Category talk:India

Some basic (and maybe old also) categorizing tips and accepted rules

1. "Categories of xxx" being a mainly wiki maintenance category is not indexed at the top of a xxx list but at its bottom, as is done with e.g Category:France.
2. "Maps of xxx" is indexed at the very top of each xxx list (similar as other ex-topical subcategories, speaking to the nature of the files rather than a thematic content such as "buildings in xxx"). See example.
3. "Pictures of xxx by view and quality" is an odd, unacceptable scheme-invention featuring an unsustainable criterion that has no use nor meaning. We have our well-based schemes of "views of xxx" or others more suitable; be what may – "Parts of a day in India" and "India by century" have nothing to do at "views of India" whatsoever...
4. "xxx by decade" is not listed as a subcat of "xxx by century"; these two are themes of two parallel extents shown apart. See Category:Australia by century and Category:Australia by decade. We don't just invent schemes.
5. When "Panoramics in xxx" is listed at "Landscapes of xxx" it is then not double-classified at "Geography of xxx" too; not only for the avoiding of over-categorization, but also for the reason that "panoramics" has little to do with "geography".
6. Many other similar, over-nuance parentings that appear to be forced in many items to just create a load of ties with no reason have been neatly pruned to reasonable by me today; stating that this was a "re-categorizing without any comment" indicates a short of orientation about the fundamental cat-job on Commons. Our goal is to serve our readers with a clear-water array of categories to suggest the most directly associable parent(s) within the context of the given item, not stuff it with multiple indirectly-allied categories that render useless.
7. Erecting more and more nonsense-subcategories that are superfluous to the main category, albeit indicating a legitimate eagerness to endow and nurture the India tree, spells out an unwanted distribution of items onto multiple minor subgroups that are definitely not needed. The sheer majority of "Historical images of xxx", "Valued images of xxx" etc across Commons are not grouped at a "views of xxx" (itself a rather little-used cat concept) but are directly indexed at the more inclusive parent. In other words, "Views of Karnataka" is just <<more of the same thing>> which should generally be avoided.

Worth following these conventions, as episodic irregularities and exceptions, such as those I flattened earlier today, may generate mess for a broad strech of both our editors & readers. The aim is to keep the project with an as-uniform-as-possible logical standard that rules every tree down. Regardz, Orrlingtalk 22:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, "Views of xxx" imho is good 'start' to discuss, as you started to replace the 'etc-category' (and sub's) "Pictures of xxx by view and quality" - i was not 'happy' with the second one, but ... :

1. ... it seems imho much better to sub-categorize p.e. Category:Views of India by state or territory‎, Category:Aerial photographs of India, Category:Historical images of India, Category:India in art, Category:Landscapes of India‎, Category:Montages of India, Category:Panoramics in India, Category:Parts of a day in India etc. within Category:Views of India and p.e. Category:Views of Karnataka, being a single sub-category of "India" respectively of states or union territories
2. ... then p.e. related to Category:Finland to sort 'by hand' "Maps of Finland| ‎", "Photographs of Finland‎| ‎" and "see also cat:Views of Finland", {<!!>} "Views of Finland| ‎" and "see also cat:Photographs of Finland", "Pronunciation of Finland| 01‎", "Videos from Finland| 01‎", "Symbols of Finland| 02‎", "Valued images of Finland| 02", "Finland in art|*‎", on 'top-level' of "Finland", additional to the other country-related categories on top-level of "Finland", as you also re-categorized on November 3, 2012.

Of course, India-related there are geography-related 'double-categorizations', but imho those are in benefit of the editors and readers of Wikimedia commons, i.e. "main categories" are not 'over-whelmed' by dozens of "sub-categories" (Finland and France: 31 - India: 17) as of November 2012.

Regards, Roland 23:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

To conclude,, I'm sorry but your attempt to undo the broad fixing strip at the India-subs earlier this evening is unacceptable as it is not backed with any concrete value/whatsoever perception of how Commons lists actually strive to look like; if I may, I feel that this more than all points out that you possess a somehow non-update image of the project's category flow input. I can propose you widen your view thus by looking in more categories other than the India categories & see their organization. Though many times inconsistent, the pricipal key is largely as in the examples I gave above. Regardz Orrlingtalk 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, [quotation] ... India-subs earlier this evening is unacceptable ... [quotation end] was a 'reaction' of several uncommented undo's as for example that one by the initial user and was at least pointed to on the user talk on November 3, 2012, 18:48. As mentionned before (ref Finland, France and some more), i wided my view [quotation] ...in more categories wided than the India categories ...[quotation end] ;-) Please let's end such personal comments, regards, Roland 00:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. So now, that you acknowledge the basic of the category pattern's rationale, would you want to start undo your edits across last night's session where you've undone edits that correspond to the above-mentioned guidelines. As for myself, I'll take it to be more commentative when doing India categories next time. Orrlingtalk 01:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

—As you haven't much contested the suggested prevailing outlines as specified here in the past 2 days (almost) I'll now start setting back each page relevantly to as it was before you cancelled the fixing edits. I hope you participate. Orrlingtalk 19:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, as it seems we have no 'consense': Orrling, you seems to have imho a 'strange' way to find a 'consense' and about 'co-operation' and leading 'discussion's (you're right, regardless other Wikimedians arguments).

As your might should have remarked, some changes already have been done within the 'past 2 days' ... and let's wait - there's absolutely no 'hurry' - the within Wikimedia Commons 'usal' 7 days so other Wikimedians will have an opportunity to tell their oppions.

Next level, so there's no consense, i'd prefer to find thereafter a 'consense' on imho Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems.

Thx and regards, Roland 21:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, as announced some minutes before to User talk:Orrling as of 01:27, 6. Nov. 2012‎, please refer to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems as of 01:15, 6. Nov. 2012‎, as User:Orrling did not wait for other Wikimedians comments to find a 'consense' please see my request on November 5, 2012, 21:09 and started to [quotation]... fixing edits ...[quotation end] as of 01:03, 6. Nov. 2012 ff. Thanks and regards, Roland 01:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)