Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/07/Category:Aerial topdressing

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

Category:Aerial topdressing[edit]

en:Aerial topdressing is a special kind of en:Aerial application. So imho, we have two options here: 1) move the whole cat to the more generic Aerial appilication or 2) create a new Aerial application-Cat and make Aerial topdressing a subcat of it. The Cat is rather empty atm, but there are lots of pictures around that could be put into it.

Personally, I would prefer option 1), because if you just look at the pictures and don't read the description texts, you won't be able to see whether that's fertilizer being sprayed or something different like pesticedes. What do you think? El Grafo (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My problem with option 1 is that it sounds a little like deciding the world will only have one language and that it must be English used the way I like to use it. You know, might take a century or so but those foreigners'll get used to it in the end. However we categorize it in Wikipedia the people will go on calling it aerial topdressing. Why is there pressure for change? Interesting thought though.
Ah, I see now, in Wikimedia Commons everything has been pushed under aerial topdressing. I'd be in favour of option 2 with all the cropdusters etc under Aerial application. Does it look as if I have a proper understanding of your question? If not please tell me where I go wrong. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Eddaido, thanks for your thoughts.
To be honest, I'm not sure if I really understand your first paragraph completely. I'm not a native speaker, so I don't know which term is preferred in every day language - I just noticed that Wikipedia (here: the english language version) makes a clear distinction between the meaning of the two words: Aerial application is the general term for using an aircraft for spraying stuff (anything from fertilizer to Round Up), wheras Aerial topdressing is for fertilizer only (however, people sometimes (?) use it as a synonym for Aerial application).
Second paragraph: Jep, that's the "problem". The more I think abpout it, the better I like option 2): Category:Aerial application as the main category for the spraying of fertilizer/herbicides/fungicides/whatever and Category:Aerial topdressing as a fertilizer-only subcat. Other subcats could be created for aerial liming etc.
Also, we have pictures such as this one, showing the spraying of en:Agent Orange during the Vietnam War as well as Category:Aerial firefighting, which could fit into Category:Aerial application but as far as I understand it not necessarily into Category:Aerial topdressing (Again: Not a native speaker, please correct me if I'm wrong!). Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we are in complete agreement. I see the Oxford English Dictionary says topdressing is 'the application of manure' (i.e. fertilizer) 'to the surface of the soil' (first recorded use 1744). Best wishes Eddaido (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
First, let's not forget that seeding is another variation of aerial application, that is often more environmentally friendly than many of the others. Second, I deprecate the general use of the word cropdusting; to me it is an ambiguous US-specific term, that implies the application of solid materials via hoppers and venturi devices (eg swathmaster), not in a fluid suspension. Cropspraying, of fluids via nozzles, has been the predominant worldwide method of aerial application of fungicides, pesticides and fertilizers for many decades.PeterWD (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, PeterWD. Just to be clear: Did I get you get you right, that you would also favour the option of making Category:Aerial application the main category with various subcategories for "topdressing", seeding and so on? One could probably argue about the details (e.g. does firefighting with aircraft belong there or not), but I think the general concept is a good one. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I was only attempting disambiguation and clarification of the sub topics. Regards 'Aerial application' as a category, perhaps that might be ambiguous for those who are unfamiliar with the term. Is 'Aerial application in agriculture' too long? The en:wp article is not entirely clear and concise, and starts by equating it with cropdusting (ugh), then confusingly adds waterbombing. In my mind, the 'executive action' part of aerial firefighting certainly comes under aerial application.PeterWD (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
To confuse matters further, see Wiktionary top-dress that focuses mostly on application of loose soil, and my British manual of lawn care agrees. I do it every year, without fertilizer, to replace the bulk lost in grass cuttings.PeterWD (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That's basically what de:Topdressing says, too. On the other hand, my en:OALD says: top-dressing: Manure or fertilizer put onto the surface of a field and not dug or ploughed into the soil. So obviously the word may have different meanings, depending on the context.
I don't think 'Aerial application in agriculture' would be too long. I might be a good idea to make it a subcat of Aerial application to separate the agricultural stuff from things like firefighting. --El Grafo (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's another thought - land management covers both agriculture and wildland plantlife, so perhaps 'Aerial application in land management' would be the most accurate catch-all for all the aerial applications we have in mind.PeterWD (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that's too long and Aerial application is enough by itself. What might be the topics which might land there that we don't want there? Eddaido (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
In designing category hierarchies, surely we should be using both lateral and forward thinking. The point is that Aerial application does not exclusively come under agriculture. For example, aerial firefighting is already applied to agriculture (farming and forestry), 'wildlands', urban buildings, and ships at sea. Firefighting aircraft and crop sprayers are also used to apply oil-dispersants onto oil slicks, and even cloud seeding could be considered as aerial application.PeterWD (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree (I think) I was just hoping someone might schedule out or prepare a diagram of how they saw the hierarchy below aerial application which I assume would be the top, would you mind showing your thoughts? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
So far, I've just been brainstorming, with no plan for a hierarchy. My main focus is on applying aircraft type cats to aircraft images, and that can be tricky if we have too many 'silly' categories with large numbers of members. For example, 'White aircraft' with 112 images is becoming more time-consuming to easily check all the type cats via slide show, never mind the registration cats there. Anyway, in this case, El Grafo's proposal for Aerial application can be a first step, under Aircraft operations. Below it we can have Aircraft in agriculture and Aerial firefighting. Aircraft types would come under those two subcats. Aerial topdressing could come under Aircraft in agriculture, but would not displace aircraft types from there, because 'agricultural' aircraft are multi-function, and difficult to differentiate exactly what material is being (or could be) applied. If no-one else wants to take the action, I'll start it off with a few small changes that can be reversed after assessment and discussion.PeterWD (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)