Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010/03

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

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2010 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2012 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2013 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2014 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
Archive February 2010


This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Isle of Anglesey[edit]

Reasons for discussion request -- This whole category with all its sub-categories is a duplicate of Category:Anglesey. It is empty (as are the sub-cats, I think). Clearly we do not need two categories for the same place. Even if there is an argument for using the term 'Isle of Anglesey' (official name) in place of 'Anglesey' (much more common), the work involved in transferring many hundreds of files and sorting all this out seems to me to be a burden we could do without as we are already struggling to cope with the several thousand unsorted/miscategoried/undercategoried geograph files in the Wales category categories. If a bot can do it, fine, but I certainly have no intention of doing so. Anatiomaros (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I created all or most of these (sub)categories for the Geograph project along with hundreds of other categories. I have no strong feelings for either of the names but I ofcourse agree we should not have duplicates. I think the bot failed to fill images in the new categories because the top category was named "Anglesey" instead of "Isle of Anglesey" (and images probably ended up in "Wales" because of that). We have bots that can move images in a few minutes if it is decided to use the official name so it is not a problem. I will check later for images in "Wales" related to "Anglesey". --MGA73 (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As they are empty, I think we could just redirect them to the existing ones.
    To sort out the files, this might help identify some of the files to be moved. The exact selection might need some tweaking though. -- User:Docu at 14:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Categories should only be redirected if the other name is the best one. --MGA73 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
      • "the better", not "the best". Empty categories shouldn't be created instead of moving current categories. -- User:Docu at 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, this was created about a month ago and then simply left empty without a single file and without anyone else being aware of its existence. 'Best' is a matter of judgement and opinion - do we go for the official name, which we arguably should do, or the most common one which most people will look for? Anatiomaros (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If a bot can do the work I've no objection. The official name for the local authority area is Ynys Môn (Welsh) / Isle of Anglesey (English) so there is a strong argument for that, although plain 'Anglesey' is most commonly used in English. The category was recently moved to 'Isle of Anglesey' on English Wikipedia and 'Ynys Môn' (='Isle of Anglesey') is what we have on Welsh Wikipedia, although it's often referred to simply as 'Môn'. As for the images, you will find a lot of them at Category:Gwynedd as GeographBot seems to have taken the old pre-1996 Gwynedd county as being 'Gwynedd'; the old/preserved county included all of Anglesey and half of Conwy County Borough. Any bot work will have to take GeographBot's bad category work into account (and if it could transfer some files to Conwy county that would be nice too - must be hundreds still in there!). Anatiomaros (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I started doing some cleanup, e.g. Category:Roads in Anglesey. As far as naming is concerned, I'm ok with whatever seems best to Anatiomaros. -- User:Docu at 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Tnx Docu. As for the name, I really don't mind but if we are to be consistent we should use the official designation, I suppose. The most important thing is to get some order before we get swamped by the next batch(es) of geograph files. Anatiomaros (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
There isn't really a preference for the official designation over the most common one. It's just that we start out from the official one if we aren't too sure about the most common one. BTW, I wouldn't want to re-do this for the next batch ;) -- User:Docu at 01:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, if there's no policy as such then I suppose the easiest option is to keep the present category. There is no confusion likely - unlike 'Conwy', which is a town, and the county of the same name (several other cases, including one which I've started to sort - Category:Caerphilly - where the town was home to all the county borough sub-cats and still has a 100 or so files of forests, fields etc; now created and half-populated Category:Caerphilly County Borough, if your bot fancies some work...). As you say, now is the time to decide. Easiest option: status quo, but if people feel strongly for the other option that's OK by me. I'll bid you goodnight now as I'm burning the midnight oil (as usual!) and "sleep on it" till tomorrow. Anatiomaros (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Must admit, I tend to go with the category that matches the page on English Wikipedia, which would be Isle of Anglesey. But...it all depends on whether a bot can do the work. The categories are a hopeless mess since the Geograph uploads. I've just spent a month having a go at some of the ones in Greater Manchester and Lancashire, and I've barely touched them! Just a thought, for the time being, why not make Anglesey a subcategory of Isle of Anglesey: it doesn't require any work, and means that any sorting can be done if and when people have the time. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing thread: redirecting duplicate, to match enwiki/initially created category. -- User:Docu at 07:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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:Moere station[edit]

wrong name, should be Moere_train_station" Wiebevl (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


Deleted.Tryphon 08:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

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:26 year old men[edit]

Category is out of scope. It is quite pointless to have a category for 26 or 56 or 23 year old people because man gets older and such categories will never show its intended content correctly. --80.187.97.44 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep we have a system of classification of people by age, & we need a system for classifying anatomy by age of subject; it's not hard to understand the potential uses of images of ppl @ specific chronological ages

also; the arguement made by the anonymous nominator ("It is quite pointless to have a category for 26 or 56 or 23 year old people because man gets older and such categories will never show its intended content correctly.") is incorrect:

the only images being categorized by chronological age should the be ones where age is given in the file info.

the pictures aren't going to get older; at least not in this universe, & not counting Dorian Gray. XD

(& for the record, i was not given a deletion notice by the nominator, therefore improper procedure as well)

Lx 121 (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, people age at different rates. One 15-year-old male may be shaving while another is still waiting on his first chest hair. It's entirely subjective to assign certain characteristics to different ages (which will be part of the process of placing images into "age categories"). The categories would represent original research gone awry. Blurpeace 02:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The above comment on "age categories" is in relation to Lx 121's, "it's not hard to understand the potential uses of images of ppl @ specific chronological ages", though I am confused by the contradiction made through, "the only images being categorized by chronological age should the be ones where age is given in the file info." Could you clarify once more what the categories will be used for? Blurpeace 03:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as long as it's used for images of men at age 26 rather than for subcategories of persons born in 1984 or 1983. -- User:Docu at 13:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Empty. The category contained one unused file which was deleted by me for beeing out of project scope (non-notable user without contributions/user site) Polarlys (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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:Images from the Game Developers Conference[edit]

Redundant category. All files in this category are also in Category:Game Developers Conference 2010, which serves the same purpose. This category just seems superfluous to Category:Game Developers Conference 2010 and its parent, Category:Game Developers Conference. -- Sabre (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Cf. Commons:Categories#Major categories : Category:Images from the Game Developers Conference is a source category, Category:Game Developers Conference 2010 is a topical category.
  • The former is intended to keep track of media taken by the GDC people (which is, not necessarily at the GDC, and certainly not only at the 2010 GDC). Could even be hidden.
  • The latter is intended to categorise media taken at the GDC (which is, not necessarily by the GDC guys ; other people go there too).
See Category:Images from the World Economic Forum and Category:2010 World Economic Forum for an analogous situation.
Jean-Fred (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed, valid source category. --Martin H. (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Echinopsis eyriesii[edit]

User:Uleli asked me to move all the content to Category:Echinopsis oxygona because Echinopsis eyriesii is only a synonyme. I noticed some recent edits by User:Epibase:

I'm not a botanist. I would like to hear some qualified opinions before merging these two categories. -- Common Good (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to be a botanist. :-) I note that wikispecies calls E. eyriesii a synonym, while en: and de: list E. eyriesii as its own species. I think it would be a good bar for busybody reorganizers :-) that wikispecies and the WPs must be made consistent before they are allowed to mess with other people's work here... Stan Shebs (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Kept. Both species a mentioned in at least three Wikipedia language versions. -- Common Good (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Post boxes by country[edit]

This category appears to replicate Category:Mailboxes by country. Unless there is a good reason for the separate categories then they should be combined, similarly with the sub categories below this. --Keith D (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

