Category talk:Unidentified flowers

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

Maybe better included under Category:Unidentified plants. Uleli (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the content of this category better should be included in Category:Unidentified plants or subcategories. Finally this categories is not needed any more and can be deleted. Better to have the same things at the same place. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: This category exists to help with Commons maintenance, not to provide a strict final category for files. This category is already a subcategory of Category:Unidentified plants, and Category:Unidentified plants is already too full — it will only get worse from having more photographs "up-merged" into it. Identifying flowers is easier than identifying the rest of plants: The user can immediately see which flowers he/she recognizes. If we make everyone squint at the screen, staring at huge numbers of similar-looking plant parts, with no flowers for 29 out of 30 photos, many people will just get frustrated from staring at the masses of unidentifiable green parts; those people will give up and go do something else instead. And the typical person will certainly not go into all 170(!) subcategories of phyla to see which ones might or might not have some flowers. I think that photos in Category:Unidentified flowers are identified more quickly than in other categories of unidentified plants. Look at how quickly files leave this category. Having this category causes no problems, and removing this category will lead directly to fewer files getting categorized properly. --Closeapple (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
During the last days I have reduced the content of Category:Unidentified plants from more than 1700 entries to something around 1000 by sorting it into taxonomic subcategories (families, genera, and species) and into regional subcategories of Category:Unidentified plants by location. It is definitely no help for identification, when flowers are in one subcategory and leaves (Category:Leaves of unidentified plants) in another subcategory of Category:Unidentified plants. For plant identification, all parts are needed, flowers as well as leaves, stems, bark, or fruits. Especially in the big families (Asteraceae, Fabaceae) flowers alone will not help a lot. If you really worry about Category:Unidentified plants being to big, you are invited to help with identification. Persons, who are able to identify plants from photos, either have knowledge of some taxonomic groups, e.g. orchids, Cactaceae, or know the flora of a certain region. So, regional or taxonomical subcategories will make identification more easier. Sorting plant parts apart into different subcategories, on the other hand, is an obstacle for identification. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps there's some confusion about using the "flowers" category. I didn't mean to imply that, if a picture is in Category:Unidentified flowers, it can't be in other categories. Category:Unidentified flowers is a category for flowers to be in, in addition to the other unidentified categories a picture might be in also. If a picture is of a flower in Germany, it would make since for the picture to be Category:Unidentified plants in Germany and in Category:Unidentified flowers so that someone who knows German plants can browse it, and also someone can identify flowers quickly can also browse it. (The same for all the phyla. If someone knows what phylum a flower is from, even better: it can go in both, since both people familiar with that phylum might identify it, and people who are familiar with flowers might identify it.) --Closeapple (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, it will not hurt to have this category, but I am sure, it will not be usefull anyway. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support It's more useful to have all possible batches of the same plant in the same category -- for instance, three pics without the flower and a fourth one with one. This way the way less easily identifiable versions of the same plant individual can get identified right away as long as the identifier is savvy. This goes the other way around as well, as said, Astr. and Fab. specifically might require a good view at the leaves to identify. Keeping the batches together should be a priority -- no identifier will check upload history for possible sibling files. --Pitke (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support I agree with Pitke and Franz Xaver. Additionally, most images in Category:Flowers are unidentified, too! So an extra category is not useful. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What does it hurt to have another category? People uploading flower photos may very well try to put it in Unidentified Flowers, but if this is deleted they might not know to put it in Unidentified Plants. --Brainy J (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
That's precisely what category redirects are for. --Pitke (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Good point, although I still agree with Closeapple's reasons for opposing. I'm changing to BA candidate.svg Weak oppose.--Brainy J (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support just have unidentified flowers as a redirect. Amada44  talk to me 13:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


After more than one year of discussion, there are 5 "Pro" and just 1.5 "Kontra". So this category will now be redirected to Category:Unidentified plants, but the redirect will be left as a link in Category:Flowers. Images can be placed in Category:Unidentified flowers, and they will be moved automatically to Category:Unidentified plants. I hope, that you all agree with this solution. --Thiotrix (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)