Commons talk:Categories

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Categories.

Otto van Veen.[edit]

Why does it state on your web site that Otto van Veen died in Brussels, Belgium, while Belgium did not even exist back than? Brussels was (and is) in the Province of Vlaams Brabant, which was than part of the 17 Provincien der Republiek der Nederlanden. Belgium is not even 200 yrs old today? I'm wondering if you care to correct this mis info?


H. van Veen —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:8108:1700:16BC:FA1E:DFFF:FED8:F2F2 (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I suppose you refered to the infobox on Category:Otto van Veen. Because {{Wikidata infobox}} is generated from wikidata statements, please feel free to modify Otto van Veen (Q785355) on wikidata.--Roy17 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Categories for one file?[edit]

I dont know if this has been discussed before. Is it a good practice to create categories, even if it only has one file? This usually happens to people from the 19th century and early 20th century, or sometimes vanished buildings/places too. Only one photo has been found. I find it better to create such categories because 1. the cat can be linked to wikidata but the standalone photo cannot; 2. {{Wikidata infobox}} provides some automatic categorisation; 3. The parent cats look neater with a list of subcats rather than a gallery of images, which is sorted according to random filenames.

If there is concensus to encourage one-file categories for people and locations, maybe it could be added to the policy as a suggestive guideline.--Roy17 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the structure of the category in question. If it is routine for a topic to be categorized into some kind of grouping scheme, for example Category:Aircraft by registration, and therefore the expectation is that each registration will have its own category, it is okay to have single-item categories, as that facilitates users finding it easily and is consistent with the rest of that scheme. On the other hand, where that is not the expectation and the parent single-item category is really just a more generically-named duplicate of the child (particularly where this child is also a category) ten it is not really useful to have it and an upmerge is warranted. It would be good to come up with some way to add something like this to the guidelines. Josh (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)