Category talk:Mountains of South Tyrol

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

Categorization of individual mountains[edit]

Hi. Do we file South Tyrolean mountains belonging to smaller mountain ranges or massifs (like to the Category:Geisler group, Category:Langkofel group, Category:Nonsberg group, Category:Mendelkamm, Category:Rosengarten group, Category:Schnalskamm, Category:Sella group, Category:Sexten Dolomites) only under those categories or also additionally under the Category:Mountains of South Tyrol? Currently, there is no consistent standard applied, with some mountains (e.g. Furchetta) subsumed only under their immediate main category, but others (e.g. Exnerturm) under both categories.

A few peaks such as the Gantkofel could be even classified under up to three categories (1. Category:Mendelkamm, 2. Category:Nonsberg group and 3. Category:Mountains of South Tyrol), if the standard of listing every South Tyrolean mountain in the Category:Mountains of South Tyrol were followed through strictly. So which method of classification should we use? How are mountains categorized in the other Alpine regions such as the Trentino or the state of Tyrol? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would subsume individual mountains into their proper range and group wherever possible. If there are some peaks which are part of multiple ranges and groups, then it is possible to list them multiple times. Some users might have a concern that it will be difficult to find individual peaks. In that case create an article redirect to the category. Gryffindor (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My main question is: Would you also list individual mountains, apart from subsuming them under their proper range and group, in the Category:Mountains of South Tyrol? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know much (or anything) about the categorization on Commons, but in the German Wikipedia it is standard to only put objects into the "deepest" fitting category. Answering your question: I'd say no. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is to list the mountains in the deepest fitting category and only some of the major landmarks into the more general category of Category:Mountains of South Tyrol - i.e. Schlern, Ortler, etc. all the little summits are just to many to list them all in the main category. Noclador (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you two would group, for example, the Innere Quellspitze in the Category:Weißkamm, but not under Category:Ötztal Alps nor Category:Mountains of South Tyrol? And the Heiligkreuzkofel only under the Category:Fanes, and delist it from Category:Mountains of South Tyrol? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although not invited, my thoughts. Categorizing by mountain range is different than categorizing by administrative aspects. So I would prefer to have double cats, one per range and one per administrative unit. No matter, whether the range is completely inside a administrative unit, or not. The Category:Weißkamm for example is neither completely part of Tirol, nor of South Tyrol, so both parent cats would be wrong for Category:Weißkamm. You can only put individual mountains / images to the proper cat for the administrative unit (in case of border mountains, into both administrative cats). --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would mean that not only the Category:Ortler Alps would have to be removed from Mountains of South Tyrol, but also quintessential South Tyrolean mountain groups like Category:Sella group, since the border to the Trentino runs across at least one of its summits (Sellatürme). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I am seeing more clearly: we have two separate category trees, the topographical (Ötztal Alps etc.) and the administrative (Mountains of South Tyrol), representing two different strings of categories. Mountains should be generally included in both trees. So far, so good. But that still leaves the troublesome smaller mountain ranges or massifs (e.g. Category:Weißkamm, Category:Sella group) which stretch across borders and thus cannot be considered Mountains of South Tyrol alone. Are we going to list them under their two or more political entities like the Ötztal Alps are listed under both Alps of Austria and Alps of Italy or do we list them not at all in Mountains of South Tyrol?

Just to make sure you guys agree with my classification for individual mountains:

Right? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this makes sense. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I am going to introduce the intermediate Category:Mountain ranges of South Tyrol and move the ranges to it, so that mountains and ranges each have a category of its own. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a related question concerning the Drei Zinnen here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, thanks --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Mountains_of_South_Tyrol&oldid=62363047"