogmation 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Roads/Road signs[edit]

We now seem to have both a Category:Roads in x and a Category:Road signs in x for each state. However, I think having two categories is redundant, because road signs generally have a road nearby, and it's hard to categorize some images, like Image:New Mexico SR 456.jpg. Having to look through images in two categories to find photos from a particular road for an article is also inconvenient. Anyone have comments or suggestions on which category to make the target?—Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That image looks like it could go in both the roads and the road signs categories. In such cases, feel free to add both. As there are other photos that feature signs but not roads and still others featuring roads but not signs, having seperate road and sign categories seems appropriate. -- Infrogmation 01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason we need both though? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Where would the Shield svgs go? master sonT - C 03:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Any in the former can go in the latter
Same here
No need for the signs then master sonT - C 03:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this has nothing to do with the SVG sign diagram categories, which are rightfully separate. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The sheilds are for signs; more closely related, but as Scott5114 notes we have subcat for those. The reason for seperate categories for roads and road signs:Road signs are sub category of signs; not all signs are road signs. And not all road images are signs. eg: Image:Ok102end.jpg sign image. Image:I-10 New Mexico 5.JPG road image. -- Infrogmation 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a need for two categories that can serve the same purpose. There's absolutely nothing wrong with placing the first image in "Roads in Oklahoma", as it is a picture related to roads in Oklahoma. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I know in the case of New York, the road sign category is completely redundant to the road category. The "Roads in New York" category has a distinct advantage over the road sign category in that its contents are organized by road (or by system), making it easy to find images to add to an article on that road (same applies for the system categories - even if it's not by road, it still cuts down on the number of unrelated images a user has to sift through). OTOH, the road sign category comes off as little more than a random gallery of assorted road signs in the state and, as stated at the outset, is redundant - every image in the category is in the Roads in New York category or a subcategory of it. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What would you reccomend? -- Infrogmation 05:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to merge the Roads in x and Road signs in x into a single category, possibly just named Roads in x or Roads and road signs in x. (I can't speak for TMF though.)—Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd do exactly what Scott said. But if people want to maintain a (in my opinion redundant and useless) sign category, that's their prerogative. I know I won't be one of the ones doing so. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
So would this be a subcategory of "Signs in X"? What to do about images of roads without signs? Or should it just be "Roads in X" and any images with signs also be in the "Signs in X" category? -- Infrogmation 06:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it'd just be Roads in X. Road signs probably don't need to be in the "signs in X" at all, considering that road signs and almost all other signs, advertising signs for instance, are so different (in tone, conventions, and so forth), and people looking to illustrate an article with one type probably wouldn't find the other useful. If you feel something absolutely needs to be done about it, I'd recommend a hatnote on the categories saying "for road signs, see Roads in X" or some such. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Shall I begin merging the categories? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in merging - some photos concentrate solely on signs, such as Image:I10-800.jpeg. --NE2 08:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, never mind then. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)