Commons:Categories for discussion/2007/09/Category for Korean city/county
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Category for Korean city/county
When we create Korean city/county, we should add their province name. Because of:
- We must show where it exists.
- Perhaps their spelling is same as other city/county on other countries. (For example, China)
- No. When the English Wikipedia don't need to show the province name, Wikipedia Commons don't need that neither. The general principle is that we don't add disambiguation suffixes when there is nothing to disambiguate. --Juiced lemon 08:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Disambiguation suffixes disrupt the reading, make browsing, classification and maintenance very difficult. --Juiced lemon 08:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you assert that lions are spotted, I don't go to demonstrate that you are wrong. It belongs to you to prove your assertion at first. Similarly, it belongs to you to justify why we would not do the same that (generally) in the English Wikipedia, in adding disambiguation suffixes when they are not useful.
- From experience, I know that disambiguation suffixes are painful to manage, because they must be kept in any “compound” category. We have no chance to enforce such rule if most suffixes are useless.
- Therefore, suffixes must not be unnecessarily added. Suffixes were added to German cities names, then they were finally removed.
- User:LERK, what is the problem with Category:Anyang, Gyeonggi-do? --Juiced lemon 09:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please provide a pointer to where it says we must not follow en wp. Adding useless disambiguation suffixes is not a current custom in Wikimedia Commons, so I am afraid your request is not sensible: if you have an odd idea, it belongs to you to justify that your intentions have some sense. --Juiced lemon 09:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly in a multi lingual, multi project Commons I find your idea and lack of justification very poor indeed. You cannot deal with things just be saying "I am right" all the time. This project covers all Wikis and all languages - you must be prepared to listen to other views and to justify your position if you expect to be listened to. Your approach, not for the first time, is non collaborative to a high degree --Herby talk thyme 09:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
My answer to User:LERK arguments:
1. We must show where it exists.
- Wikimedia Commons is NOT an encyclopedia. Teach something is not in the objectives of the project. If you want to learn something about the subject of a category, use one of the provided interwiki links. Country subdivisions are classified in appropriate categories (by location), so there is no ambiguity regarding their location.
2. Perhaps their spelling is same as other city/county on other countries. (For example, China)
- Disambiguation cases about encyclopedic subjects are already managed in the English Wikipedia. Major places names have no disambiguation suffixes, like Category:Paris. Suffixes are used only for places of lesser importance, like Paris, Texas. It's unlikely we'll discover new major places to disambiguate. --Juiced lemon 10:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Commons is NOT an encyclopedia., so we must write simply where it exists. With its province name, we can know where it exists simply. Some users cannot read English. If there is a duplicate spelling city/county, we must distinguish for example Anyang and Anyang. "Some city/county category is with its province name, but some city/county category is without its province name" this system causes confusion. Unified rule is required. LERK (Talk / Contributions / Mail) 10:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just a couple of observations:
- Categories on commons are used to group files that address a specific subject. Giving the category a name that describes the subject is all that's required, and doesn't amount to an encyclopedic entry.
- Wikipedias don't need categories to be as specific as commons does. For example, a Wikipedia should only have one article about a particular species of plant, while commons might have hundreds of files pertaining to a particular species of plant. --SB_Johnny | PA! 06:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just a couple of observations:
- Because English Wikipedia does not use province names why would that be justification for doing the same here - multi lingual, multi project Commons?
Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia are different projects, and there are independent each over. Therefore, each projet is managed according to their own rules or guidelines.
However, for efficiency reasons, we generally use the English Wikipedia as a reference in Commons Wikimedia. For example, we can use the English Wikipedia to learn that Ansan is a city in Gyeonggi-do, a province of South Korea. Note that at least another place has the same name (homonym): Ansan (Gers), and that no suffix was added to the South Korean city name, since Ansan (South Korea) is a major city, while Ansan (Gers) has only 63 inhabitants.
So, we can use the English Wikipedia in order:
- to know if a given name has homonyms in the English language
- to note the result of the possible disambiguation process (this process is time consuming, the more reason is that we have not disambiguation rules)
In Commons, we add disambiguations suffixes only when necessary. Otherwise, near all category names would have suffixes. Therefore, the correct category name for the city Ansan in South Korea is Category:Ansan.
I think you don't appreciate the terrible mess which would result from user:LERK's proposal. Consider just this small maintenance problem in the English Wikipedia: Anyang, Gyeonggi, city of Gyeonggi-do. --Juiced lemon 15:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm reading this quickly - so we make our own rules but when you think we should follow en wp that becomes the rules, if it doesn't suit you then we don't do it like that. Little time today but tomorrow I will post in a more read place about this aspect of Commons JL for my clarification as much as anything. It is a difficult subject and requires broad community views --Herby talk thyme 13:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)