Category talk:Categories of Belgium

About Move request: This is really the catalogue of all categories of Belgium. It certainly should not move to Category:Belgium, because that should destroy the whole Belgium tree.--Havang(nl) (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

non-content

This category does not belong into Category:Belgium. Just one example from first sight:
Imagine that this category contains only two categories Category:Art Deco architecture in Belgium and Category:Art Deco in Belgium (both are subcategories of this at the moment, so this is only a simplification). The second is the parent of the first. So adding this to Category:Belgium is COM:OVERCAT. To correct the categorization the second must be removed from this category. Doing this consequently with all categories and removing all overcat will result in.... exactly, Category:Categories of Belgium will be an exact duplicate of the whole Category:Belgium tree. A category tree containing a duplicate tree of itself will be completely unnecessary. This category does not realy make sense already at the moment, but if it helps with maintenance it might be ok. But it is not a content category. --Martin H. (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See discussions in Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Countries_by_category#Purpose_of_categories_like_category:Categories_of_Belgium and its documented use. This category should be hidden I think. Category:Belgium is organised as follows: left top: navigating quickly through the country and some of its structures. Middle: normal cat trees. Right bottom under the tilde: all side and maintenance related categories, including faster category navigation.

Please don't abuse COM:OVERCAT: I have seen no major category tree where one could not claim overcat. --Foroa (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Before installing such a categorization you should ask to change our whole use of categores. We dont talk about accidential overcat but intentional. The category tree is hierarchic, you can not simply throw a plain category list in the ring and destroy our hierarchic approach. I didnt know about that discussion, it however does not justify why a maintenance category is mixed up with our topic categories. The Purpose of categories like Category:Categories of Belgium is untouched with its removal from the topic category tree. --Martin H. (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Aditionally I point you to Commons:Categories#Major categories, especially Category:Commons. Category:CommonsRoot contains completely separated category trees every file shold be in at least one topic category and at least one copyright status category, can be in one source category, can be in a media type category. Only files with problems should be in the maintenance tree. So making this a topic category will violate the hierarchic approach and is complete redundant, see above. Making it a maintenance category will mirror all content of this country into the maintenance tree where it is also placed wrong. This category attempt is half-baked. It is a question if it worth to keep the purpose alive in the maintenance tree and it worth a discussion. It is however not a question to remove this from the topic category tree, it simply not belongs into it. Maybe another sollution like a gallery or commons namespace list will allow much better maintenance AND navigation for unexpirienced users (including translations btw) without hamstring our category system. --Martin H. (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no time to reply extensively now, but those categories have proven the needs of flat categories and as a consequence categories such as the ones in Category:Flat categories have been created. The latter and other meta categories are useless if one wants to manage the country categories. I agree that this should be solved by software filters, but in the mean time, it allows to better manage and navigate in large structures. --Foroa (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)