Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/07/Double check, please: 129 category moves

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

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Double check, please: 129 category moves[edit]

When I get home later today I want to start a renaming/harmonisation of categories "Location maps ..." to "Locator maps of ... in ...". I have the commands ready on User:Siebrand/test. Please double check for any typos and/or inconsistencies. Cheers! Siebrand 07:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

About six months ago, I opened a discussion at the village pump about the standard form for locator maps. The result (as I remember it) was:
PREPOSITION is determined according to custom rules:
  • when [WHAT TO LOCATE] is a settlement (city, village, etc.), PREPOSITION=in
  • other cases, PREPOSITION=of
I think it's the more practical system: since we have Category:Cantons of Switzerland, the category for locator maps will be: Category:Locator maps of cantons of Switzerland. You have just to add the standard prefix: “Locator maps of”, and no new rule to learn. --Juiced lemon 11:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
In for settlements and of for administrative areas, is that the general idea? I support that but where do you draw the line? Samulili 11:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Even though it may not look 100% correct, I am in favour of a convention that uses the same words in all forms. Especially to newcomers and occasional visitors, the subtle differences are annoying, even if there is a logic to it. Any thoughts? Siebrand 14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The idea comes probably from the English Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#State-based topics:
I don't draw any line. Settlements and subdivisions (areas) are assumed to have specific common names. Then, the name of the Commons categories are determined according to this common name (which points a settlement or a subdivision). In Commons, some users have mixed lowest level administrative areas with settlements. I didn't take care of that, though I disapprove, at least because there were too few discussions and explanations about this operation. --Juiced lemon 15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. I guess I'll have to agree. I'll rename as stated above and ask when in doubt. Thanks for the input.. Cheers! Siebrand 15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I have updated the list of commands on User:Siebrand/test and the commands are running now. It is going to run unattended in the coming hours. Please let me know if I screwed up somewhere and I'll correct. Cheers! Siebrand 16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Category:National parks in Brazil doesn't comply with the standard form National parks of COUNTRY (see Category:National parks). So Category:Locator maps of national parks in Brazil would be renamed Category:Locator maps of national parks of Brazil. --Juiced lemon 09:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, will do. Would you take a look at the topic Category:Historical Markers a little higher up this page and voice opinion? Cheers! Siebrand 09:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
✓ Done Siebrand 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I take it that this discussion is closed now? I'll archive it, in that case. --rimshottalk 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)