Category talk:Boston

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

Page move[edit]

 Oppose move. Boston, MA is clearly the most important use of the term - if moved we should still redirect this page here. We should not disambiguate every topic. Really this is a discussion for elsewhere though (I'd hate to have a Commons version of en.wp's primary topic).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support There is no priority rule (and even less a primary topic) in Commons and categorisation should be no lottery where the images get the best chances of getting the right category. What's a priority on en:wikipedia might be completely different on the 270 other wikipedias. --Foroa (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep priorities on en.wiki may be different to elsewhere. However, disambiguation for the sake of it is not productive - why disambiguate this page? See Commons:Village pump#Disambiguation of categories.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
99,9 % of the US cities are in the format "city, state". We need a system, not a lottery. --Foroa (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is not a reason to disambiguate by itself. Seriously - Why is system that incorporates the concept of a "primary topic" a lottery? If something is the most important topic of that name, it is the most important topic of that name and we should acknowledge that. The fact that 95% of Wikipedia's have Boston, MA at Boston is clue there. Yes, that leads to discussion but discussion is not bad.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. M2545 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support support move --NeverDoING (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this page should be moved. Boston's primacy is closer to that of, say, Paris than on the level of previous moves Foroa has made, such as Minneapolis. So are we moving to "Paris, France" next? I'm not that sure it shouldn't be moved; at any rate, we should have a central discussion on this topic first in my opinion. —innotata 19:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a weak oppose to the move. The Boston in Massachussets seems to have the primacy that makes such a move less required. Generally, I agree with Foroa's lean towards a more formalised, less by individual judgement, system for disambiguation, put as Innotata has highlighted with Paris, there's exceptions. Ingolfson (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral with a slight preference for "Category:Boston, Massachusetts" for consistency, as Foroa has suggested. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - While Commons might not have an explicit priority/primary use policy, it certainly has an commonly relied-upon unwritten priority/primary use convention for categories. Why this category move, and not a proposal to move Category:London? While I understand the concerns that Foroa has, this sort of move should be undertaken as a result of a comprehensive policy implementation, not haphazardly. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far, mainly very ancient cities and historical (country) capitals break haphazardly the rule: they do have a priority. In the first place, in the USA where more than 99 % of the cities are named "city, state", this exceptions should disappear, in the (very) long run for Rome (Roma), Cologne (Köln), ... too. --Foroa (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's far more than that - everything from Category:Calgary to Category:Olsztyn. I'm not sure why we would have special rules for the USA. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The USA does use "city, state" a lot more than other countries - that's true. The reason is because en.wiki's naming convention encourages articles at those locations (the places are commonly referred to as "city, state", and categories tend to get named according to the article's name. There are exceptions to the rule: Boston, Atlanta, New York, Chicago are all "city" not "city, state".
In the long term: London should stay at London, Rome at Rome, Tokyo at Tokyo, Jakarta at Jakarta - but all these are ambiguous w:London (disambiguation), w:Rome (disambiguation), w:Tokyo (disambiguation) and w:Jakarta (disambiguation). If anything Commons has gone too far in the wrong direction on this.
Priority comes from if one topic is much more likely to be searched for by users (not uploaders) than all other terms of that name. National capitals don't get priority because of their status, but because they are the most important concept of their names.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your personal priorities. We need a category system that works over the whole world, independently where people are coming from. Stop using your western world priorities and things like priorities, most likely, lottery, chances, most important ... --Foroa (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the category system needs work. However disambiguation of everything is an extremely unhelpful approach for our users (primarily meaning "readers", though not excluding "uploaders"). This specific case is about something in the US, so the Western-world view is relevant. Boston, Massachusetts is the clear primary topic for "Boston" in the English-speaking West.
I also agree we have different priorities to en.wiki: en.wp only cares about English-language speakers, we care about everyone. If different cultures have different primary topics for a concept we should acknowledge that, and not give primacy to the English West. In this case, the only topic at w:Boston (disambiguation) which may be primary in any culture is Boston, Massachusetts. The concept of priorities can, and should, be part of the system - its very different from a lottery.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, as I would with London, Paris, etc. Oppose. This is by far the best-known Boston and matches the en-wiki and that of virtually every other major wikipedia. (The ratio appears at a glance to be about 5 to 1, and the most prominent language I found among exceptions that use Latin script was Tagalog, though I could have missed something.) Indeed, it is even clearer than London or Paris. There is no other Boston that is as famous a place as London, Ontario or even Paris, Texas (in that the latter became the title of a movie). - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Just to be clear, my "oppose" vote above should not be taken to mean that I am dismissive of the concerns raised by Foroa, or that I believe that no such category moves should occur until there is consensus that Category:London be moved to Category:London, England (which is unlikely to ever happen). However, I do think it would be helpful if there was some agreed-upon guideline containing criteria as to which city categories get disambiguated and which do not. The latter group would presumably be a relatively small one. I think that approach would be a better one, as these types of discussions otherwise typically descend into debates over whether Commons has or does not have a priority/primary use rule, and whether or not the subject is or is not the primary use. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the latter group - of undisambiguated titles - will be necessarily be small, but will be a significant portion of the whole. The reason for that is not the primary topic issue (whether it exists and how we should implement), but a more fundamental point - we should only disambiguate when its actually required. If the term is used for one concept - don't disambiguate. In this context, you can get from Altarnun - Zennor just by looking at places in a small part of one country.
  • Central discussion is needed on when to disambiguate. We have certainly have the concept on a primary topic Commons: For example - Physics, Chemistry and Biology are all ambiguous terms, the justification for those categories being about the sciences is the primary topic principle. How it should be implemented, in general, and specifically with respect to cities are both points that ought to be addressed. We should not follow en.wiki's (or fr.wiki or de.wiki) practice exactly, but give us starting points. I believe our bar for "This is the primary topic" should be higher than Wikipedia, due to multi-lingual and multi-cultural concerns, but cities like Boston and London exceed that bar IMO. I'd suggest Commons talk:Naming categories is an appropriate place for such a discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A primary topic is and remains a lottery as it requires the user to know, besides its own topic, the country/region/culture specific relations amongst all the other alternatives. A real categorisation system is standalone and requires no knowledge of all potential related items. --Foroa (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A primary topic, if it exists, is not a lottery: The primary topic is overwhelmingly more significant than all the alternatives, in any culture of relevance to the project. For example the science is the primary topic for the term "Chemistry". The album by Girls Aloud is clearly not primary. Our categorisation system does already, and should, include the concept - each of the Wikipedia's includes it as part of their naming conventions for the same reason. On en.wikipedia its English speakers who are important, on de.wikipedia its Germans, etc. Our scope is multilingual, so it may be harder to evaluate but its not impossible. In the case, when all the significant topics of a name are of direct relevance to one language group only (Boston is an example of this) its easier to evaluate.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Move proposal discussion; no consensus to move; no active discussion in months. -- Infrogmation (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical photographs of public schools in Boston[edit]

