Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/05/Category:Photographs of microscopes
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- I don't think they are redundant. If you look at Category:Microscopes, in addition to the subcategories, there are a lot of images that are not photographies of microscopes (and those which are should be move to Category:Photographs_of_microscopes). Both categories together contain +150 pictures, my feeling is that it makes sense to have subcategories for a better overview, such as Category:Photographs_of_microscopes and also Category:Drawings of microscopes. Either "drawings" and "photographs" are redundant, or none of them is. --Dietzel65 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- comment. This category messes up "by subject" and "by medium" categorization, - the subject had already been discussed. My opinion is that "by subject" and "by medium" category trees are orthogonal and should not be cross-bred into "subject by medium" intersections. Commons users cannot be realistically expected to maintain such intersections at all levels of category trees. There's Category:Photographs of automobiles, but not Category:Photographs of 1928 Mercedes-Benz SSK: there's just Category:1928 Mercedes-Benz SSK. And none of two images in this category belong to Category:Photographs of automobiles because users just don't care or don't know about it. Microscopes are a far smaller subject, so a single determined user may maintain "by medium" tree there. Fine, it's their own time, so let it stay, but don't import this scheme to other subjects. NVO (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, not as bad as I thought. There are less than 500 "Photographs of xxx" categories that don't have some prefix (like Macro or Black and white etc) 
- Categories "photographs of" are redundant, the default is that a category contains photographs, other types of media are explicitly described. Category "photographs of microscopes" is logically the same as "microscopes". --Tony Wills (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't work to have "photographs of microscopes", you would end up having to spit each subcategory of "microscopes" into "photographs of stereo microscopes", "drawings of stereo microscopes" etc etc. I have merged the categories, and redirected this one. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)