Category talk:Archipelago Sea

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

Local category scheme[edit]

Discussion moved here from User talk:LX#Overcategorization and the Archipelago Sea

I have a problem with the Categories Category:Archipelago Sea and Category:Archipelago National Park: A big part of the Archipelago Sea is in the park's "interest area". In that area many of the major islands partly belong to the park. Putting the islands in the park category makes them disappear for somebody seeking an object that is not in the park (and makes private property on those islands seem like being part of the park) and vice versa. I have thought overcategorization is the least evil in this case. Do you have any thoughts?

(Where should such issues be discussed? The talk pages of categories are seldom on watch lists.)

--LPfi (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I see the problem. Creating Category:Islands of the Archipelago Sea should help avoid overcategorization. What do you think? LX (talk, contribs) 12:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Most photos of the Archipelago Sea include islands. And parts of those islands belong to the park, parts of them do not (the same problem sustains with other subdivisions). A bunch of {{cat see also}} and some explanatory text might help. I think that is needed regardless of how we categorize the files.
May be Category:Archipelago National Park should be a mostly empty category, containing only information signs, maps and other files that are relevant only for the park, and reference Category:Archipelago Sea for everything else. Hm, a category for the part of the Archipelago Sea in the interest area (ah, the correct term might be cooperation area) could also help a bit (that area has a reasonable border line).
--LPfi (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. It always helps if the entities we use for categories have good, clearly defined borders. LX (talk, contribs) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A proposal (if it seems somewhat reasonable the discussion should probably be copied or moved to Category talk:Archipelago Sea):

Splitting out the cooperation area seems to make other area categories necessary for symmetry reasons. The Åland part doesn't yet seem to be categorized as part of the Archipelago Sea, but I've understood that everything east of the Åland "mainland" belongs to the Archipelago Sea. The "central and northern" is clumsy, but there is no well defined border here. The cooperation area makes the "southern" well defined, even if the term as such is vague. The eastern part is well defined by the traditional division between western and eastern Åboland, but as part of this area is in the park, we probably have to put some media in both this and the "southern" category.

The municipalities are a bit problematic, as the cooperation area consists of parts of several municipalities. I would suggest having the municipalities in the area category where their centre is and in a separate municipality category (I think only one former municipality has its centre in the cooperation area and can there be regarded as an island group).

I think islands and islands groups in the northern, central and southern Archipelago Sea should be both in the area categories and the municipality categories, as the municipality borders are not necessarily well known (and often irrelevant). This could of course count as overcategorization.

(For Åland and the east using only the municipality categories might be ok, I know less about those areas.)

--LPfi (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems reasonable for the most part. Are there any maps showing the relevant borders? Even links to externally hosted non-free maps would help when evaluating the proposed structure. I'm not sure whether to place municipalities into this structure or whether to place categories from this structure into the municipality categories. When there is only a partial overlap, both options seem equally valid. Those questions aside, I don't think anyone will object if you have a go at implementing the proposal, as making any adjustments later should not be too big a task. LX (talk, contribs) 10:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I included a link to a map of the cooperation area above (it is probably part of the legislation and thus in public domain, but I did not check). The border between Åland and the rest of the Archipelago Sea is on most maps of the area, as is the border between the new municipalities Väståboland and Kimitoön (after a merge; Kimitoön is most of what previously was known as eastern Åboland), which is the third border used above. In fact all the relevant borders are in the linked map (the municipality borders are from before the merge).
I'll have a go, probably tonight. --LPfi (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed you did; it seems I can't read. :o) Good luck with the implementation! LX (talk, contribs) 14:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems to need some work still (I am not sure how to handle the municipalities). And I forgot the obvious border between the central and northern Archipelago Sea: the linguistic border, with Finnish majority in the municipalities in the north. The municipality borders are well defined, one only has to choose whether to use the geographic north more strictly or simply use the current majority languages. I go for the latter. --LPfi (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)