Category talk:Aerial photographs of New York City

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Aerial views of New York City

Category doesn't make sense. On the one hand, what is supposed to be the difference between this and Category:Aerial photographs of New York City? On the other hand, it has subcats like Category:Views from the Empire State Building, but those aren't aerial views, they are views from a tall building. Jmabel ! talk 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah. Perhaps views from Empire State etc belong to a new local subcat of Category:Views from towers in the United States, and the ones from flying machines should go in the aerial photography cat. That leaves the bird's eye drawings made up from imagination such as this one. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Several years ago, all of the Category:Aerial views of (place) categories were moved across the board to Category:Aerial photographs of (place). At the time, I remember thinking that it was a bit shortsighted, because it didn't take into account the small number of non-photographic (i.e drawings, paintings, etc.) "aerial" images we have in our collection (mostly from the 19th century and before). However, what's done is done. With all that water under the bridge, I would say the following:

• If we are going to revisit that earlier decision, it should be done at a high level, not in the context of a CFD over one subcat pertaining to one city.
• When one creates a Category:Aerial views of (place) category when Category:Aerial photographs of (place) already exists, you end up with aerial photographs randomly categorized in both (as you do here, where Category:Aerial views of New York City and Category:Aerial photographs of New York City are both full of photos, and do nothing but duplicate one another, and bizarrely are subcats of one another - creating an endless loop of bad categorization). No matter how many times an editor wanders by and tries to clean up the situation, photos will again inevitably get placed in both categories. It will always be a mess.
• For the reasons set out in the bullet above, I don't think Category:Aerial views of (place) and Category:Aerial photographs of (place) can co-exist for the same place.
• And, yes, I agree that views from tall buildings are not aerial views, and belong in categories pertaining to views from towers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

All right; views from above may be photos or something else, and also may be as seen from tower, flying machine, or human imagination. That suggests to my mind Category:Views from above or similar name, with four subcats. One is for photos, and three are assorted by vantage. Category:Photographs from above would have subcats for aerial and towers, and of course all would be interwoven with local cats. Perhaps we can figure out a better name than "from above" but in any case we'll have to carry the discussion to a high place in the category tree. Hmm, I wrote this without looking at the treetops. Must look to see whether the problem was already solved there and merely failed to tinkle down to our little seaside settlement. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Over a year ago we had this discussion, most of which is beside the point as to my initial objection to the category. A view from a tall building is not "aerial"; most of the files categorized here belong in Category:Aerial photographs of New York City or one of its other subcats. Can we please clean up this part of the category tree? - Jmabel ! talk 03:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There appears to be 2/3 consensus, and it is unclear what position was taken by the remaining 1/3. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose:

• Move subcategories from Category:Aerial views of New York City to somewhere more appropriate (I'm sure it will be evident where).
• Move photos that are now immediately in Category:Aerial views of New York City to Category:Aerial photographs of New York City (or other categories if that is obviously wrong).
• Get rid of Category:Aerial views of New York City.

OK? - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Further thought: introduce a Category:Cityscapes of New York City (analogous to what was done at Category:Cityscapes of Seattle, Washington) to bring together skylines, aerial photos, views from tall buildings, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

One problem with that is, in the art trade Cityscape means something even vaguer, including but not limited to various kinds of views from above. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think there is any likelihood of those categories here accumulating a bunch of painted street views or such; certainly hasn't happened in the cities where we've done it that way. - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jmabel, Jim.henderson, and Skeezix1000: I think this category is pretty much cleaned out except for 46 pics. It has been almost 2 years since this discussion was opened. I believe the category can be merged to Category:Aerial photographs of New York City. Epic Genius (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Congruent with my opinion already expressed. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I have moved the twenty or so photographs taken from above to the Aerial Photographs category. Epic Genius (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• So everything in the "Aerial views" cat is supposed to be in the "Aerial photographs" cat now? Is this happening everywhere else? For the record, I realize there are views that are more specific, and I've created some more specific categories for those views, because the standard "views" cat got too crowded. But if there are some that belong in the more generic category, whether "views" or "photographs," they should be left there. In the meantime, I'll move some of the now 49 pics to the new category, because a German man has a lot of new ones that were uploaded from panoramio recently. ----DanTD (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Keep:

• Cannot be merged into Category:Aerial photographs of New York City and should be removed as a subcat of this category, as it contains several images which are not photographs
• Category:Aerial photographs of New York City should be a subcat of Category:Aerial views of New York City, as all aerial photographs are aerial views of the city; subcats for other types of images can be created if there are enough to make sense.
• Photographs in Category:Aerial views of New York City should be moved to Category:Aerial photographs of New York City
• Should be a subcat of Category:Cityscapes of New York City
• Discussion at a higher level may be warranted, but is not required to make the above tweaks for now within the scope of this discussion.

@DanTD, Jmabel, and Jim.henderson: Any opposition to the listed items? Josh (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Sounds reasonable to me, as long as we can agree that views from tall buildings are not "aerial views" at all, and should be handled analogously to Category:Views from Space Needle. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Good point, perhaps a short explanatory note at the head of the category would help users understand this? Josh (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Okay, so we have to be sure that some of these views are specifically from buildings. As far as I can tell though, there are still files with categories that need to be moved to one or the other. ----DanTD (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

---

@DanTD, Jmabel, and Jim.henderson: Closed (per discussion; Category:Aerial photographs of New York City should be a subcat of Category:Aerial views of New York City in turn a subcat of Category:Cityscapes of New York City; define 'aerial views' being from the air, and not including views from buildings) Josh (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)