Category talk:Energy supply

Can Category:Energy be again the parent instead of Category:Energy (resource)?

@Josh, Can Category:Energy be again the parent category of this category, instead of Category:Energy (resource)? If I did not know that its subcategories where moved there, I think I would have a lot of trouble to find for instance subcategories of Category:Energy infrastructure‎ and Energy companies‎. And if I would have those troubles, random visitors even will have more troubles. Reasons/the history is:

1. Probably like you a week ago, in December 2022 I found Category:Energy too large and not having enough structure. So first of all I sorted together the categories involving energy processes, from source to waste, under #, in the right order (from source to waste). I made new subcategories to have all energy sources and types of remains/waste together. The current subcategories of Energy supply were part of them, and also Energy use‎ and Energy waste (renamed by you).‎ By then these categories were still visible for everybody visiting the main category.
2. Then I saw Category:Electricity supply, started a discussion and finally I concluded that there should be a Category:Energy supply as well. So now most of the categories sorted by #, disappeared from the main page to a subcategory. But still they were all sorted under # in the main category.
3. But a week ago, you made a new category Category:Energy (resource), and the three subcategories under # moved to this new category. There they were not put together, but scattered. And since then I have genuine doubts about the findability of these sub-sub categories by random visitors.

So to make these important categories better findable again, I would like to have these three categories directly on Category:Energy, as before. JopkeB (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@JopkeB: thanks for bringing this up. It seems there are two scope levels here:

1. Energy, the fundamental ability of a system to do work. This would be all energy in the universe.
2. Energy, the useful power made available for human endeavor. This is the energy humans have harnessed for their purposes--essentially energy as an economic resource.

These both were mashed together in Energy, so I figured Energy could remain for all energy in the universe, with energy as an economic resource warranting its own home under that, thus I created Energy (resource). The name can be changed to something better. It is a subset of all of the energy in the universe, thus I made it a subcat of Category:Energy.

If we talk about a specific cat, say Energy supply for example, it could theoretically apply to energy at large, but in fact it is specific to human harnessed energy, and thus I placed it under Category:Energy (resource).

The same is true for Energy use and Energy waste: they apply specifically to energy as an economic resource, not energy at the fundamental level.

I do not know what the average random browser at this level would be seeking (probably unknowable), but it would seem logical that at least a good portion would be looking for energy as a resource, not energy as one of the fundamentals of the universe, and thus a hat note at Energy pointing out that energy as an economic resource has its own main category at Energy (resource) is probably a good idea.

I do think that Energy still has a lot of stuff that really should be under Energy (resource), but I don't think re-lumping everything back up to Energy solves the problem. Josh (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your scientific, perhaps even philosophical thoughts. Yes, this is undoubted how the energy world looks like.

But though I like scientific and philosophical insights, I have trouble with implementing this 1 : 1 to a Commons category structure (although I don't rule out that I have been guilty of this myself elsewhere on Commons).

1. Yes, I agree with you: Category:Energy now still has a lot of stuff that really should be under the second type of energy. I guess that when those changes have been made, only a very few exceptions will be left in this main category.
2. About the category name Category:Energy (resource): as a layperson, at first sight it was not clear for me what it stands for, not even with the description in mind. Only now you gave me background information it is more clear. One of the problems is, that the name looks too much upon Category:Energy sources‎ (source or resource, for me as a non-native English speaker it looks like the same concept, Google gives the same translation in Dutch for both English words). So yes, if we keep this category, it should be renamed and we need good descriptions for both categories.
3. About the findability: I think the great majority of people searching for images about energy, will be searching for the second type of energy, it would not surprise me if that is perhaps 99% of the searchers. And I think it is not good to let them search so deeply/hard to find what they are looking for.

