Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/12

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

December 2010[edit]

Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion[edit]

Very unecessary maintenance category. Not because it is not needed to diffuse the categories added to it but because the name of the category already suggests: "This is maintenance but you will never finish it, puny earthling." Such a category is not a maintenance category but a listing of what pages use the template {{Categorise}}. A list of transclusions of {{Categorise}} is available under Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Categorise. Restructure the template {{Categorise}} so that it adds a temporary maintenance category of Category:Categories requiring diffusion if there is something to diffuse and disolve this non-maintenance, listing category. --Martin H. (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. 95 % of the intermediate categories require permanent diffusion. Within a couple of years, this category will contain thousands of categories but this category will not help. (the choice of permanent or temporary diffusion is very arbitrary). --Foroa (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Martin and Foroa.
In august 2009 I discovered that we had two templates having the purpose of including crowded categories into category:Categories requiring diffusion. My first idea was to merge both templates. They were {{CatDiffuse}} and {{categorise}}.
But User:W!B: had written « Use this [template:Categorise] just for tagging main categories requiring permanent control, for categories to get sorted once use {{CatDiffuse}} ». So I was afraid he or other people would disagree with merging both templates. Then I thought that if we have two templates with two intended different purposes, it would be best to have two separate categories for each purpose. This is how I created Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion and Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion.
A) Martin, when you say Restructure the template {{Categorise}} so that it adds a temporary maintenance category of Category:Categories requiring diffusion , how do you plan to name that new "temporary maintenance category" ?
B) Do you plan to change the instructions for use of {{Categorise}} or will you keep the present wording (Use this just for tagging main categories requiring permanent control.) ? I mean that, if you dislike the name of Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion, you might dislike this wording too.
C) Why not merge both templates ? (I don't really see the point of having a not-categorizing-merely-tagging template saying "this category used to be crowded but now it is OK because somebody did the diffusing job, but be careful for the future"). If a category is OK at present, then let's remove all tags and let's not worry for the future. Teofilo (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the main question is already the purpose to tag categories requiring permanent control. The purpose of maintenance categories must be, that the maintenance will be done at some point of time. Having a category Category:Austria placed in a maintenance category permanently isnt very motivating to do the maintenance. My suggestion is to restructure the template that the text will show up permanently - as an instruction - but that a category is only added if there is something to do at the moment. So that e.g. Category:Austria at the moment will not have the category because it only contains 7 files and there is no urgent requirement to add the category to the backlog of Category:Categories requiring diffusion or Maintenance data structures at all, and that categories like Category:Australia, which has 114 files of them, most of them not properly categorized, has a maintenenace category because that category realy is in need of maintenance at the moment. Collecting categories that from time to time need diffusion into a permanent maintenance category servers no purpose but is only frustrating and overcrowding the maintenance content. --Martin H. (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree with everything. I think it is good to have Category:Austria and Category:Australia treated differently. Teofilo (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could just redirect {{Categorise}} to {{CatDiffuse}}. As the later kept appearing on nearly empty categories, I changed it to display only if includes more than 150 items. --  Docu  at 08:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. In some upper level categories, even one picture is too many. On the other hand if you feel that the category is fine without further detailed categorization, you should remove that template. I reverted your edit in Template:Catdiffuse. Teofilo (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that the category and template are unnecessary. {{Categorise}} and Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion have several purposes. First, Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion, unlike Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Categorise, provides an alphabetic list showing the number of items that each tagged category contains. This is very useful for quickly identifying categories to target. Secondly, the template is a reminder not to put files directly into that category. (Given that people even put files into meta categories, the second point is less important than the first, but hopefully it causes someone to think twice.) That said, there are things we could do to improve things. The template could change appearance when a tagged category starts to fill up. Wordings could probably be less demoralising. The templates could have more sensible names that actually indicate their differences (one is a project; the other is a process). LX (talk, contribs) 10:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there are people that add the template to every fucking category independent of it being necessary. People actually tag categories because they want to say: Look my category is really important! And then there are people like LX who honestly believe that the template would actually prevent people from directly catgorizing into a tagged category. It is like in RL an idea that could have a small benefit is distroyed because people lack a basic understanding of reality. And of course the category could be replaced by a bot generated list like Special:MostLinkedCategories if you only include the regular categories. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to comment in a civil tone any day now. This is hardly a topic worth getting rude about. LX (talk, contribs) 22:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I can understand that you want to avoid the discussion. You claim that the template prevents people from using the category directly. It is you who needs to deliver the evidence. I don't know of a single user whos categorizing habits were changed by this template. And of course you also conveniently dodged the rest of what I said. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
If I wanted to avoid the discussion, I wouldn't get involved in the first place. I'm happy to discuss as long as you can do it without getting unpleasant about it. It seems you may have missed the parenthesised part of my earlier post, and I'm not sure what sort of "evidence" you expect to see anyway. Most of our help pages and templates have no evidentiary support for their effectiveness. I'm not opposed to replacing the category with a bot-generated list. That option was not suggested before, but it would be useful as it enables sorting by the number of files in each category. That suggestion would of course have to be implemented before it is used as a reason to delete the category. I also think the existence of the template is still an orthogonal issue. LX (talk, contribs) 09:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


