Category talk:Ursus maritimus

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


I dont know, if Category:Ursus maritimus by country is a good idea. A polar bear is a polar bear, he dont own a passport nor will he change his visual nature, hair color or clothing or behaviour if he goes to move to another country ;) I would say, it is much more important to diffuse the polar bear category by status or condition and by activity. That category system does not add value, it leads to a situation where good images are lost in subcategories while a categorization to something with value is surpressed. --Martin H. (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I started Category:Polar bears in captivity to answer this problems, the category structure follows the example of other mammals like tigers. --Martin H. (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Good now, some other valuable categories have been started. --Martin H. (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
For some reason that escapes me, a sample we discussed here seems to have some relation to subcategories being created here. Thus, I took the liberty to comment on one aspect:
Some users might just be looking for cubs: their category seems terribly underpopulated though.
That Wapusk National Park is in Manitoba, I think I could have figured that out from other categories on the images too. -- User:Docu at 06:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not aware you had written something on this talk page. A simple division into "in captivity" and "in the wild" would provide two large categories which are bound to become crowded quite quickly too. So I started something thinner. A "by country" categorization is not as precise as a proper geocoding of each picture, but it gives a broad idea of where the picture was taken. If you look for animals in the wild you may try in Canada, Russia, Greenland, rather than Thailand or Mexico. So it also provides an easy way to find "in the wild" and "in captivity". Teofilo (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
If you are interested in creating topical subcategories as well, e.g. "crowds" would a useful subcategory. As they are bears, you might want to call it "groups" though. -- User:Docu at 10:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
How about Category:Pictures with two or more polar bears ? Teofilo (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
For people who miss the old version with all pictures on one page (actually there were 2 pages as the number of pictures is over 200), I added the following Catscan link : Gallery of all polar bear images in all subcategories, listed alphabetically. Teofilo (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Its good work, on first sight I thought you will only categorize the location which would be a big loss for many other interesting aspects. With the various subcategories its now an improvement of the category tree. Regarding your comment on VP: Dont expect all users to create the subcategories, there was no subcategory here, so no wounder the category was overpopulated. --Martin H. (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Teofilo (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)