They ARE different.
  • A post box (British English and others, also written postbox, known in the United States and Canada as collection box, mailbox, or drop box) is a physical box intended for use by the general public in order to collect outgoing mail (mail sent to a destination).
  • A letter box, letterbox, letter plate, letter hole, mail slot, or mailbox is a receptacle for receiving incoming mail at a private residence or business.
I agree that the terminology is confusing. We should better go about it as follows:
  1. Create a disambig page where "post box", "mail box" etc will redirect;
  2. Create 2 distinct categs: one for outgoing boxes and one for incoming boxes that the aforementioned page will offer to choose from. -- Wesha (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
We already have Category:Letter boxes, but looking at the content of the 2 categories above they do not appear to be following any incoming/outgoing rational. Keith D (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
That's because there's no clear explanation at the top of each as of what should belong to it (and a link to the other one, too). How about we fix that first? -- Wesha (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Letter boxes looks like it is for incoming main and outgoing mail is covered by the other 2 categories which are a duplicate of each other. You can add a note at the top of the categories and a cross reference but you still only need 2 categories not 3. Keith D (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
True. So, can you please clearly list in your reply to this which ones you want to keep and which one to delete? So far, I'm confused. Thank you. -- Wesha (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Wesha. There should be only two different categories. They are on equal footing and neither of them should be subordinated to the other. The images from the third category (Mail boxes) are to be moved to either of the two categories, and the category should contain a redirection to the Post boxes category. So the images from the three categories should be carefully reorganized into the two categories: (1) Post boxes (for outgoing mail), (2) Letter boxes (for incoming mail). --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
To sum up: the general category is Category:Mailboxes, which contains two categories: Category:Letter boxes and Category:Post boxes. The Category:Letter boxes is subdivided into: Category:Letter boxes by country, etc. The Category:Post boxes is subdivided into: Category:Post boxes by country, etc. Let's reorganize it! --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC) The name of the Category:Mailboxes by color category should be changed to Category:Post boxes by color, they are all designated for outgoing mail (only colors of public post boxes can be prescribed by law; every one is free to paint his private letterbox as he pleases). --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Wesha and Leonid and support the idea to sort out these categories. --Michael Romanov (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that mailboxes should be subdivided by their purpose. I have some notices:

Delivery boxes of the Czech Post
  • in the Czech Republic are several types of boxes: outgoing boxes ("post boxes", orange), house letter boxes of inhabitants and small companies (private) but also the third type: official postal blue delivery boxes for incomming letters which are used in villages where letters aren't delivered outside the main road. How should be named a subcategory of such unified incomming boxes? (Don't confuse with PO Boxes.)
  • also private letter boxes can be categorized by colour, but separately from outgoing post boxes. Also the category "Blue mailboxes" can have subcategories "Blue post boxes" and "Blue letter boxes", as well as for every country should remain the category "Mailboxes in XXX" and should contain subcategories "Post boxes in XXX" and "Letter boxes in XXX".
  • Inasmuch as those category names aren't unambiguously understandable, we should create some special template(s) to entry of all such categories (somewhat like {{Villages-municipalities}}).

--ŠJů (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If we look at the original statement that the categories 'post box by country' and 'mail box by country' replicate each other, it is correct. The confusion appears to arise as a result of regional differences in English; specifically American English 'mailbox' and British English 'post box'. For me it makes sense to merge the two. The only issue is which regional dialect you use as the category heading. Comming from a British English culture, I would favour British English, but that is a personal preference. Andrew massyn (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that a solution was adopted of making Mailboxes a parent category for both Post boxes and Letter boxes. ghouston (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Animals of the Belgian coast[edit]

This category contains animal imagery from the Belgian part of the North Sea. Some of the files are from "Belgian coastal waters" and others are from the "Belgian continental shelf". This means saying the content of this category is from the "Belgian coast" is inaccurate. The Belgian part is troublesome too, as do territorial waters include the EEZ?

IMO the best thing to do would be to move the content to Category:Animals of the North Sea - the fact the animals were in the North Sea is what matters, not that they were in the Belgian portion of it.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed this cat is wrong. All animals in it were caught (and photographed) by myself at sea. Location is for all BPNS (Belgian part of the North Sea), few of them occur coastal sensu strictu. Using Europe is dodgy too as many of those species do not occur e.g. in the Mediterranean or even Atlantic. The original cats were change over and over again by some uninformed Israeli gang (some have been blocked recently, some pages protected). I'd prefer Animals of Belgium, as that's were they were found (BPNS would do too). Category:Animals of the Belgian coast could stay AFAIMC for strictly coastal and beach finds. The fact that they were in the Belgian part of the North Sea is important IMO as it generates a per country species list. Lycaon (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question I find it odd that you are now moving images that were in this category into Category:Animals of Belgium. Surely as sea creatures they cannot be correctly described as being "Belgium"?.
I understand your comment that they were in the Belgian part of the North Sea (tho it makes it very strange that you are now relocating them in other categories) but a higher level cat as proposed by Nilfanion seems quite sensible. --Herby talk thyme 15:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not relocating, I'm putting them where they always were before the Israeli(s) passed by :-((. Lycaon (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Reviewing - I see edit warring on a number of images on this topic. Sad when folk don't just communicate about stuff. However this is a wiki. Maybe "Why are they not Animals of the Belgian coast?" is the question to ask? --Herby talk thyme 16:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Because, as Lycaon states above, these animals were neither stricly coastal or beach finds. Please note that Lycaon offers Category:Animals of the Belgian part of the North Sea as alternative. So far this category does not exist and the most fitting existing category seemed to be Category:Animals of Belgium. I am no biologist but some of my friends are and locations of finds are quite important for them. And I guess that a category spanning the entire North Sea would be too wide. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
A quick comment for now as I am going out but will return to this. We need to be rather careful with language here. In English the phrase Lycaon offers has connotations of control/ownership. Indeed his behaviour also indicates that. What matters here is to ensure that images can be found be people as easily as possible (within the limitations of Commons systems). As a non marine biologist I would not think of looking for images of marine life in a category that implied land living organisms. --Herby talk thyme 07:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hm... Category:Animals of the Belgian part of the North Sea could be a member of Category:Animals of the North Sea and of Category:Animals of Belgium. Thereby you would find them through both paths. I am not sure which is the best approach in the general case, how seas and oceans are divided best and how far such divisions should be maintained in the category system. But at least the suggested name Belgian part of the North Sea seems to be a well-defined geographical region. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The North Sea part is definitely unambiguous and should be added, whether that's by use of the BPNS or more directly: The fauna of the N Sea may differ between the northern and southern limits but its much more relevant than the EEZs biologically.
I understand the rationale here for wanting these pictures in a (sub)category for by country listing, but my concern is that is it really accurate to say that almost halfway between Ostend and Harwich is part of Belgium? The EEZ of a nation is distinct from the territory of the nation. For example, I wouldn't put File:Silverpit northwest perspective.jpg in (a subcategory of) Category:United Kingdom, but its in the British part of the North Sea...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Animals of the North Sea has less than a dozen files, so why do we need a Belgian category in the first place? If there's no acceptable definition of North Sea animals in the general vicinity of Belgium, I suggest just moving all the images to the main category. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that should be the overarching cat but the North Sea covers quite a spread of climate from south to north and might well need some splitting. I looked at Category:Marine life as I feel it should have that as a high level cat somehow. That is somewhere I would start looking maybe. --Herby talk thyme 14:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Category:Animals of the Belgian part of the North Sea (BPNS) has now been created, so Category:Animals of the Belgian coast should be deleted after all content moved into the new cat. However, I'm not really happy with the BPNS category either for two reasons:

  1. The BPNS is part of the North Sea, it is not part of Belgium. The coast of Belgium is part of Belgium, and arguably out to the 12 mile limit is too, but I would not call the EEZ of a nation part of its territory, so saying an animal from the EEZ is from the nation is wrong.
  2. And in any case, as marine animals, why should these animals be included in by country listings at all? If you combine those two statements, you have marine animals which possibly shouldn't be in country categories, in a category for a nation that they were never were located in in the first place...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Exclusive economic zones of the North Sea

The North Sea is divided into exclusive economic zones according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on the Continental Shelf and additional agreements. No part of the North Sea belongs to international waters and thereby every point of the North Sea can be associated with a sovereign state. These territorial waters are also used for the Marine Spatial Planning Initiative by UNESCO which assigns planning responsibilities according these divisions (see here for Belgium). To perform this planning, marine research is important. To quote from the referenced MSPI page for Belgium:

The main drivers for spatial planning in Belgium came from the demand for offshore wind energy and international requirements for the protection and conservation of ecologically and biologically valuable areas.
Marine spatial planning in Belgium aims at achieving both economic and ecological objectives, including the development of offshore wind farms, the delimitation of marine protected areas, a policy plan for sustainable sand and gravel extraction, the mapping of marine habitats, protection of wrecks valuable for biodiversity, and the management of land-based activities affecting the marine environment. Together, these objectives provided the basis for a Master Plan.