My priority on Commons is with these end users (of coarse with the precondition that a category structure must meet the Commons principles). So therefor, and in spite of your objections, I propose to be practical and turn it around: let's make the main category Category:Energy about the "useful power made available for human endeavor", and make a new subcategory for the first type, even if that is scientifical not quite right (perhaps let the category for this first type of energy still be the parent, but with another name). Bring the subcategories of Category:Energy (resource) back to the current main category and perhaps group some of them together in a category like Economic aspects of energy (yes, including Energy supply and the other two, for me this combination is an economic process). Others may be grouped around one or more other theme.(s) JopkeB (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: Sorry, I forgot to ping you. --JopkeB (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@JopkeB: I have been going through a cross-country move and job change along with some other things going on, so I have not been able to give Commons consistent attention lately, but I do want to give this some appropriate attention. Real quick, I am fine with coming up with a better name for "Energy (resource)". The reason I went with "resource" was based on it being within the scope of Category:Resources. However, if something else works better, I'm not opposed. I don't know that I agree fully with the idea that the 'great majority' of people would be looking for one or the other level of this category, certainly not 99%. Energy as a concept in physics and other sciences beyond human-harnessed energy is a major topic and so I don't think there is any lack of demand for that material. However, I don't think we have a good way to actually measure this short of our feelings on the matter, which are necessarily biased by our experiences and knowledges. If you know of some good tools for taking a more scientific approach to this question for topics in general, I'd be happy to check them out. (if my responses are not prompt, please understand for a while) Josh (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: That is OK, you do not have to answer within a certain time limit. I am always glad whenever someone answers my questions and reacts to my proposals.

• About Category:Energy (resource): For me Category:Resources is also about potential, stuff that might be useful for people in the future; while in the current definition of Category:Energy (resource) the word "harnessed" appears, already used. I think we should adjust the definition and/or the name. Category: Energy as a recource would be more clear to me, with as definition: "Energy that may be used or has been used by people" (or a better one). Category: Energy recources would also be an option (more in line with other subcategories of Category:Resources), but I would vote for the first one.
• I agree with you that we do not have a good way to measure the subjects that people are looking for. I withdraw my statement about 'the great majority'.
• Though, there still may be an issue with the findability of this second type of energy.
  • Perhaps a * to sort this subcategory on top of Category:Energy will do one trick.
  • I moved Category:Energy supply to Category:Energy economics and added a description to the latter. Perhaps more subcategories of Category:Energy (resource) should go there. (I think of Energy efficiency, Energy and the environment and Energy waste). And then perhaps Category:Energy economics should also get a * to be sorted on top.
  • I am still figuring out how we can group together Category:Energy supply, Category:Energy use‎ and Category:Energy waste‎, because they represent the course of the economic process of energy.

JopkeB (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Objections to the current category structure

@Joshbaumgartner: Prototyperspective added Category:Energy to Category:Energy transportation as a parent, which I reversed because of overcategorization. Then (s)he added Category:Energy supply to Category:Energy transportation, which is also overcategorization, so I started a discussion on his/her Talk page. It turns out (s)he has two objections (italic texts are citations):

1. (my summary) Category:Energy transportation is not only an economic activity, so it should not (only) be in Category:Energy supply and so in Category:Energy economics. I don't think people consider it to not also be an issue of infrastructure and many other things so I don't think I need to elaborate further and probably the Wikipedia categorization got this right too.
2. I also still think Category:Energy transportation should be directly in category Energy, not buried deep down in some nested subcategory, I added it to its parent category because you reverted that.

My comment:

1. That is why Category:Energy transportation has another parent: Category:Transport by freight. Perhaps it should also have one for infrastructure as well, Category:Energy infrastructure would qualify, but that has Category:Energy supply also as a parent, that would not be right. Suggestions to solve this are welcome!
2. I agree that categories like Category:Energy transportation, should not be buried deep down in some nested subcategory of Energy. Perhaps we have gone too far in subcategorization here and should remove one or two layers. But I cannot guarantee that this category will stay directly in Category:Energy because that was a very large and confusing category, which Josh and I tried to better organize by adding some subcategories.

