Category talk:Consolidated B-24 Liberator ventral gun turrets
(Redirected from Category talk:B-24 Liberator ventral gun turrets)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator[edit]
All Commons categories referring to the B-24 should use the same name, so one of the following proposals should be selected. I currently lean to Proposal A on the merits but am open to either so long as the result is one name to use for all categories going forward:
| Proposal A | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator | Move to/Rename as | Category:B-24 Liberator | |
 | This proposal would change the parent category name to match the majority of its sub-categories
| |||
 | Josh (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Proposal B | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:B-24 Liberator by name | Move to/Rename as | Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator by name | |
| Category:B-24 Liberator aircrew | Move to/Rename as | Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator aircrew | |
| This proposal would change all of the sub-categories of Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator to match the name of the parent category.
| |||
| Josh (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
- I am firmly of the opinion that the full name should be used in all sub categories for several reasons. When searching for categories for an image, it is much more work to navigate on a separate page to the main category, then navigate through all the nested sub cats to find the appropriate one, when one can simply type the main name and it will give all the available sub cats to choose from. As it stands, many of the subcats are so randomly named, that this built in function is largely wasted - along with the time it could save. Also, access to the sub-categories is often not from the top down, so disambiguation is still very much useful. The only exception should be those countries that did not use the B-24 designation such as the RAF - where it should simply be Consolidated Liberator (Royal Air Force). Consistency is good as it makes it much easier to find stuff.NiD.29 (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- @NiD.29: Yes indeed, hence my effort to have one name to refer to the same aircraft with the same name. I totally agree that it is far better if one can simple type 'B-24 Liberator' or 'Consolidated B-24 Liberator' and then have a list of all relevant sub-cats that start with the name of the aircraft (this won't work with cats that use the name at the end instead of the beginning). As for the RAF example you use, note that 'B-24 Liberator' is the name for the entire family (main parent category). Individual versions, such 'B-24C Liberator' or 'Consolidated Liberator II' are their own aircraft, but should follow the same policy of using a single name through all categories. 'Consolidated Liberator' would pertain solely to that particular version of the 'B-24 Liberator' family. Josh (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- @NiD.29: Do you have any opposition to adopting Proposal B above, to adopt the full "Consolidated B-24 Liberator" as the name to which should be used in category names related to this aircraft family? Sub cats for specific variants would have their specific names such as "Consolidated Liberator" for RAF series, "Consolidated B-24C Liberator" etc. for USAAF variants. Josh (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- sounds good to me.NiD.29 (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I am firmly of the opinion that the full name should be used in all sub categories for several reasons. When searching for categories for an image, it is much more work to navigate on a separate page to the main category, then navigate through all the nested sub cats to find the appropriate one, when one can simply type the main name and it will give all the available sub cats to choose from. As it stands, many of the subcats are so randomly named, that this built in function is largely wasted - along with the time it could save. Also, access to the sub-categories is often not from the top down, so disambiguation is still very much useful. The only exception should be those countries that did not use the B-24 designation such as the RAF - where it should simply be Consolidated Liberator (Royal Air Force). Consistency is good as it makes it much easier to find stuff.NiD.29 (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@NiD.29: Closed (use long form name thoughout tree) Josh (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)