Given all this, it still seems appropriate for me to have a category system for the North Sea (among possible others) that follows these exclusive economic zones and where individual categories are sorted below the North Sea and below appropriate by-country subcategories. All this would follow international law and would also make sense to marine biologists (otherwise it wouldn't have been suggested by Lycaon). --AFBorchert (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is the EEZ is not territorial waters, that's only the bit out to the 12 mile limit. It is not the sovereign territory of that nation, there is merely jurisdictional control, the name EEZ reflects this (exclusive economic rights). Points within the EEZ can be associated with the nation, but are not part of that nation. The sub-categorisation, and the justification for it (the by-country listing), implies that the EEZ contained within Belgium, which it isn't. And you haven't addressed the other point which is why should marine animals be associated with a specific nation anyway?
I am somewhat concerned about the broader picture here - not a problem in an area with settled jurisdictions: An extreme example would be Russia and the North Pole, but more seriously there a lot more disputes in EEZs than in territory generally.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Already deleted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Countries by category[edit]

pointless category: purpose of this category is unclear and it is not embedded in Commons' category structure. The category was created on 30 January 2009 by AgainErick. Since then no further edits were made. --High Contrast (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not a bad idea. The problem is that nobody followed the creator footprints. But, regularly filled, it could be a very useful tool for surfing on Commons.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a certain intersection with Category:Categories by country and Category:Categories by country subdivision respectively. --High Contrast (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess that the basic idea is to have a flat list of all "by country categories" used in a specific country. This is very useful as people are creating "by country" categories all the time, many of them being unlinked to the country and unknown most of the time. You might have other suggestions for that problem ? --Foroa (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete : Categories of countries which contain categories should not have "Categories of" in their names. Is is obvious and redondant in Commons, bcause they always contains other categories. See Category:Categories of Belgium; this name should be Category:Belgium. It's just a {{Metacat}}. Regards, Jack ma (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all the 900 categories in Category:Categories of Belgium should be added to Category:Belgium directly. Precisely because Category:Categories of Belgium is a metacategory, these shouldn't be in there. Personally, I would probably have chosen other names both for Category:Countries by category and its subcategories.  Docu  at 07:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose moving this thing to e.g. category:Belgium. This category:categories of Belgium seems some sort of meta-category. It should either 1/ stay as it is or 2/ be removed. But it should NOT be moved into category:Belgium. The latter is the root of a clean hierarchical category tree. All categories in the category:categories of Belgium meta-category should be somewhere under category:Belgium, probably many levels deep, but that's how things always are on commons. They should NOT just be dumped in category:Belgium, as that would make category:Belgium a complete mess. I'm not sure what the point is of this metacategory, I think a discussion can be found elsewhere (?), it can either stay or be removed, but certainly should not be merged into the existing category trees ! --LimoWreck (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Many categories are meta-categories (i.e. they only contain categories); they don't need "Categories of" in their names. Typically, "Buildings in xxx" category is directly under each country. All countries are (or should be) metacategories. Also, the fact that there are 900 subcategories in it means that there is something wrong. Maybe this category should only contain "... by ... in Belgium" categories, which I would understand then. Presently, it is a list of all possible categories under Belgium, not hierarchised, on one level, which is redondant and difficult to maintain. I now understand that all 900 subcategories exist somewhere under Category:Belgium, so "move to" Belgium is not correct, because they exist already there; so why not just delete it ? Jack ma (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
For a meta category according to {{metacat}} "Categories by country Belgium" would probably fit best, but it does sound odd.  Docu  at 12:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is actually an interesting structure. It provides a possible solution to a problem we just discussed recently: the difficulty to determine the geographic location of a category and navigate with that. See the location related discussion between Foroa and me at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010Jun#Translation tool. This obviously applies more to locality and building categories, but we could attempt to solve it this way. Personally, I would rather have a software based solution, but it seems unlikely that anything would be implemented soon.  Docu  at 07:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I now understand the utility to have all categories on one level. I also would prefer a software solution... (because this kind of "by category" can fit to any category, which makes, if we apply it everywhere (at each sublevel, of each subcategory), a tremendous number of redondancies and much heaviness... If we decide to keep it, why not change the name into a better one, like Category:Flat lists of categories, and Category:Flat lists of categories in Belgium ? Jack ma (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There IS already a correct way of handling this - by affixing a "by alphabet" to the category. As in Category:Categories by country by alphabet or Category:People by occupation by alphabet. That has the benefit of being the one-level "flat" structure that Foroa is seeking, while also being much easier to understand. So I propose Category:Belgium categories by alphabet or Category:Categories of Belgium by alphabet instead. Ingolfson (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Flat list. Category:Categories of Belgium confuses many readers and editors. Putting "flat list" in the titles of such categories might clarify things:

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, with the generic category Category:Flat lists. Though its use should be very restrictive, and an extensive use may create "monsters" and "disasters" Smile. A software solution looks better (see further). Jack ma (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Corrected the searches:
intitle:"Categories of"
intitle:"Categories in"
--Timeshifter (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What about Category:Categories related to Belgium --WlaKom (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of categories like category:Categories of Belgium[edit]

First, I have to say that I am doing this exercise in Belgium because I happen to be more familiar with its structure, this should however serve a broader purpose.

Several times per week, there is someone creating a new category "xxx in Belgium" in a "by country" category, fills in a couple of sample images and leaves. Most of the time such categories are not connected to anything in the Belgian category structures. Once or twice per year, Multichill runs a bot that improves such connections or flags the missing ones.

A couple of times per month, someone creates a category "xxx in Belgium" without connecting it to the related "xxx by country" categories.

If we search for an item at the country level, we have to wade through all sorts of category trees to check if it could possibly exists. A flat list is much easier to find, especially if you are not sure what would be the keyword.

With the building of Category:Categories of Belgium, I restructured already 150 badly formed/categorised "xxx by country" categories, discovered already 30 or more categories that should be "xxx by country" categories, connected several "xxx in Belgium" categories to their country categories. But there is still many connections to add, which should be helped with such categories.

Obviously, other people have a similar need, as can be seen in Category:Peru in categories and category:Categories of Belgium.

It is clear that in the long run, we need software tools to help ensuring category consistency, but that might take a long time, and in the mean time, we have to carry on.

We should as well find a way to indicate where we are: if you have a name of a building somewhere, you need sometimes 5 or more clicks before you know in what country you are. That needs definitively improvement too, but that is for later. --Foroa (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Were all the categories of "Categories of Belgium" added by a bot? If so, shouldn't this be a hidden category? I don't think we want to encourage people to put anything in this category manually. This sounds like a sorting category strictly for editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Naming of categories like category:Categories of Belgium[edit]

Renaming of categories is relatively easy. I prefered to align myself to existing names and structures in stead of inventing yet another one. I have seen no real argument why category:Categories of Belgium is a bad name as it states perfectly what is inside it. I have seen no better name proposition neither.

All commons categories, except the end nodes, are basically meta cats, so we have to try to use category names that state what is really inside it. --Foroa (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If these categories would all start with the same prefix, it might be possible to move them to a new line in the list of categories, similar to what Magnus did with the "Tag:" categories (moved to the sidebar instead).  Docu  at 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Where are those tags ? I think that a template tag in some critical categories, such a {{At|Belgium}} or {{At|Paris}} might give the possibility to trace back to a higher level cat. Have no time to give it some thoughts now. --Foroa (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a sample at File:Vernomia altissima (Compositae) flower.JPG. See also the mailing list.
To view, you needed to activate "Tag: Magnus's image tagging system (In Testing)" in the "Categories" section of Special:Preferences. It doesn't seem to work with vector skin any more though.  Docu  at 20:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:Belgium (flat list) is a better, clearer name to both native and non-native speakers of English. Combine it with {{flatmetacat}} and {{hiddencat}} and then it is very clear. Only editors see the category since it is hidden. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Massive change in category structure[edit]

This could end up being a disaster. There is inevitable redundancy in categorization. As most people know who have done a lot of categorization. But this creates a huge level of redundancy, and will confuse editors.