Please give your comment here. --JopkeB (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

1. I don't think we've ever really come up with a good standard for how far down is too far down. In fact, the Modularity Principle  indicates all contents should be in the most specific category it fits in.
2. I'm not sure why Infrastructure would invalidate inclusion under Economy. Infrastructure itself is a fundamental part of economics, after all. Category:Infrastructure is a subcat of Structures and Public sector (itself one of the primary Economic sectors). Economic activity is a lot more than just financial and market transactions. While of course it does additionally serve some non-economic activity, the vast lion's share of it, especially that part dedicated to transport of energy, is centered on serving some form of economic activity.
3. We still need to sort down these categories we are discussing to Energy (resource) since they (supply, infrastructure, economics, etc.) are pretty exclusively about harnessed energy used to power human-directed activity, not about the general concept of energy at large in the universe.

Josh (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh, for you comments.

1. You are right: we do not have such a standard. But one of the principles I learned for building a taxonomy (I consider the Commons category structure as a taxonomy) is to limit the amount of layers because otherwise people will drop out (less is more). And that is what I think Prototyperspective also means.
2. I agree that Infrastructure should be part of Economy, for the reasons you mention.
3. I'll respond to this issue later, under your questions 1 and 2 of 23:09, 28 September 2023.

JopkeB (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I do think this is kind of merging into one general discussion, so I'll just comment below for now...although I also think if we do have some actual action items that come of it, an actual CfD is definitely warranted since often category talk pages don't get much traffic. Josh (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Energy supply incl Energy transportation like power lines do not only relate to Energy/Energy systems via economics

JopkeB reverted an edit of mine and we had this discussion on my talk page which he asked me to copy here:

Before we start an edit war about overcategorization (Category:Energy is a great-grandparent of Category:Energy supply, so your edit should be reversed again), perhaps we might discuss the broader problem with the category structure of Category:Energy: that subcategories are too hard to find, which might be the underlying problem you encountered and reacted to. Would you like to join the discussion on Category talk:Energy supply? Perhaps you have ideas to make the structure less complicated? JopkeB (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It is only a great-grandparent to Energy supply via "Energy economics". However, Energy supply & distribution including Category:Energy transportation like physical power lines are not only related to it in terms of economics.

I thought that was quite obvious so didn't explain it in the edit summary. I don't think people consider it to not also be an issue of infrastructure and many other things so I don't think I need to elaborate further and probably the Wikipedia categorization got this right too. I also still think Category:Energy transportation should be directly in category Energy, not buried deep down in some nested subcategory, I added it to its parent category because you reverted that. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it is best to copy your objections to the Talk page so that others can give reactions too. JopkeB (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Prototyperspective (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Prototyperspective, I'm not sure I fully see your reasoning behind placing Energy transportation directly under Energy, and not under Energy economics. I should think that Energy transportation would be a sub-set of Energy economics just as Transport is under Economy. A couple of additional questions:

 Question 1: Should Energy transportation be renamed Energy transport, in line with other transport categories. I know that transportation is the common term (for energy and otherwise) here in the States, but Commons uses "Transport" so the Commons category policies  would seem to indicate we should carry that down to energy as well. However, I don't know if maybe in places where they use 'transport' normally for most things, they still primarily use 'transportation' for energy which might change that calculation.

 Question 2: Shouldn't Energy transportation at least be under Energy (resource)? I'm pretty sure nearly all energy transportation is of the resource of energy, not just random unharnessed energy. One could argue that it is in fact necessary for it to be in a harnessed form for intentional transport of it to be undertaken in the first place.

Josh (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

JopkeB were discussing the categorization of Energy supply into Category:Energy, putting "Energy transportation" into that category was only what I did earlier (and what I'd still favor is done except if there is another category to put it in for example or the "Energy supply" cat is renamed).

• I don't know why this is so surprising and not an obvious needed move. I haven't checked the Wikipedia categorization but I suspect it's similar there. I can explain it in more detail if actually needed but to make it short, it's there for basically the same reason that "Category:Roads and streets" is also in "Category:Road transport infrastructure" – surely economics is one aspect of it, but it's not the only or even main way this relates to Energy / Energy systems. Same for why "Transport" is also in "Travel", not just "Economy".

