Category talk:San Pedro de Atacama (commune)

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

Category:San Pedro de Atacama[edit]

A problem with Category:San Pedro de Atacama: It is both about a commune of Chile, larger than many countries (23 439 km²), and about its capital and namesake, a small town of less than 5000 inhabitants that covers less than 10 km² (this follows the duplicit definition of the English Wikipedia entry: «San Pedro de Atacama is a Chilean town and commune in El Loa Province, Antofagasta Region.»; my bolding). This photo was taken in the town, apparently, showing a remote view of mountains that are located within the much vaster commune the town is the capital of. It seems that splitting of this cat is necessary. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split into Category:San Pedro de Atacama (commune) (in Category:Communes in Antofagasta Region) and Category:San Pedro de Atacama (town) (in both Category:San Pedro de Atacama (commune) and Category:Towns in Chile) - Themightyquill (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We might we wise to create Category:Populated places in Antofagasta Region and each of the other regions as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will recommend to keep the existing category and not to split it in "commune" and "populated place". It will be harder to find photos of places of interest if distinguished between political, habitational and geographical zones. The geographical aspect of this category should prevail. The populated places of San Pedro de Atacama are villages named as Conde Duque, Quitor, Sequitor, etc. (about 19) that partially isolated but together form the populated center by tourists known as San Pedro, and others like Machuca, Toconao, Socaire, Peine, Tilomonte, and so on (about 12), that are isolated places up to 100 km and more away from it. Those with photos available have their own subcategories. WeHaKa (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WeHaKa: I think a well organized category tree always makes it easier to find something you are looking for. (What if someone is looking for images of the village, not the whole commune?). A less organized one, like this, might make it easier to stumble upon a nice photo of "place of interest", but I don't think that's the purpose of categorization. You could create a gallery image to accomplish that goal. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Themightyquill. Besides, what about some one needing photos of any Chilean (or, more strictly, Antofagastan) town — why should they have to rummage through photos of natural landscapes that would be (and are now) mixed in any subcat deep search? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin, Themightyquill, and WeHaKa: Closed (objection noted but geographic categorization is normally heirarchical, so such concern applies to all geographic sub-categorization; move Category:San Pedro de Atacama to Category:San Pedro de Atacama (commune)) Josh (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Joshbaumgartner: I think that Category:San Pedro de Atacama should be a disambiguation, not a redirect, but my point was procedural, not topical: I think that you, as some one who is not an admin, should not just close the discussion yourself, especially when there was no clear consensus, and especially when you feel you need to add an explanation (indeed: one more opinion) as the closing remark. If a non-admid can close a CfD, which I’m not sure about, at least let be those where there’s no doubts left about what to do among all participants. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: I understand your concerns. There is no reason Category:San Pedro de Atacama cannot be a disambiguation, and sorry if my comment somehow gave you the idea it should not be one. As for the issue of admin closure of CfDs, there is nothing in the process that specifies an admin as being required to close a category (see COM:CFD): "Typically, only users experienced in category discussions should close a discussion. However, if the discussion has led to a very clear consensus, other users should feel free to do so. The following is the normal process to close a discussion. Not all steps are necessarily required nor need they be done on the same day, but in general this is the appropriate order." The word 'very' is ill-defined, but having been involved in several hundred CfDs and having closed hundreds of them, I do have some experience in category discusssions. Reading the second sentence, it is clear that even users who are not experienced in category discussions may indeed close them, though for less-experienced users, they should only do so if the consensus is very clear. In this case, I saw a clear case made by yourself and Themightyquill for the normal structure to be applied to this category. A third user expressed concerns which were answered by Themightyquill and that user did not express any further concern in the following 6 months. The heirarchical structure of geographic categories is quite a broad consensus in and of itself. Josh (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: It is important to note that closure of a CfD is not akin to a court judgement or referee call. It is not the final say on the matter. It is merely moving forward with what at that moment appears to be the consensus and that can be reversed or re-opened for discussion at any time either to evaluate new cases or new opinions, or even if it merely seems like the original closure did not turn out the way it was intended. Nothing done as a result of a CfD such as this one is irreversable or damaging. If we had been talking about deleting a whole category tree, that would be one thing, and indeed the threshold for closure would have been much higher, as it would have required much more work to revert. But in a case like this where the created sub-category can easily be re-merged if the decision is reversed does not warrant keeping endlessly open. Josh (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: That all said, I have no problem, upon your objection, with keeping the CfD open for any further comments. As I understand you, you do support the "commune/town" split, and I would clarify that Category:San Pedro de Atacama should become a dab for them. Josh (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:San_Pedro_de_Atacama_(commune)&oldid=391176267"