We could end up with tens of thousands of "Categories of" metacats. That is true because almost every category name consists of multiple topics. Each topic has its own category tree. Are we going to create flat lists for all topic categories?

The only way I can see for allowing this is as a TEMPORARY HIDDEN category. My understanding is that nearly all the Belgium categories are already in topic trees, and so Category:Categories of Belgium serves what purpose for average readers?

Average readers can use search and the +/- subcategory buttons in Category:Belgium to find stuff.

If some editors find Category:Categories of Belgium helpful as a tool for better categorizing some categories, then it is fine to keep it as a hidden category. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiddencat now, good suggestion. --Foroa (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Flat lists versus topic trees[edit]

I can see why Category:Categories of Belgium and Category:Categories of Italy should be hidden. They are basically meant to be alphabetical flat lists of all (or many) categories with Belgium or Italy in the category name. They are meant to help out registered editors.

So why is there only a basic alternative topic tree inside Category:Categories of Italy? It is not a large flat list of Italy subcategories. So I don't see what purpose Category:Categories of Italy is currently serving. See also: Category talk:Categories of Italy. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. Maybe I wasn't clear here. See the next couple talk sections. I am not trying to eliminate the subcategories of Category:Categories of Italy. In fact, I like the subcategories. I only wanted to change their names, and put them under Category:Italy. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
If people knew what these categories were for, then they wouldn't need to be hidden:
Category:Flat list of Belgium categories
Category:Flat list of Italy categories --Timeshifter (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:Categories of Belgium is no longer flat, it is flat for "items of Belgium", it has an additional level as in categories of Italy for "categories of Belgium by location" and "categories of Belgium by century". Why I removed the incorrect and misleading flat category cat. Categories of Italy is not flat at all. --Foroa (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
So now Category:Categories of Belgium is partially flat. This is the problem. "Categories of" is confusing. It is not defined. Flat-list categories and partially flat categories both go against the rules of Commons:Categories. So they should both be hidden categories until we get some clearer names for the categories, and some new rules added to Commons:Categories. In the meantime please write a clear introduction to Category:Categories of Belgium so people know what it is for. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
{{flatmetacat}} solves the problem. Now people can know what a flat list of categories is for. Another category name possibility: Category:Belgium (flat list). Whether a flat-list category should be hidden {{hiddencat}} or not depends on its title clarity, and usefulness to some average readers. If only editors would appreciate the flat-list category, then it should probably be hidden.
Right now there is total confusion about whether "Categories of" is only for flat-list categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Avert disaster. Special tag is needed for "Categories of ..."[edit]

This is already beginning to become a disaster. See:

See these diffs:

We do not want people creating "Categories of ..." as a normal thing. These "Categories of ..." flat lists should only be used by editors for special purposes. Those purposes need a specialized tag, not {{Metacat}}. The tag should clearly explain that this is a hidden category, and the purpose of it. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The disaster is more the proliferation of all sorts of redundant/parallel categories "by name" and "by alphabet" and even "rivers of xx by river". There is indeed a need for a category management type as can be seen in Category:Categories of Italy; I hope you will not try to destroy that as in China. --Foroa (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:Categories by country by alphabet makes sense, and serves a purpose. Category:Categories of Italy does not serve any purpose as far as I can tell. All the 6 subcategories of Category:Categories of Italy could be subcategories of Category:Italy. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's really confusing that you brought this up here. Provinces of China are not countries. Besides, you undid part of the categorization which may confuse those that try to figure out what type of disaster you tried to avert. Please just finish cleaning it up.  Docu  at 13:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It was brought up here because Category:Countries by category (the initial topic in this deletion discussion) contains some "Categories of" categories. "Categories by" is another confusing variation. I reverted the recent major damage, and decided to discuss the rest here first before doing more. There is so much confusion. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Categories of Italy[edit]

Until recently we did without adding "Categories of" to category names.

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to polute all these categories with CFD's: talk with the single guy that created them: easier than to have to clean up everywhere afterwards. It is clear anyhow that Category:Categories of Italy by century and so on are maintenance categories. --Foroa (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
A move tag is the correct way to request a name change. Please stop the admin abuse, Foroa. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) It is spreading...

--Timeshifter (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is not as bad as I thought. See:
intitle:"Categories of"
intitle:"Categories in"
--Timeshifter (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose to the rename of the Category:Categories of Italy and of all the under categories "by". Excepting the geographic categories "by city, province, region", the other categories "by century, period, subject" are all under-categories of architecture or art categories. So I oppose to rename the Categories in the simple form: these categories are not "Category:Italy"", they are "Categories of the Category Italy". They are useful for management of architectural and art categories of Italy. --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Italy categories in the table mean the same thing with or without "Categories of". I don't understand (other than English fluency) why some editors want "Categories of" added to those Italy categories in the table. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
DenghiùComm, I think that your structure of Category:Categories of Italy is a good idea, I needed something like that and you made a perfect prototype for me. It will help indeed to manage internal "xxx in Italy by xxx" categories, but I tackled first the categories that surround the Belgian ones. It is not the first time that we make a good team.
--Timeshifter I think that you need to reread carefully what we have written so far. You seem to be the only one that has a problem understanding what we mean and what we need. Can we somewere get an English translator for Belgian English ? --Foroa (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank You Foroa. I am against the proposal to rename the categories of Italy in the short form because if somebody tell me "Category:Italy by city" I understand "Cities of Italy"; and so "Italy by region" for me it means "Regions of Italy". I think that it's clear: the category of Italy is e.g. Category:Art in Italy; "Art in Italy by century / city / period / region / subject" are not Category:Italy, but categories of a Category of Italy, that is to say "Art in Italy". So simple! --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not standard English, though. But hey, feel free to use Belgian English or other non-native English. Native English speakers are used to being ignored on the Commons. Many of us have stopped communicating with Foroa, for example, most of the time for this reason. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As a person who categorised uncategorised images of Italy by thousands, I can agree with DenghiùComm. Italy is a very diverse country. Much more than many of you can realise. It was divided into separate states until 1860. This is why the sub-category structures tend to become over-complicate very fast. Not only you have Italian art, you also have art of Lombardy (which is an Italian region), and art schools of Brescia and Bergamo can be different from the schools active in Milan (which are towns of the same Lombardy region). Therefore category get crowdy in a blink, and I understand the need of DenghiùComm for over-categories to further organise this marasma.

If the objection lies in the fact that the solution found is in poor English, then let's just find a linguistic compromise to accomodate everyone, rather than suppress the over-category.

Btw Timeshifter, english is not the language of WikiCommons. It is merely the language we agreed to use to communicate in it. There is no "English WikiCommons". Just Wikicommons. Therefore please do not behave as someone wanted to steal you something, ok? This is no Encyclopaedia Britannica. thx. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