Also I'd favor "Energy supply" to be renamed to "Energy supply and distribution" which is clearer and more accurate and would more or less solve the issue why I intended to put "Energy transportation" directly into that category. No objection to moving it to Energy transport. I think category "Energy (resource)" is largely the same as category "Energy" which most people will browse instead – it's kind of redundant and the categories like "Energy by city" also relate to Energy as a resource. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Forgive my reticence about things being obvious. I've seen enough times on Commons when someone promotes something obvious only to find out there are a lot of perspectives amongst the community and that it is anything but. Maybe too much time in CfD space has gone to my head. Also, I note that Wikipedia categorization has been mentioned a couple of times (I presume you are referring to enwiki there?). However, Commons has much different categorization needs and processes, so as much as it is always nice when they agree, there is no particular reason to form Commons categories to match any of the other wikis.

As regards Energy v. Energy (resource), I would caution that presuming that a lot of users who are in reality looking for energy (resource) will simply land at energy first is probably a fair guess but we don't know this for a fact. I would say that energy (in the general sense) is an extremely important and educationally useful topic, as of course is energy (resource). When we have a case of different topics, we generally make the base name (in this case "energy") a dab and put (dab) appendices on each of the topics in question. It is a little abnormal here because they are not unrelated topics but instead one is a clear sub-set of the other. Normally we have no problem with a child being far more popular than its parent category, but in this case, there is a fair point to be made that a large share of traffic that is looking for 'energy (resource)' will simply arrive at 'energy', as a result of the shared name. I think JopkeB may have a decent point below that in this case it warrants simply upmerging Energy (resource) to Energy. I think we need to look deeper into how exactly this maps out before we leap, but I am coming to think it is probably a better way to go here. Josh (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner and Prototyperspective:

@ Question 1: About renaming categories:

1. I have no objections at all against renaming Category:Energy transportation to Category:Energy transport. In the EN-WP there is one article for both words and in Dutch we have only one word for both concepts, so I cannot tell the difference anyway. Because of the Commons:Categories#Universality principle I am pro renaming. But I think there should be a proper discussion page made for it, so that other people can join the discussion as well.
2. I have more trouble with renaming Category:Energy supply to Category:Energy supply and distribution. As the definition points out, distribution is already included in this category and moreover, the Selectivity principle states that "There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided". We are not going to include extraction, generation, conversion, transmission and storage as well in the name. For me "supply" implies "distribution".

@ Question 2: About the category structure: I agree with Prototyperspective that probably most people will browse to "Energy" instead of to "Energy (resource)" (though we have no hard statistics, as Josh asked earlier) and that there are a lot of subcategories of "Energy" that still should go to "Energy (resource)". The outcome will be that there are very few subcategories left in "Energy". So we need a compromise between two principles: 1) Commons Modularity principle (be as specific as possible) and 2) to have as few layers as possible (so that people will not drop out). In this case for me Category:Energy (resource) may go. I guess very few people will miss it. And people who are indeed looking for energy in the universe that is not useful power made available for human endeavor, can find images anyhow. (See also my contribution of 03:15, 29 April 2023.) And otherwise I would rather have a Category:Energy not useful for humans or something like that, as a subcategory of Energy, than an extra layer. JopkeB (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll try and avoid simply restating, so see my reply above for more about energy v energy (resource). Suffice to say I think you may be right and the resource level can probably be upmerged.

I also disagree with energy supply and distribution as a name. Supply includes distribution as far as I understand. While it is common in English to include these kinds of redundancies in speech, we have been pretty much moving to eliminate them from Commons category names. Many were inherited from enwiki once upon a time, but I would not support introduction of new ones without a pretty strong case.

I will also reiterate that I agree 100% that once we have some clear action items, they should be summarized succinctly (you have done stellar work on that score in a number of CfDs recently), and presented in a CfD where we can get broader input (or perhaps just the crickets' consensus) before actually implementing things. Josh (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: I am generally okay with the idea of an upmerge of Energy (resource) to Energy, but that would not be a take-over of Energy by Energy (resource), and Energy (not a resource) would need to be bumped down into its own category. Instead, Energy would still be the home for all energy, harnessed or not. I'm in agreement with a merge because I am thinking the distinction is rather artificial and not serving much purpose. Minor point, maybe was already understood, just thought I'd try and be as clear as possible. Josh (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh, for your reaction and the compliments. JopkeB (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Conclusions so far

