User talk:David Kernow~commonswiki/Maps reorganisation

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

Upate: Re the below, are you happy with using "Maps of the history of Country"?  "Old maps of Country" would then also serve as "Old maps of the history of Country", i.e. there would be no need for the latter. Meanwhile, for large categories that need moving, I now have access to Orgullobot; if/when you come across any, leave me a note and I'll request the move. Hope all is well, David 05:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am back... :). Uhh Let me see if I understood corectly: you are propossing to create everywhere a new category called "Category:Maps of the history of country" so that we can put modern maps which show the historical past of Country there, right? The idea is fine by me, perhaps we should call it "Maps about the history of country" but I don´t know what is bettersounding in english (I am not a native english speaker) so if you think that the 1st is bettersounding we should use it.

Notice however, that such a category is only needed for countries that still exist today. For example, for the Roman Empire we don´t need such a category, as all the maps in Category:Maps of the Roman Empire show the history of that country. It´s the same with all states who have disappeared with the passing of time. The maps about their history are allready in the common mapcategory (logical: as the whole entity is historical, all maps about it show its past history, there can´t be any current maps of it)~. Flamarande 10:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!  Yes, what I have in mind is three – not four – categories for each country:
Maps of X
Old maps of X
Maps of the history of X
(I think "of the history" rather than "about the history" or "showing the history" will be the most inclusive)
Old maps of the history of X
Yes, not needed; use "Old maps of X" for these and include {{Oldmapslink}} on the "Maps of the history of X" category page to show:
Please see the maps categorization scheme guidelines.
For old maps showing the history of X (that is, maps made over 70 years ago), please see category Old maps of X.
And yes re your point about empires, former countries, etc; only "Maps of X" and "Old maps of X" needed.
I'll try to do some more sorting now/soon. Best wishes, David 10:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS I altered the threshold for "old" maps to seventy years so that it matches what seems to be the standard copyright period. Hope that's okay. David 10:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It´s fine Flamarande 11:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the areas Middle East and Skanadinavia in Category:Old maps, alongside continents. Hope its fine by you. Flamarande 11:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that... neither the Middle East nor Scandinavia are continents; I'd say the Middle East is part of Asia and northern Africa, while Scandinavia is part of Europe... Okay to categorise this way?  David 11:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "Middle East" is everything between Europe and India (at least to my knowledge) and the term "Mahgreb" describes all the countries north of the Sahara (Egypt in the eastern end, Morroco on the western end). Very conviently this includes almost all islamic coutries but not all of them. Flamarande 12:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second thoughts; keep your categorisation, at least for now, so long as we try to include all major subcontcontinental regions... Too many categories otherwise, I guess!  David 11:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, they are not continents but we have to leave it as simple as possible. A user who wants old maps about the Middle East should find them as swiftly as possible. It is simply unneccessary to force the user to go to Asia, and only then he can find "Old maps of the Middle East". If eventually we begin to have too many subcats in "Old maps" we can change it again. But until then we have plenty of room. Notice that "Old maps of the Middle East" is ALSO present in "Old maps of Asia" (or least it should, I will check it out). Flamarande 12:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, I had done it without also linking both areas to the proper continets. Well now its how I wanted it, both of them are in "Old maps" and ALSO in "Old maps of Europe" (Asia in case of the Middle East). Flamarande 12:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, gotta go, sorry. Today I created some old maps country/cats and sorted also some maps. Flamarande 12:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finished for today. I sorted some scattered maps everywhere and created Category:Old maps by country in order to facilitate any searches for old maps. I also noticed that you created some Old maps country/categories but I don´t why you did not link them to the proper continents. Well I corected them. Will hopefully return tomorrow. Flamarande 23:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to link the new "Old maps" categories to continents, so thanks for checking them!  I've been sorting out some "History of Country" categories but will join you among the maps again. Yours, David 00:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've realised there's an asymmetry between Category:Maps and Category:Old maps that perhaps should be fixed. People leave maps in Category:Maps when they haven't chosen one of its subcategories, so (modern) maps of the world have their own category, currently Category:World maps. (I'm thinking of suggesting this becomes Category:Maps of the world to follow the other "Maps of..." categories.) However, Category:Old maps currently is the category for old maps of the world, so perhaps its contents should be moved into Category:Old maps of the world to mirror modern maps in Category:Maps of the world. What do you think?  (Hope this makes sense.)  Best wishes, David 20:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be honest: keep it simple, keep it simple, keep it simple. Avoid creating too many categories as best as you can. If you create too many categories the average user is only going to get frustrated and confused. I know you are not going to like this (hey, I am going to be honest): I would prefer that you had had created the new cats with easier and simple names like: "Modern maps of X". Something I also didn´t like was the removal of the "Old maps of X Empire" from "Old maps by country". Empires are countries too. Why shouldn´t they be? Because they include many ethnic peoples? So do modern countries. Because some of them were colonial empires? It simply doesn´t matter: we should keep as simple and clear as possible, always! If we transfer al world maps to "Old maps of the world" what would we gain except another category? We really should do it the other way around; we should transfer the modern world maps to "Category:Maps". When an user leaves some map in these categories we (or someone) should only sort easily and quickly to the correct spot. Flamarande 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Flamarande – and for keeping an eye on category growth!  Essentially, I agree with you and appreciate your pointing out when I may be (thinking of) making too many categories. Re your points:

I would prefer that you had had created the new cats with easier and simple names like: "Modern maps of X"

But "Maps of Mongolia", for instance – which means modern maps of Mongolia – is simpler than "Modern maps of Mongolia"... or do you mean "Maps of X" needs to be "Modern maps of X" as otherwise it's too vague...?

Something I also didn´t like was the removal of the "Old maps of X Empire" from "Old maps by country". Empires are countries too.

I'm not sure how confusing it may or may not be to regard empires as countries... For instance, I'd say regions rather than countries existed during the times of ancient empires; and would you say the British or Austro-Hungarian/Habsburg Empires were countries...?  I'd say each consisted of countries, but each wasn't itself a country...?

If we transfer al world maps to "Old maps of the world" what would we gain except another category? ...

Well, we'd gain symmetry with Category:Maps; and people would be able to place any kind of old map in Category:Old maps without it becoming mixed among the old maps of the world, in the same way people are currently able to drop maps in Category:Maps. This would – I hope – keep spotting and then recategorising such maps much easier, especially as the number of maps in the Commons grows. It also keeps those modern and old maps of the world that have been sorted free from the risk of accidental (and perhaps erroneous) recategorisation, not so much by ourselves but perhaps by future folk trying to maintain the maps categories. So I think it's better to keep Category:Maps and Category:Old maps clear of maps that have been categorised.

I have a suggestion, however, for reducing the number of categories: Although "Maps of X" means "Modern maps of X", if it is also permitted to mean "Modern and old maps of X" when there are few maps in the "Old maps of X" category, then the "Old maps of X category" could be merged with the "Maps of X" category and not (re)created until the number of old maps of X increased to a significant number. Phew. I hope that made sense.

Yours, David 15:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be Advised

[edit]

Hi! Just letting you know I found the page, and have watchlisted. Howdy to you Flamarande! I'll be most MIA the next few days, but wanted to aknowledge your answer David. Also want to interleave some answers on your post on my talk, but no time now due to RL demands. I will say that I tend to disagree (agreeably as possible) with Flamarande on the 'Asymmetry' and think the extra 'Modern maps of... ' sub-category will be beneficial in that it allows both sub-trees to be formed equivilently. Inandof itself, that's trivial, but for 'converting', knowing exact navigation name, and even re-using some of the same templates I've proposed, it could be very important. The earlier it's done, the better, of course, so less back-fitting re-working will be needed.

My take on 'category creep' is whether or not a category communicates something useful about a group of items to us humans, and whether it being so organized is helpful to the users, by which I mean the customers, not us editors (Though some for our organization is certainly in order too!). The computers are so fast, they don't care, and wiki's has database space to burn that the odd extra is hardly a worry. So I'd go for symmetry in aid of consistancy. Thus anyone uploading Maps who are uncertain, can park whatever in 'Maps' or perhaps any of the three 'parents' (if you will permit) which should then nominally be 'Empty' save for list data.

Btw- you may both want to familiarize yourself with the 'Middle Ages' sub-cats of 'Middle Ages', which map contents 'upload plans' have brought me into your sphere of contact and influence. I'll be modifying the template on my talk to use on the commons for 'by region' cross connects, and it suggests those as other categories too... I have no idea how well that matches over here! The single Blue link (Byzantine) is via a redirect, and I can use a guide reference or tips on how 'Article Space' here is supposed to be used.

All I've created/brought over are Navigable in the 'See Also' lists from the parent. Note the 'non-maps' sub-cats if Middle Ages also provide for period viewing of images, et. al. Hope you approve the structure, but I admit the 'Map' names might be shorter save I modeled them on something here on the commons. Long names can have short templates however, which is not an uncommon practice here in WikiP, such being usually 'Project defined'.

I must run now. But that seems like a better and more consistant top-down plan to me. Best regards // FrankB 12:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On re-read, I guess part of me leans towards a sub-category 'world Maps of', and 'regional maps of' under the two symmetrical branches, vice have the parents hold maps per se. i.e. the three upper parents discussed should only hold maps temporarily, not as the permanent place. Again, seems more consistant, those three being the skelaton we hang the flesh onto! // FrankB 12:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No notes from Flamarande or David Kernow, are you guys abandoning this project? <g> Zing! <BSEG> // FrankB 00:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I fear Flamarande has disappeared... Yours, David 12:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Kernow~commonswiki/Maps_reorganisation&oldid=157551448"