Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/10/Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener, Ontario

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
  • Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener, Ontario}}--~~~~
  • On the log, add:
    {{Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/10/Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener, Ontario}}
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener, Ontario[edit]

I started Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener-Waterloo some years ago. Today another contributor created Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener, Ontario. Nothing wrong with that. But they then hijacked the existing elements of the existing category. This is a bee in my bonnet. Administrators are authorized to delete empty categories, and the way categories work, there are no real clues an empty category has just had its elements hijacked.

In my opinion Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener, Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener, Ontario and Category:Museums and galleries in Waterloo, Ontario should redirect to Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener-Waterloo. Kitchener and Waterloo are twin cities, for most practical purposes. They grew together and merged decades ago. Visitors could easily be confused which city a museum they visited was in, particularly if someone else did the driving, as there is no obvious markers that one has moved from one city to another. -- Geo Swan (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You might be right, I've been to K-W and could not tell where the boundaries were, but then we would enter a larger discussion of merging Category:Kitchener, Ontario and its subfolders with Category:Waterloo, Ontario. Also, "hijacked" is a tad harsh, I would say I simply "moved" the category, to better fit with Category:Museums in Canada by city. Fungus Guy (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I am going to stick with hijacked. Empty categories get deleted. I have seen perfectly good categories get deleted due to the kind usurpation you engaged in. So, why didn't you initiate a discussion?

    As to fitting with Category:Museums in Canada by city -- locals do call the combined city "Kitchener-Waterloo", so I don't see how your choice of name fits any better.

    As to your ", Ontario" suffix -- this doesn't really fit, does it? Generally, don't we only disambiguate, when necessary. Geo Swan (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not merge everything? Toronto, Mississauga, Scarborough, no evidence you moved into another municipality, Category:GTA.
Why not merge K-W pages with Category:Cambridge, Ontario, do the whole tri-city thing. Or, better yet, Category:Greater Golden Horseshoe.
And what of Category:People from Kitchener, Ontario, Category:Schools in Kitchener, Category:Education in Kitchener, Category:Education in Waterloo, Ontario, Category:Buildings in Kitchener, Category:Public services in Kitchener or Category:Housing in Waterloo, Ontario? They set the precedent that categories should be divided based on municipalities, which have seperate municipal governments, services, etc.
Perhaps I will concede to your nostalgia, and add a see also: at the top of each page, directing to the relevant page of the other municipality. That way 'visitors' (as you've mentioned) aren't 'confused.'
See also: Category:Museums and galleries in Waterloo, Ontario
Fungus Guy (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest Category:Museums and galleries in Waterloo Region? Kitchener-Waterloo is commonly used by people, but it doesn't legally exist as a place the way Waterloo Region does. If there are enough files that we need to sub-divide into Kitchener, Waterloo and the various townships, we can do that, but there's no overlap like there would be with "Kitchener" and "Kitchener-Waterloo". It would fit easily in Category:Regional Municipality of Waterloo. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everyone on some points.

I agree with Geo Swan that this category is perhaps best dealt with on a regional basis, rather than strictly by municipality. Subcats can be created down the road for the specific municipalities should the need arise.

I agree with Fungus Guy that "hijacked" is unnecessarily harsh. We all do so much category work - if in every instance we needed to stop, notify everyone with an interest, and wait until everyone was holding hands, then we'd get nothing done. There are situations where it is best to be prudent and get input, but this doesn't necessarily strike me as one of them. Fungus is correct that we do not have corresponding museum and gallery categories for the GTA, the National Capital Region, Greater Vancouver, Montreal Island, etc. so why would we have one for KW? We need not agree with FG's premise, but his initial edits were fair and reasonable. The system works well because someone like Geo Swan can come along afterwards and say "hey wait a minute" and there is an opportunity to reassess. (I would also say that FG's comment "I will concede to your nostalgia" is equally unfair to Geo Swan, as Geo Swan raised legitimate issues that have nothing to do with nostalgia.)

Finally, Themightyquill is absolutely correct. We should not be creating a category structure for KW, which is not a legal entity, when we already have Category:Regional Municipality of Waterloo. I appreciate that the region is potentially larger than KW (hard to say, though, since KW is not a term of art), but we should be doing what we can to have competing category trees for KW and Waterloo Region. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Are we all then in favour of Themightyquill's solution of Category:Museums and galleries in Waterloo Region? It strikes me that it addresses Geo's concern about dealing with this on a regional basis, while also addressing FG's concern about consistency with the rest of the category tree. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree, TMQ's suggestion addresses both concerns, as well as future concerns (I imagine Category:Museums and galleries in North Dumfries will have too few entries). I also really appreciate the conciliatory tones of the later conversation. Fungus Guy (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree with Skeezix1000 that the current system of categories works well. There are purely technical reasons, and historical reasons, why the current system doesn't work well.
  1. Our current system keeps no record what files were once in a category. You can't look at an empty category, and determine it was once full of elements.
  2. Historically, administrators remove empty categories, and, when doing so, they have no idea whether the category was emptied by somebody who was unwilling or unable of discussing whether their preferred category structure was a genuine improvement.

    Look at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-06#Category:Murghab River, where the best choice of category name was deleted twice, because it was empty after its elements were hijacked. Over the seven years I have been contributing to commons I have seen this happen many times.

Ultimately, I think our current system of categories should be superceded by a new feature, which lacks its technical disadvantages. The replacement should make it easy to see what elements were once in a category.
I suspect that when the category system was originally added developers thought that categories would used solely by developers, for maintenance, and would be transparent to readers and editors. Categories don't work that well on our sibling encyclopedia projects either. I have seen suggestions that the replacement feature would not only provide a mechanism to record when elements were placed and removed from categories, but would provide a mechanism to allow contributors to provide a URL to help substantiate why the element belonged in the category. Geo Swan (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't speaking to the technological aspects of the category system, which is way beyond the scope of this discussion. I was merely saying that your comment about the category being "hijacked" was unfair and unrealistic, we are well aware of the methods for reassessing changes to categories, and it is not impossible to find out what was in the category. While I don't disagree with your comments on the current category system, I don't think they justify the accusation that was made here. We all work hard, we all do hundreds of edits at any one sitting, and it is unfair to be making such accusations against a contributor who clearly operates in good faith and does good work. If you disagree with a change, start a discussion (like you did). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

  • As per my question of October 27, no one seems to object to Themightyquill's solution. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)