G.dallorto. English is the language of the Commons as concerns category names overall. At least until the MediaWiki software is improved enough to support category names according to some kind of cookie setting for language choice of registered and unregistered users. This is not a nationalistic statement, so please don't take offense.
I don't think you understand my English very well (also, no offense), and I may not have been clear enough, because I have stated that I am not trying to eliminate the categories. I am not trying to suppress the over-categories. I am only suggesting that "Categories of" be removed from these particular category names:
It means the same thing. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
No. Sure not. --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes it does. See subcategories of Category:Maps.
  • Maps by cartographer
  • Maps by century made
  • Maps by continent
  • Maps by country
  • Maps by country subdivision
  • Maps by language
  • Maps by period
  • Maps by region
  • Maps by source
  • Maps by theme
  • Maps by type --Timeshifter (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
No. Sure not. I guess that you are the only one that does not understand the difference between for example Category:Categories of Italy by century (meta categories relating to by century meta categories pertaining to Italy) and Category:Italy by century which just classifies Italy per century. --Foroa (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
See Category:History of France:
Category:History of France by period
Category:History of France by century and so on...
You are trying to create a new set of categories:
Category:Categories of Belgium
Category:Categories of Italy
Most people oppose this, and the parent cat: Category:Countries by category --Timeshifter (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot understand how it is possible that somebody say that Italy is the same of categories of Italy. One thing is to organize Italy in categories, other thing is to organise the categories of Italy by something. Non c'è peggior sordo di chi non vuole udire (italian proverb). --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Concerning "Non c'è peggior sordo di chi non vuole udire" I suggest you learn from your own advice. Google translation: "There is so deaf as those who do not want to hear." --Timeshifter (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain the meaning of "Most people oppose this" ? --Foroa (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see the various replies in the talk section higher up: #Category:Countries by category. Most people oppose this new category system. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Denghiù and Foroa. There's a subtle but important difference between Category:Italy by xxx and Category:Categories of Italy by xxx. In the first one, you refer to the categories directly related to Italy (e.g. Category:Italy by province should include all and only the administrative subdivisions called provinces, Category:Italy by art all the artworks created in Italy, regardless where they actually come from, and so on...), the latter is more suitable to be considered a container of more specific categories (e.g. Category:Art of Sicily or Category:Doges of Venice). Moreover, as Foroa observed, Italy has been divided into several small states until 1861, so most of its history and culture can't be called generically "Italian". It's different from other nations, like England or France, that developed a national culture earlier in their history, as "national states", so not all non-Italian people may understand why we need to define different categories for each subject. Finally, you can't compare Italy with maps, you can't compare a complex historical, cultural and ethnical entity with a simple, plain, common used "object". While saying "Maps of XVIII century" makes sense, because there are a lot of maps created in 1700s, saying "Italy in XVIII century" is too generical, because Italy didn't even exist in that period. But you can say "Republic of Venice in XVIII century" or "Sicily in XIV century", both sentences make sense, and you may join the related categories in Category:Categories of Italy by period or similar for organization's sake. I hope I have explained myself well with my not-so-good English... Best regards. -- Vonvikken (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see these talk sections farther down the page:
#Categories of, and Categories in
#Categories: Categories
--Timeshifter (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

{{category tree all}}[edit]

Variations of {{category tree all}} might be a better solution. Unfortunately, with {{category tree all}} set to specific depth= settings there is no way to start with it closed that I can see.

{{category tree all|Belgium|showcount=off|depth=*}}

Basically Category:Categories of Belgium acts like {{category tree all}} set to open many sublevels at once (the depth= parameter). Category:Categories of Belgium also combines many subcategories into a single alphabetical flat list.

An on/off button for "alphabetical flat list of sublevels" inside {{category tree all}} or {{category tree}} would be nice.

Below are collapsed show/hide tables set to show various numbers of sublevels. See: en:Help:Collapsing.

class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

Category:Belgium does not go to a depth deeper than 2 sublevels of subcategories.

It would be nice if inside {{category tree all}} it were possible to open various numbers of sublevels of subcategories by clicking a button for each depth= setting: depth=1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

The template code followed by the table using it inside the table.

{{category tree all|Belgium|showcount=off|depth=1|header=CUSTOM TEXT}}
{{category tree all|Belgium|showcount=off|depth=2|header=CUSTOM TEXT}}

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support but isn't it limited to 200 ? Test with about 400 municipalities of a French department :
Jack ma (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you catched the "raison d'être" of those categories. For Belgium and Peru, the basic need is to have a selective list, amongst the tens of thousands of categories in Belgium (and more than 2 levels), from all categories that connect to the outside "by country" categories in order to improve their integration and cross connection in Belgian categories. As stated before, nearly every day, someone drops another "xxx in Belgium" category, put a few images in it and disappear. An example was Category:Roman Catholic churches in Belgium which I redirected because 99 % of churches in Belgium are Roman Catholic, but the Category:Roman Catholic churches in France might hang there for months or years till someone connects it with the churches in France (or redirects it). So each time a new by country category is created, I would like to be able to verify if it makes sense and connect it properly to the inside categories.
The need in Italy seems different: they seem to want to make an overview of the categories that are used in Italy by function, by city, by province, ... which is a legitime need as thos things are growing wild.
So category tree is no solution at all (and produces no flatlist neither), you are better off with catscan. --Foroa (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes you are totally right; the aim is to have an alphabetical list (flat list) of all categories under some category (not only a country; it can be any category). Jack ma (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Foroa. Category:Belgium does not contain more than 2 sublevels as far as I can tell. If I am wrong, then please link to subcategories at the 3rd sublevel of Category:Belgium.
It is true that we like big fat and flat systems. You have to try harder: count your steps via people of Belgium, artists to a Baroque painter from Belgium. Or try to get via subdivisions of Belgium to ;Category:Stasegem. --Foroa (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
To display all subcategories, click on the "►".
OK. I see what you mean. It seems that {{category tree all}} has limits on how many subcategories it will show open at once. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
What was used to create Category:Categories of Belgium? You mentioned meta:CatScan. I assume you used some kind of search tool to find any category with "Belgium" in the title. How did you rapidly categorize them in Category:Categories of Belgium? There are around a thousand categories in that flat list.
A lot of preparation, work, concentration and still 100 to 200 to go. Strange that we have around 20 basic categories, only two levels, roughly 5 % (1000 to 1150) of the categories are in "categories of Belgium": there must be something terribly wrong with my mathematics. --Foroa (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, how do you tell which categories listed in Category:Categories of Belgium are not already in the topic tree of Category:Belgium? I assume that was one of your goals. How can other editors tell which ones are not in the topic tree of Category:Belgium? If editors knew this, then editors could then add those categories to the topic tree of Category:Belgium.
"Categories of Belgium" contain the "topics of Belgium" that are connected with the external world, the majority via "topic by country" categories. --Foroa (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
This would make Category:Categories of Belgium a more useful tool, other than just a flat list. A flat list can be justified too, though I think a special banner/tag and a clear name (such as Category:Flat list of Belgium categories) need to be used to avoid the confusion seen here . --Timeshifter (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You might want to read through Commons:Categories. It provides an introduction to categories at Commons.  Docu  at 19:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I have over 13,000 edits on the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
And my father is a boxer, my mother knows karate and can cook by only using a remote control, my sister can have sex over a modem and my dogs reads fingerprints before biting. My main problem is that I am limited to two levels, which makes my life much more simple. --Foroa (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Foroa, you have not answered a single question that I asked in my last long comment in this talk subsection. I have to assume good faith on your part, because you obviously spent some time trying to answer my last long comment, but we are just not communicating. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. I figured out one of your answers to that particular long comment of mine, Foroa. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
At Commons:Categories#Tools, I tried to list various tools available for categories. Most notably CatScan2 which allows to select subcategories of one tree while ignoring those of others.  Docu  at 07:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I strongly prefer the use of a CatScan tool, even if it needs some adaptation to give a strictly alphabetical flat list, rather than manually add the proper category to each of the 900 subcategories under Belgium. Jack ma (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Me too. With the discussion on rivers of France, I requested a simple extension to Catscan, but never got any reaction. In the mean time, some people added rivers to rivers of France, others to rivers of xxx departement, but I have never seen one that added all needed categories. That is another reason why I started this category: to demonstrate a need for tools that allow for category coherency checking. --Foroa (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
That's for sure, but I'm not convinced that simply listing parent categories is sufficient. You'd probably still have to review each category in the result. Unless MediaWiki could derive it from some other element, I think you'd still have to define a type for each category. Doing that is probably equivalent to add another category. Docu  at 07:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
With catscan, you can have a complete list of all "rivers in France" related cats (3 or 4 levels deep), alphabetically sorted (and without doubles). If this list could be presented, as with the images, with the parent cats on one side, the contained subcats on the other side, then you can check manually, indeed, the whole structure but without further clicking. Rivers that are only categorised in one category would be seen immediatly. This feauture will be even harder needed with the exponential growth of metacats. --Foroa (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a long time since development on CatScan has been discontinued. CatScan2 is a new development, but it doesn't list parent categories at all. You can use negative categories in CatScan2 to do similar checks, try, e.g., the maintenance links in Category:Airlines by name.  Docu  at 08:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

{{FlatMetaCat}}[edit]

See {{FlatMetaCat}} and "What links here":

This category gathers all sub-categories related to its parent category in a non-hierarchical list, including those that would normally only be found via intermediate sub-categories.