I just finished upload of ~350 historical images of schools in Boston, provided by user:Dominic as a part of cooperation with City of Boston Archives. Any help with categorizing those (and subcategories of Category:Public schools in Boston by name) would be greatly appreciated. --Jarekt (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great set of pix! Folks working on them should be aware of Boston chronology categories -- We have categories for Boston by decade (eg "Category:Boston in the 1920s", as well as categories for many years (eg "Category:1939 in Boston"); adding these time cats as well as location cats is encouraged when there is enough info to do so, thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specific versus general categories[edit]

I notice as many categories are gathered up front as there are ones under alphabetic letters. I can see no reason for that. No scheme is apparent to me in the categories. The upfront categories are alphabetized just as much as the rear end ones. Why not utilize the Commons introductory letters? Unless someone has a scheme or preference to present I am going to start changing the cats to lettered ones.Botteville (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support --Jarekt (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language information[edit]

Foreign languages may be used to allow non-English speaking audiences to enjoy content related to Boston. From my understanding Spanish is the most common foreign language in the city. In addition, Boston Public Schools previously had websites in the following languages other than English and Spanish: Mandarin Chinese, Portuguese, Somali, Vietnamese, Mandarin Chinese, and Cape Verdean Creole. Descriptions to galleries and files may also be added in those languages WhisperToMe (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name (again)[edit]

This category has been suggested for disambiguation, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:Cleveland, Ohio. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Boston&oldid=229479906"