Category talk:Birds of California in flight
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same deal as [1] Boylarva99 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep This is a valid intersection of Category:Birds of California and Category:Birds in flight with sufficient content to justify. Upmerging into parents would worsen the management issue, not improve it. Josh (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment This discussion should probably be merged with Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/04/Category:Birds of California in water. Josh (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
@Boylarva99: Closed (subsume into Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/04/Category:Birds of California in water) Josh (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I think this category should be deleted. It feels less useful than categorizing the files by taxon. I get wanting to see birds of California, or birds in water, but who is looking up birds of California in water? It's a category that has ballooned in size, since it covers a very large possible range of files, and trying to break it up into smaller chunks would be a lot of extra work. Boylarva99 (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep
Delete I only found this category by accident. Should there also be Category:Birds of California in air, Category:Birds of California on land, Category:Birds of California in air, Category:Birds of California in trees, etc.? Krok6kola (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Krok6kola: If they meet the same criteria that I outlined above, then I do not see why they should not exist, but what do they have to do with the price of tea in China, anyway? Josh (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see that the two are a relevant intersection. We have Category:People of Europe and Category:People in water but I don't think that justifies Category:People of Europe in water. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: That is a fair enough point. I guess what I'm getting at is that the justification seems to rely too much on personal opinion regarding the utility of any particular intersection. Those are valid opinions, but perhaps we would be better served by developing a more objective baseline for what justifies an intersection category. That's probably beyond the scope of this CfD but I do see the theme recurring in a lot of discussions. As for this one, there are a few specific tangible reasons I oppose deletion. First, as stated by @Boylarva99: , the category has a large number of files, which is an indication that at least someone finds there is some utility in this categorization. The OP also states that sub-categorizing it would take a lot of work. This work is not obligatory--it can be done by those who wish to in time--but deleting the category and upmerging into Category:Birds of California and Category:Birds in water would just move the bulk up into two categories and could potentially create a large number of overcat situations that would need to be fixed immediately, thus making the very work the OP is concerned about much more urgent and potentially doubling the volume of such work. The OP states they feel categorization by taxon would be more useful. I think that makes sense, but categorization is not exclusive to one or the other--we can categorize by both. Meanwhile, keeping the category does not appear to create any urgent problems. If it is not useful to a given user, there is no obligation on them to use it. For those reasons, deletion is more problematic than retention. Josh (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Your points are valid, and I think we should be more careful about deleting the hard work of others. On the other hand, this category was created in 2014 and it hasn't been replicated enough to justify Category:Birds in water by country let alone Category:Birds of the United States in water by state. I didn't look at every file, but of three random ones I clicked on, all were added to this category in 2014 by the category creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I don't disagree with that analysis. While I would not personally seek deletion of this one, I am okay if the rest of the team thinks it is warranted and not run afoul of the hazards I mentioned. I would like to see some better guidelines for these sorts of categories, but that is a discussion for a different place. I've changed my comment above to only a weak keep, so it shouldn't stand in the way of a consensus. Josh (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Your points are valid, and I think we should be more careful about deleting the hard work of others. On the other hand, this category was created in 2014 and it hasn't been replicated enough to justify Category:Birds in water by country let alone Category:Birds of the United States in water by state. I didn't look at every file, but of three random ones I clicked on, all were added to this category in 2014 by the category creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: That is a fair enough point. I guess what I'm getting at is that the justification seems to rely too much on personal opinion regarding the utility of any particular intersection. Those are valid opinions, but perhaps we would be better served by developing a more objective baseline for what justifies an intersection category. That's probably beyond the scope of this CfD but I do see the theme recurring in a lot of discussions. As for this one, there are a few specific tangible reasons I oppose deletion. First, as stated by @Boylarva99: , the category has a large number of files, which is an indication that at least someone finds there is some utility in this categorization. The OP also states that sub-categorizing it would take a lot of work. This work is not obligatory--it can be done by those who wish to in time--but deleting the category and upmerging into Category:Birds of California and Category:Birds in water would just move the bulk up into two categories and could potentially create a large number of overcat situations that would need to be fixed immediately, thus making the very work the OP is concerned about much more urgent and potentially doubling the volume of such work. The OP states they feel categorization by taxon would be more useful. I think that makes sense, but categorization is not exclusive to one or the other--we can categorize by both. Meanwhile, keeping the category does not appear to create any urgent problems. If it is not useful to a given user, there is no obligation on them to use it. For those reasons, deletion is more problematic than retention. Josh (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/04/Category:Birds of California in flight has been subsumed into this discussion. Josh (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)