Commons:Categories for discussion/2007/07/Double check, please: 129 category moves

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Double check, please: 129 category moves

[edit]

When I get home later today I want to start a renaming/harmonisation of categories "Location maps ..." to "Locator maps of ... in ...". I have the commands ready on User:Siebrand/test. Please double check for any typos and/or inconsistencies. Cheers! Siebrand 07:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About six months ago, I opened a discussion at the village pump about the standard form for locator maps. The result (as I remember it) was:
Locator maps of [WHAT TO LOCATE] [PREPOSITION] [WHERE TO LOCATE]
PREPOSITION is determined according to custom rules:
  • when [WHAT TO LOCATE] is a settlement (city, village, etc.), PREPOSITION=in
  • other cases, PREPOSITION=of
I think it's the more practical system: since we have Category:Cantons of Switzerland, the category for locator maps will be: Category:Locator maps of cantons of Switzerland. You have just to add the standard prefix: “Locator maps of”, and no new rule to learn. --Juiced lemon 11:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In for settlements and of for administrative areas, is that the general idea? I support that but where do you draw the line? Samulili 11:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it may not look 100% correct, I am in favour of a convention that uses the same words in all forms. Especially to newcomers and occasional visitors, the subtle differences are annoying, even if there is a logic to it. Any thoughts? Siebrand 14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea comes probably from the English Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#State-based topics:
I don't draw any line. Settlements and subdivisions (areas) are assumed to have specific common names. Then, the name of the Commons categories are determined according to this common name (which points a settlement or a subdivision). In Commons, some users have mixed lowest level administrative areas with settlements. I didn't take care of that, though I disapprove, at least because there were too few discussions and explanations about this operation. --Juiced lemon 15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see. I guess I'll have to agree. I'll rename as stated above and ask when in doubt. Thanks for the input.. Cheers! Siebrand 15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the list of commands on User:Siebrand/test and the commands are running now. It is going to run unattended in the coming hours. Please let me know if I screwed up somewhere and I'll correct. Cheers! Siebrand 16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National parks in Brazil doesn't comply with the standard form National parks of COUNTRY (see Category:National parks). So Category:Locator maps of national parks in Brazil would be renamed Category:Locator maps of national parks of Brazil. --Juiced lemon 09:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. Would you take a look at the topic Category:Historical Markers a little higher up this page and voice opinion? Cheers! Siebrand 09:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Siebrand 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that this discussion is closed now? I'll archive it, in that case. --rimshottalk 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2007/07/Double_check,_please:_129_category_moves&oldid=129583820"