Category talk:Views of Ukraine by city

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Views of Ukraine by city

Merge with Category:Cityscapes in Ukraine, and rename subcategories accordingly. Themightyquill (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose --Микола Василечко (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Микола Василечко: Why? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Why only Ukraine? See views by city by country. --Микола Василечко (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, for starters, because that category didn't exist when I nominated this one. It was redirected to Category:Cityscapes by country until Elkost changed it in August 2020. The same is true of "views by city". - Themightyquill (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose, too. --Elkost (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added relevant categories to encourage discussion. What is the difference between Category:Views by city and Category:Cityscapes. If they aren't to be merged, which is the parent? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

These terms correlate as general and particular in philosophy: “view” is broader than more specific “cityscape”. En.wikipedia defines them:

“view” – as “sight or prospect...”;

“cityscape” (in visual arts) – as “artistic representation, such as a painting, drawing, print or photograph, of the physical aspects of a city or urban area”.

En.wiktionary gives additional notions:

for “view” – (other plus) something to look at, such as scenery;

for “cityscape” – “view of the buildings of a city, usually referring to a pictured landscape”. --Elkost (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

So it's easy as objectively deciding if something is artistic or not? =) I concede that there are differences between the terms, but I'm not sure the differences are large enough or precise enough to be useful for categorization on commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose @Themightyquill: as you can see in Views by city by country, a new subcategory appeared: Views from buildings by city by country. And from a building you don't necessary see a cityscape (artistic or not), but also a street, trees, even a zoomed trash bin. --Orijentolog (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: What exactly is the purpose of putting a zoomed in image of a trash bin in Paris in a category called Category:Views of Paris? Put it in Category:Waste containers in Paris. Same with trees and streets. We've made a conscious decision not to use "Photographs of X" for every category X. Using "Views of X" instead is just as useless. The fact that it has proliferated to other countries doesn't make it any more useful, nor any reason to keep it. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I fully understand your opinion because I had the same one until few weeks ago, but in meanwhile I understood it's actually useful to have it as a container category for aerial photographs, satellite pictures, panoramics, cityscapes and viewpoints. OK, a trash bin is a bizarre example, better one would be a park or a street. Why to put hundreds of photos inside main category of these two, and then separate it by years or decades. IMHO categories like this or this worth more than chronological ones. Viewpoints should exist, and the best is to put them under the views, with other above-mentioned things. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The fact that so many photos are only categorized by time and country or city is annoying, but it's done to avoid images from all over the world from piling up the category for in any given year or date. "Views of Paris" adds nothing to "Paris" - it's just shifting everything from one pile to another nearly identical pile. I might accept this if it were explicitly only for categories not images like Category:Photographs or Category:Views and tagged with {{Catcat}}, but that's not what's happening. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I 100% agree, that's also my idea (i.e. container category, as I said above). Having any photo in categories named views of [city] is a pure nonsense for me, even as a temporarily solution for proper subcat, because basically all photos have a particular viewpoint. Therefore my suggestion is to keep existing tree of views, properly tag it with {{CatCat}}, and by time it's not hard to make them empty with cat-a-lot. I hope @Elkost: and others will agree. --Orijentolog (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 Keep useful -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 15:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose Subcats of Category:Views of ... allow us to specify various aspects of photography like viewpoints and perspectives. Cityscapes is a specific image genre similar to Landscapes (see description of Category:Landscapes) that comprises views of at least several buildings. It's just one type of views out of many, so Category:Cityscapes of XYZtown should be a subcategory of Category:Views of XYZtown. In Category:Views of Paris, the Category:Cityscapes of Paris, that would collect unspecified overviews, is still missing. --Sitacuisses (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose arguments like Sitacuisses -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 23:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Triplec85 and Sitacuisses: If it's just used to hold different types of views (each in its own category) are you okay with putting {{Catcat}} on all the subfolders? -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

We should encourage the creation of certain subcats like "Cityscapes of" (which is only applicable in certain cases), but I'm not sure if that's the right way to do this. Putting {{Catcat}} in all the "Category:Views of ..." folders shouldn't be a general rule as long as we don't have an exhaustive set of subcats that are allowed there. It should be allowed to park images there until the most appropriate subcat gets created. "Basically all photos have a particular viewpoint" is not a valid argument to me; we need this branch of categories for images where either the viewpoint or a certain type of view is a distinctive feature. --Sitacuisses (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Just my opinion but if the point in this whole "views" category tree is to "allow us to specify various aspects of photography like viewpoints and perspectives" then it start with a category like Category:Photographs by viewpoint or Category:Photographs by perspective where the focus is "viewpoints" or "perspectives" and then be built out from there. The word "view" doesn't convey that the category trees is meant for types of "viewpoints" though. Let alone perspectives. In a lot of cases "view" just means "image." Regardless of how the image was taken. For instance do a search for "Views of Liteň." What comes up is literally every image of Liteň. While at the same time Category:Views of Liteň has an image of a bench and some signs? None of those images are "views" of anything and the files could as easily go in Category:Liteň. Most "view" categories are like that, file dumps for general images of a location. So this whole thing is a duplicate categorization system without a purpose or meaningful definition. That can't be said for Category:Photographs by viewpoint or Category:Photographs by perspective though. Everyone knows what a perspective is. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Question @Themightyquill, Микола Василечко, Elkost, Orijentolog, Triplec85, Sitacuisses, and Adamant1: Is there any resolution here or further discussion needed? I was about to close this as it is getting old and seemed obvious that there was no consensus to pursue a merge per the original post. However, I was not a participant in the discussion and maybe I am missing something. I'm happy to leave it open if there is further discussion, or to close if folks feel this one has run its course. Josh (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Close. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, close. --Elkost (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I still have the same opinion about it that I did before, but there's a lot of "views" categories outside of this one. So it seems like something that needs settling further up in the category chain or something. So I guess go ahead and close it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: close. Category:Views by city by country is now widely established in commons in various countries and cities. Regardless of the frequent use in commons, many users also find it useful. So close and keep. -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 06:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

---