Category:Patton_tanks[edit]

Just sharing the same namesake does not make it a family of vehicles. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Steampunk_imagery[edit]

Category for images who some thik it is somehow associated with a science fiction genre. Avron (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC) This also includes Category:Steampunk and sci-fi warfare, Category:Steampunk drawings--Avron (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we usually use "imagery" sub-categories? If not, it seems redundant with Category:Steampunk, but the topic itself seems like a legitimate topic. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "Steampunk" is a hugely derivative genre, recycling and mis-appropriating bits of the Victorian age. It seems reasonable to categorize both for "Steampunk" (i.e. today's Steampunks, doing their thing) and also separately for "Steampunk imagery", a distinctive and generally recognisable trope of old images, likely to be of interest to the modern Steampunk questing for new inspirations. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It is reasonable to have the category "Steampunk" for artwork in this genre. But Category:Steampunk_imagery is highly subjective. For examample File:Electrical_Machinery_1917_-_Westinghouse_motor.jpg is an image of an electric motor. Should now every image in Category:Early electric motors should be inserted into Steampunk_imagery because someone might be inspired be them? It is not purpose of Commons to have subjective galleries to be of interest to the modern Steampunk questing for new inspirations.--Avron (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Here, I would agree with you - "likely to" should not be included. But wouldn't it be reasonable to have a category for such images that have already been inspirational to (presumably notable) steampunk authors/artists? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, in theory this might work but I really doubt it. Normally categories base on facts but in this case how can you prove what is a fact and not? Additionally Steampunk is a small genre compared to other arts e.g. contemporary art. But we don't have this concept of have already been inspirational for other arts. I suppose it is either not usefull or not possible to define such category.--Avron (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:1330s mountains[edit]

Confusing category name Jmabel ! talk 01:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this and similarly named categories are very confusingly named. Normally, when we have a category "1330s whatever" it means that it was created in the 1330s (decade). In this case, "1330s" refers to the number of meters. I know of no precedent (in Commons or elsewhere) for using an expression like this in the English language to refer to height. I believe this should be renamed as Category:Mountains between 1330 and 1340 meters; similarly for all other similarly named categories. - Jmabel ! talk 01:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other height-based (or weight-based, etc.) categories to use as an example in naming this? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support renaming according to Jmabel's proposal (for the stated reasons). LX (talk, contribs) 11:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Cemeteries_in_Masovian_Voivodeship[edit]

Poland doesn't have County. Voivodeship is divided by Powiat, then Gmina. All counties should be rename to Powiat. WlaKom (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC) I moved this matter ot "Work for bot".--WlaKom (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this done now? --rimshottalk 18:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


Category:Insurgency_weapons[edit]

Very subjective category, not usefull Avron (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with nom - recommend deletion. FieldMarine (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Bicycles in snow[edit]

I had created this category, with the name analog to neighbour categories, and placed some images in it.

Soon I noticed that there is already Category:Cycling in winter, and that there is a significant overlap of these two categories.

And that there is a significant disctinction in topic between bicycles being driven on ice, and bicycles parked for longer time and covered under snow.

This also means that the nominal analogy to the neighbour categories doesn't have a matching analogy in content, because other types of Category:Vehicles in snow are most often shown being operated in deep snow, which is hardly possible for bikes.

So I created the new Category:Bicycles covered by snow, which is clearly disctint from Category:Cycling in winter, but rather a subcategory of Category:Parked bicycles

Now someone has moved all files back, with the claim to align it with neighbour categories. But has left the category redirect saying that there shuld be no files in the category. And didn't insert the additional files which would belong in this category.

I ask for opinions about which name is preferred.

--Ikar.us (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)