--Timeshifter (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good name for the banner, but it's just a banner... Jack ma (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Combine the banner with the category name:
Category:Flat list of Belgium categories
Category:Flat list of Italy categories
{{FlatMetaCat}} also adds the {{MetaCat}} warning box. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Other possibilities for category names:
Category:Belgium (flat list) versus Category:Categories of Belgium
Category:Italy (flat list)
This may work easily for many editors since it uses the same category names.
{{hidden cat}} can be put on them too. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Good thing Foroa deleted Category:Belgium (flat list) just after you created it. It would have been a disaster to have both this and Category:Categories of Belgium.
Besides, it gets confusing if we get yet another section with naming suggestions.  Docu  at 13:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Foroa sometimes tends to get stuck on one way of doing things, and then uses his admin powers to get his way. He could have left the category up for a few days. Category:Categories of Belgium and Category:Belgium (flat list) are both hidden categories. So the only people seeing it are editors, and hardly anyone is adding subcategories other than Foroa at the present moment to the flat list. Patience is better than power. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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.

Categories by state of the United States[edit]

I oppose changing "[[Category:Categories by state of the United States]]" to "United States by state" because that would cause confusion with "States of the United States". I think the current name is fitting. It should include the word "categories" to highlight the fact that it's a meta-meta category (that is, a category designed to contain all "by state of the United States" categories). This probably applies to other similarly named categories being discussed here but I didn't look to see if the others made sense or not. Rocket000 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How about Category:United States by state by theme? This has the advantage that themes can have subcategories too. See: Category:Maps by theme and its multi-level subcategories. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, that might work. Rocket000 (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Closed, no consensus, no active discussion for months. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

All[edit]

What about using the word "all" in these so-called flat categories. Such as "Category:All Belgium categories" or "All categories of Belgium"? This is a little clearer than calling a category a "flat list". I actually was thinking about this before when we were discussing "by name/alphabet" categories. The goal of those is to have a flattened category along side the normal tree. It's kinda confusing, so I thought maybe we should have call them (for example) "Category:All categories by country" instead of "Categories by country by alphabet/name". Rocket000 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: Category:Categories by century (ignore how disorganized it is, but it should be a hierarchy) vs Category:All categories by century (not complete yet, but it aims to be a complete flatten list). Rocket000 (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:Categories by century is not a flat list of "by century" categories.
For example; Category:Art by century is a subcategory of Category:Categories by century, and has deeper subcategories with "by century" in the category titles.
I see that there are very few truly flat categories. The flattest categories seem to be maintenance categories such as Category:Categories of Belgium. Those can be hidden. Category:All categories of Belgium might be helpful in this case, along with a clear explanation in the introduction of the category. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Please reread my comment. Category:Categories by century is hierarchical and Category:All categories by century is the flat list. Rocket000 (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean now that you explained "all" to me. But the average reader does not connect "flat list" to "all." --Timeshifter (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

By xxx[edit]

The following "by xxx" category names are confusing to many readers. Some rules, consolidation, and some kind of introductory explanation templates seem necessary. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It gets confusing especially at the top. Rocket000 (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

By category[edit]

Or should this be Category:Categories by country?

Search results for intitle:"by category"

Are the results all flat-list categories? How are these categories different from the category without "by category" in the category name? --Timeshifter (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the flatten list is [[Category:Categories by country by alphabet]]. Rocket000 (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

By alphabet[edit]

Category:Categories by name

Search results for intitle:"by alphabet"

Are the results all flat-list categories? How are these categories different from the category without "by alphabet" in the category name?

By name[edit]

Category:Categories by alphabet

Search results for intitle:"by name"

Are the results all flat-list categories? How are these categories different from the category without "by name" in the category name? --Timeshifter (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"By name" and "by alphabet" are the same (except for a few exceptions). We have both because no one has yet renamed them one way or another. It looks like "by name" is what the majority should be. Anyway, per my "all categories" proposal above, we would eliminate both of these. (The exceptions would be things like Category:Inscriptions by alphabet.) "By name" and "by alphabet" categories are supposed to be flattened categories, but the names aren't clear enough. For example, you get people that do things like this not knowing it's not supposed to be a hierarchical tree. That's another reason why "All categories by xxx" is a better name. Rocket000 (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I have been looking at Category:Categories by name and I don't see how "All categories by xxx" is better in most cases. For example;
Category:Free software by name
versus
Category:All categories in/of Free software
Also, Category:Free software by name is not a total flat list. There are many deeper subcategories in it.
I think one problem with "by name" categories is the lack of an introductory explanation template for "by name" categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Not "All categories in Free software" but "All categories of Free software". It includes all categories with "of Free software" in the title. Can you think of a better name? I said "by name" categories are supposed to be a flat list, not all of them are. This is one of the main reasons for the change, to stop people from subdividing. Rocket000 (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:Free software by name is for a different purpose than Category:All categories of free software or Category:Free software (all). Category:Free software by name is not meant to be totally flat. It is meant to list all the main free software names. Compare to Category:Free software. It sorts into types and genres.
To the average reader Category:Free software means the same thing as Category:All categories of free software or Category:Free software (all). Because any category contains all its subcategories. The word "all" does not normally indicate the type of display (hierarchical or flat or some other way). --Timeshifter (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Like I said "by name" categories are supposed to be flat, but most aren't because people started sub-categorizing, thus the problem. I'm not suggesting we create categories like Category:All categories of free software. Category:Free software is not a "by xxx" category. My "all categories" would only be created for grouping all meta cats that have "by xxx" in their titles. I have no intention of doing this for topics, like free software or Belgium or anything else. Rocket000 (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess "by name" can mean many things to many people. I disagree that "by name" categories are supposed to be totally flat, partially flat, metacat flat, or anything. They can be whatever they are defined to be in their introduction.
Can you give me a specific example of a Free software category name using your method. I am not at all clear what you mean. An example would help. Maybe you already gave an example of such a Free software category with all in the title, and I missed it. Please define exactly what would be in the category, and in what display method. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
"By name" can mean many things to many people. This is why it's not a good system. I can't give you an example using Category:Free software because it isn't a set of meta categories. I wouldn't make any kind of "all categories" category involving free software. I think my example with Category:Categories by century/Category:All categories by century demonstrates what I'm talking about. This new system is not about topical categories (like free software) but about grouping together all "by criterion" categories. I can create another example if you want. Something like "All categories by genre" or "All categories by occupation". Rocket000 (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:Categories by century is fine with me but hardly populated. No idea what Category:All categories by century serves for, in the end it will contain thousands of categories serving no purpose and creating a serious maintenance problems. The list can be easily obtained by Catscan.
Category:Categories by country by alphabet should be Category:Categories by country , the majority of Category:Categories of Belgium is a subset of this, mainly because we have currently no adequate tools to extract that properly. --Foroa (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:All categories by century currently contains all categories with "by century" in the title (so no thousands, but that would be ok too). I did a database scan. Maintenance is done in the same way all other metacat maintenance is done. Categorization is done by {{metacat}} and updating current uses is an easy job for bots so that's not an issue. It's a tracking/maintenance category ("a list for the sake of a list") not one to browse files by. Likewise, I have no idea what Category:Categories by country by alphabet serves but for some reason people want these categories. If things have changed in the last couple months and "by name"/"by alphabet" categories aren't wanted anymore, I'll gladly give up this whole "all categories" thing and help turn them into something more useful. Rocket000 (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that, as with {{By country category}} that puts all root "by country" categories in one single category Category:Categories by country by alphabet, we need similar ones for {{By century category}} that puts all root by century categories in one single category Category:Categories by century. That way we can ensure a coherent system and the proper metacat (and related text display as you started). Simularly probably for the most used forms of "category by xxx". As stated before, I have no idea what Category:All categories by century serves for which should be the second level (say 50 to 100 times bigger) of Category:Categories by century. --Foroa (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Why create templates for every "by xxx" when one template ({{metacat}}) can do it all? {{metacat|century}} is the same as {{By century category}}. Category:All categories by century is the same as Category:Categories by century by name. I'm try to consolidate templates and use (what I hoped to be) a clearer name for the category. Rocket000 (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
A misunderstanding from both sides I guess. {{MetaCat}} connects to a maintenance "categories of ..." category and displays a banner. {{By country category|Parent}} does the same + connects to the parent of the "xxx by country" category. If you want to generalise, then you have to create a template such as {{Category by|Criterion|Parent category}} to avoid confusion with the current templates. The names of the "categories of .." are not really that important as they can be changed by changing the template. --Foroa (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
You know Category:Categories of Belgium isn't really a flat category. You are sub-categorizing, e.g. Category:Categories of Belgium by location and Category:Categories of Belgium by century. I understand what you're doing, but it is different than what I mean when I say "flat". I take that to mean no subcategorizing whatsoever. Category:Categories of Belgium by criterion (a normal hierarchical category) would be the appropriate name for grouping together all Belgium-related categories that are grouped by criteria (like countries or centuries). Rocket000 (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:Categories of Belgium is only flat in the sense that "churches in Belgium", that are a subcat of "buildings of Belgium" appear in the list at the same basic level. Apart from the couple of by criterion categories (that we could throw easily in another cat), the cat contains (a flat list) of "external (world level) interface categories of Belgium", which is completely different from criterion. Anyway, we have several topics and trees inside the Belgium tree that don't appear in that cat. I fail to understand why you want to replace absolutely a general name that is good and clear enough (without interfering with other cat names) by a more specialised name that only adds confusion. --Foroa (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The current naming conventions are broken and inconsistent (some "by name" categories are flat and some aren't). Look at all the trouble/confusion they have caused. People were even trying to subcategorize Category:People by name by surnames... This will keep happening. Categories like Category:Lighthouses by name will continue to be subcategorized by country or something else until they become redundant with the normal category tree. So much for "flat". How can you say this is "good and clear enough"? I decided to take Timeshifter's suggestion of "Categories by xxx (flat list)" (and possibly "Categories of xxx (flat list)" or "xxx categories (flat list)" for topical groupings). Apparently "All categories" isn't as clear as I thought. Rocket000 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem with that: that was precisely the basic reason why I always contested the category name in the "topic by name" or "topic by aphabet" discussions. For the maintenance categories, one should first decide precisely what will go inside before discussing the names. --Foroa (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Another idea for hidden maintenance categories is something like Category:Belgium (maintenance sorting). The category will only be seen by registered users who will immediately see that this is not a regular category. The title alone is clear enough for most people, and a clear introductory explanation of the purpose of the category helps more. My comments at User talk:Foroa#New "all categories" system may help clarify things more. Some possible category names:

Afterword Category:people by name. I am joining in this discussion a bit late, but Jarekt used in juin the Category:People by name to make (a) a search abaut defaultsort lacking (5000 hits); and (b) make a crosslist list of people by name lacking birth year category (1500 hits for the Netherlands, see User:Havang(nl)/list 2‎ in progress). --Havang(nl) (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories of, and Categories in[edit]

I just noticed while looking at the results of these two intitle phrase searches that nearly all of the results would work fine as "by theme" categories:

Even Category:Categories of Belgium could be Category:Belgium by theme unless it were meant to be a flat list.

I think the fewer uses of Category:Categories the better. I think it should only be used at the very top levels:

To display all subcategories, click on the "►".

--Timeshifter (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what we should call these topical ("by theme") categories, but I think I'm gonna go ahead with naming the categories that contain a truly flat list of "by xxx" categories to "Categories by xxx (flat list)". If and when we come up with something for things like Category:Categories of Belgium (which "(flat list)" isn't completely accurate for), I'll add it to {{metacat}} so when can autocategorize them too. Rocket000 (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Category:Categories by country by alphabet could be changed to:
  • Category:Categories by country (flat list).
It is a necessary and useful flat list because {{CatAZ}} in the intro is an easy way (and maybe the only quick way) for the average reader to find a specific "by country" category.
I am not sure something has to be a perfectly flat list. That could be specified in the intro. As in this example:
This category is for category maintenance and contains a flat list of all "xxx in/of/from Belgium" categories and in a second level, all "xxx in/of/from Belgium by location/century/..." categories.
That is from the Category:Belgium flat list. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess if it's specified on the category page then it might be ok. Category:Categories by country by alphabet is exactly what I had in mind, I'm just saving those big ones for later. I see you recently unhid that one. Do you think Category:Categories by century (flat list) should be hidden? Unlike Category:Categories of Belgium which could be used for browsing, this is almost an exclusively a maintenance cat to me. Category:Categories by century should be enough for browsing purposes (of course, it needs someone to work on it). BTW, I just found Category:Ships by name by alphabet (!) Rocket000 (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I am beginning to see the utility of flat list categories to average readers if {{CatAZ}} is in the intro. Also, someone wrote that many "by country" and "by century" categories are created without correctly putting them in the topic trees of Category:Categories by country and Category:Categories by century. So I now think that Category:Categories by century (flat list) and Category:Categories by country by alphabet should not be hidden. We can also add a search link for intitle:"by country", suggesting readers add additional search terms. Also, intitle:"by century".
These flat list categories with hundreds or thousands of categories may also show both editors and readers the need for better, hierarchal categorization. More average readers may become editors when they see the need. What we really need are more Wikipedia editors helping out via integrated, global watchlists. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
All maintenance related cats can be hidden as far as I am concerned. I am under the impression that this has been undersnowed --Foroa (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I did miss the first part of that. Thanks. I'm slowly implementing my vision for {{metacat}}. I'll be working on it more in the next couple days (including a bot script) and it will start becoming clearer how it will all work. In the future it may work like this: populating a new category for flat categories (based on either "by criteria" or topics—multiple topics) will be as easy as creating the page for that category. Depopulating it will happen automatically when it's deleted. I'm not sure if I'll do this for "by criteria" as I would like to control it via template in order to easily combine multiple forms into one category (such as "by year", "by year of foundation", "by year of completion", etc.), maybe this would be better for topics too. Still experimenting. Rocket000 (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Maps by and Italy by[edit]

The initial starting point of this whole thread was this:

One of its subcategories was: Category:Categories of Italy

There is no essential difference between the names of these Italy categories and the map categories that follow them:

Italy:

  • Italy by century
  • Italy by city
  • Italy by period
  • Italy by province
  • Italy by region
  • Italy by subject

Category:Maps

  • Maps by cartographer
  • Maps by century made
  • Maps by continent
  • Maps by country
  • Maps by country subdivision
  • Maps by language
  • Maps by period
  • Maps by region
  • Maps by source
  • Maps by theme
  • Maps by type --Timeshifter (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories: Categories[edit]

To display all subcategories, click on the "►".

I now think there is no need ever to put the word "Categories" twice in a row. Ever, ever, ever. Even at the highest levels.

See:

At the bottom are listed these categories:

"Categories: Categories by continent | Maps | Maps by region | Geography by continent"

It should be

"Categories: By continent | Maps | Maps by region | Geography by continent"