1. To avoid too many levels, Category:Energy (resource) can be deleted, its subcategories can be moved to Category:Energy.
2. Category:Energy stays the main/top category for all subjects about energy, harnessed or not.
3. Category:Energy (not a resource) will contain subcategories and files about energy in the universe that is not useful power made available for human endeavor. It will be a subcategory of Category:Energy.
4. The current parents of Category:Energy transportation should perhaps be changed.
5. After these actions have been implemented, we can judge whether other measures are necessary to make subcategories better findable (like sorting, make a gallery page and/or a Category:Energy terminology which can function as an index, see Category:Terminology for examples, for instance Category:Marketing terminology).
6. A category discussion should be made for Category:Energy transportation, to rename it to Category:Energy transport.
7. Category:Energy supply should not be renamed to Category:Energy supply and distribution. "Supply" already includes "Distribution", so it should not be added to the category name.

Questions
Questions for @Joshbaumgartner and Prototyperspective:

1. Do you agree with these conclusions?
2. If yes: which other conclusions than point 6. should still have a Category discussion, to give others the opportunity to give their opinions?
3. What should be the parent categories for Category:Energy transportation?

--JopkeB (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Just briefly for now: that sounds very reasonable and I support it. I think the categories of Energy transportation should stay but maybe one or two additional ones could be added.

Concerning adding "and distribution" to the "Energy supply" cat, renaming it would make it clearer to the reader and also more accurate: supply is taking the perspective of the energy recipients while "distribution" is taking the perspective and better incorporating the aspect of the distributors, the active distribution and the infrastructure. That should get a new CfD but I don't think it's that important for now and can stay as is if you prefer. Maybe a cat description could be helpful, but it still makes it harder for people to locate the Energy transport cat when starting from the Energy cat despite of this being such a large aspect/element. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Generally, I think all but #3 above are fine, but my feedback to them is:

1. Merge Category:Energy (resource) into Category:Energy -- this is a basic upmerge. It is close to the current state anyway, as the 'resource' parts of Energy never got fully sorted down anyway. However, probably still warrants a CfD.
2.  Keep Category:Energy - this does not need a CfD, as it the current state.
3.  Oppose Category:Energy (not a resource) - At first I wondered where this idea came from, and realized it was my own mangled sentence structure in an earlier comment, where I utterly failed to manage negatives and double negatives. Anyway, let me clarify: I do not think that merging Energy (resource) into Energy will require non-resource energy to be kicked out of the parent category. There should be no need for a 'not a resource' sub-category of Energy any more than a 'resource' sub-category. Also, in general I oppose any categories that are defined by what they are not. Sorry if I confused everyone earlier, but I do not think this category would be useful or a good plan.
4. Sounds fine but probably doesn't need a CfD, unless it is potentially controversial.
5. I'm not sure how this would go...not sure I'm a huge fan of how Category:Terminology is implemented, but I think its a good chat to have after the more important structural changes are set.
6. Rename Category:Energy transportation to Category:Energy transport -- could be a stand-alone CfD as it really isn't dependent on the rest of these issues.
7.  Keep Category:Energy supply - No CfD needed, as it is the current state, unless you really want to throw it out there to solicit ideas.

Josh (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh for your answers.

1. I have made a Discussion page for the merger of Category:Energy (resource) into Category:Energy, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Energy (resource). @Prototyperspective would you please give your comment there too?
2. No action.
3. OK, no category for Energy (not a resource). If we need one, then I'll come back to you for advice.
4. Perhaps that can be part of the Discussion about renaming Category:Energy transportation to Category:Energy transport.
5. On hold.
6. Josh, would you make the Cfd for Rename Category:Energy transportation to Category:Energy transport , since it was your proposal?
7. No action.

JopkeB (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@JopkeB: That's for starting #1, I've created a CfD for #6 (see Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Energy transportation). Josh (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@5: I have created Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Terminology, to discuss the implementation of this category and its subcategories.

@Joshbaumgartner and Prototyperspective: I hope you'l join that discussion. JopkeB (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)