Banning the use of "Categories" being used twice in a row solves so many problems with speakers of 300+ languages on Wikipedia and their interpretations of English. A simple rule against it would avoid all these problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You also have "Maps" twice in a row. "Categories" should be in the title when they are the subject. They are a category of categories, so there's nothing wrong with using the word twice. I think you're thinking about it on the wrong level. We are not talking about the category itself or it's members, we are talking what the members contain (which happens to be categories as well). This is how we name all categories. For example, a category that contains things (media, galleries, subcats) related to Canada, is called Canada, not "Categories of Canada". A (meta)category containing only categories of Canada, is called something like "Canada by xxx" (like Canada by year), not "Categories of Canada by year". However, a (meta-meta)category containing (meta)categories containing things related to Canada, should be have "category" in the title. That is the subject and we always name things after the subject. What would you call Category:Categories if we banned the use of the word? The thing that might be confusing you, ironically, is the fact that we leave out the actual literal subject in category names (with the exception of maintenance categories and special cases where it's unavoidable like Photographs of Canada). Otherwise, instead of Canada, it would be "Content related to Canada". It's the old ceci n'est pas une pipe argument. I think you think we are calling the painting of a pipe a painting instead of a pipe, but in fact, we are calling a painting of a painting of a pipe "a painting of a pipe" (or, in this case, a "categories of a subject"). Just like with every other name, we drop the first level of description. In the same way that "Content related to Canada" becomes simply "Canada", "Categories of categories by continent" becomes simply Categories by continent. I hope this makes sense. (I tried not to get to meta/literal/self-referential, like saying the contents of Photographs of Canada aren't really photographs but files digitally representing a photograph, or bringing up the hypothetical dilemma of naming a category containing categories containing categories about the subject of categories.) Rocket000 (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
In the end all category naming relies on shortcuts. We could go into Buddhism and start describing neural pathways, objects, reality, perceptions of reality, how much acid and pot you and I have done. That might be interesting actually. :)
But back to the boring job of categorizing. I first agreed with you, but now I believe that the Commons should use the simplest methods or we will have perpetual problems due to the worldwide user base.
There are many categories that are meta-categories of meta-categories of meta-categories of meta-categories. Almost all categories can contain categories. Almost anything can be subdivided further. That means this bad habit of using "Categories:Categories" could keep going deeper and deeper down the category tree. Really bad idea.
If we could keep "Categories:Categories" only at the top few levels then it is less of a problem. But Foroa, DenghiùComm and other non-native English speakers may continue generalizing (with some justification) about English usage. But English usage can not be generalized. It is not always a logical language. Frequently so.
English Wikipedia limits usage of Categories:Categories to some top levels. The very top level is
I agree it should only be used at the top levels. Rocket000 (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Categories by .... is very usefull as intermediate category in maintainance. I 'll give an exemple. Category:Cantons of France. If I use hotcat, I see no Category:Cantons of France by department and I put the canton to classify in Category:Cantons of France, level too high. If there is a Category:Cantons of France by department I continue searching the department category, exemple Category:Cantons of Pyrénées-Atlantiques and so the item goes straight in the right category. AND inversely: If I have to complete the series of categories by department, I just go to Category:Categories of France by department. Don't suppress handsome maintainance categories. There is a real and usefull distinction between Category:France by department and Category:Categories of France by department. There is a good argument to use in wikipedias the Category:category... type only in top level cats; but there is level difference between wikipedia and commons: wikipedia articles level with commons categories; so in commons, category;categories,... are usefull also at subtop or intermediate levels. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see: en:Category:Geography of France and how it is done there. See also:
More countries:
WE have those categories also at commons; but if I should ''only follow that wikipedia category tree, it should be chaos at commons. Are you customed to categorising at commons? Then I could invite you to do some work at Category:Media needing categories. You soon will find out how usefull composite cats are which pop up at hotcat or at uploading. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I have around 14,000 edits on the Commons, and much experience categorizing geographic and map categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
A very nice contribution Smile. You then appreciate problably the template {{Departments of France}} as much as I do in those categories-containing-only-categories. Combined with the pop-ups I mentioned, it's an easy-working system for finding and creating categories and for seeing ill-categorised items. I like that intermediate category-level Category:Categories of France by department. However, one could restrict them to be only intermediate (meta-)categories within the (in this case) France cattree; and those categories need not get into a Category:category..-tree on its own. I really hope that the intermediate Category:categories... will be kept as maintainance cats; but I don't oppose if one breaks down the cattree Category:categories.... --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
One of these might work: Category:France by department by theme
Category:Department of France by theme --Timeshifter (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, it is clear that the majority here understand the usefulness of such "categories in ..." and the fact that they correspond to a need, so I think that we can conclude on that. --Foroa (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Most native English speakers oppose it. The only exceptions should be at the highest categories. "I agree it should only be used at the top levels." (Rocket000 comment). See #Category:Countries by category for more opposition to that category and its subcategories such as
Categories of Belgium
Categories of Italy --Timeshifter (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm noticing that Category:Categories of the United States by state is up for deletion based on this(?) policy in favour of renaming to Category:United States by state. That policy seems like a nomination of removing the noun from the statement. Categories by State I think would be more descriptive of what you'll find within. CaribDigita (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what it should be named. Foroa recently changed the name again. I think there should be discussion first before adding more variations of "Categories of/in/by" names.
This might work: Category:States of the United States by theme --Timeshifter (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Categories of Belgium by location[edit]

Why isn't this Category:Belgium by location instead of Category:Categories of Belgium by location?

This makes no sense. It is a recently created category. "Categories of" provides no info.

It is a subcategory of Category:Categories of Belgium which also does not make sense except as a flat list. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly for the same reason as in #Category:Categories_of_Italy where you are the only opposer. Please stop spreading the same discussion over all sections. --Foroa (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You previously discussed Category:Categories of Belgium (a category you created) since it is a subcategory of the main topic of this deletion request: Category:Countries by category.
You also created Category:Categories of Belgium by location. This must stop. You can't create a new intermediate category naming method without agreement from most of the admins.
Most people disagree with you. See the comments of many people who disagree with you: #Category:Countries by category. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

I propose that no more intermediate categories that start with "Categories of/in/by" be created until there is some discussion and agreement by more people, especially more admins.

Most of these intermediate categories can be more clearly named.

Upper-level categories can continue to use "Categories of/in/by". See:

Rocket000 has been converting some of these upper-level categories to better names. Search for "flat list" in category titles. For example:

People will ignore poorly named categories. So I don't intend to spend much more time discussing this. Longer discussion by others will come to various solutions over time. Most of the intermediate categories could be named with "by theme" or "by topic" or "by subject".

Here are some examples:

The above examples are better names than the existing names that start with "Categories of" or "Categories by". See:

There are other descriptive, helpful category names that are useful and clear for intermediate category names. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as there is Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion for maintainance, I want Category:Categories of France by department for maintainance. In addition I search for categories here and these pop up as categories, whereas Category:Regions of ... pops up as regions. For me these practical arguments have great weight. And what is important too, the meta-categories Category:category... have easy-cleaning properties: I hardy see uinappropriate items going in there. I love those, but not all of them, some seen inappropriate to me. If we focus the discussion on which Category:Categories...' are appropriate and which not? --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
So, you want something like the 8 or so special maintenance categories in Category:Categories of Italy for France, right ? --Foroa (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Havang(nl). For readers:
Category:Departments of France by theme
For editor maintenance:
Category:Departments of France (flat list)
or
Category:Departments of France by theme (flat list)
--Timeshifter (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. "by theme" or "by topic" or "by subject" are better name for categories. Geagea (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent). The basic naming convention of Commons (and the strenght of it) is that a category is named Topic [in/of/from Qualifier] [[by Qualifier]. Since the discussed maintenance categories all concern categories, all category names have to start with "categories in/of ...". It makes no sense to discuss about names that do not comply with that basic rule. In the en:wikipedia, we see a significant number of such categories, even if they have only half of the number of categories we have at Commons. --Foroa (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

See: Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION.
Topic:
Category:Departments of France
Qualifier:
by theme
"Category:Categories" is neither a topic, nor a qualifier. It provides no info. Almost all categories have subcategories. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Each one has its preferences; let's use redirects without renamings. Bots will do the rest. Havang(nl) (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
PS. Category:categories... has an exemple in Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION -->see examples in Category:Categories by year. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
200 categories without topic. Lets be serious. --Foroa (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
As others have said, Category:categories should only be used in top categories. Even there it is not necessary. Category:By year or Category:By year (flat list) have similar meanings, and are more clear than, Category:categories by year. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (for France), unless there is Category:Departments of France by theme instead of the existing Category:Categories of France by department for homogeneity reason. These two categories are employed everywhere in France (e.g. Category:Naves in France by region and Category:Naves in France by department), and one of those two categories should not be proposed to be renamed without the other one. Jack ma (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Categories of France by department Should contain 7000+ items. Might be a good idea to autogenerate it in the template {{Departments of France}}. --Foroa (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
And 1600 missing here.
I agree for your proposal; it's just a line Category to add to this model. Same for {{Regions of France}}. But it's just a detail in our subject, and may clash with already 7000 existing ones where this line has been added manually and should then be deleted, won't it ? Jack ma (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
This double category declaration would not harm and could be removed by bots. Most important is that such categories are consistent. --Foroa (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What's actually being used[edit]

I don't like reading the name "Categories" twice at the bottom of a file or category. It tells me nothing. "By theme" is standard, is clearer, and tells me something. As is "By subject", and "By topic".

What is being used in category names:

By theme
By subject
By topic
See: Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION.
See: Commons:List of meta category criteria - "theme" is listed.

I hope most people do not use "categories" in titles any more. It is not even necessary at the highest levels. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


I'm not sure what's going on here, there seem to be a lot of separate discussions mixed up under "Countries by category". However since that category has been deleted, and the rest is a mess, I assume this discussion can be closed. ghouston (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)