Category talk:Groups of cats
Category:Groups of cats[edit]
 | Category:2 cats | Move to/Rename as | Category:Two cats | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:3 cats | Move to/Rename as | Category:Three cats | |
| Category:4 cats | Move to/Rename as | Category:Four cats | |
| Category:5 cats | Move to/Rename as | Category:Five cats | |
| Category:6 cats | Move to/Rename as | Category:Six cats | |
 | World's Lamest Critic (talk · contribs) has indicated on my talk page (shown below) that they feel the previous CfD (linked above) was concluded in error and we should return to spelled-out numbers for quantities when the number is at the start of the Category name. This applies to all "Category:Qty objects" categories. | |||
| Original messages on talk page |
|---|
| I saw that you moved Category:Two cats to Category:2 cats with the summary "standard numeric representation of quantity in category name". Based on quick searches I did, it is common for the number to be spelled out, not represented by a numeral. There is a general rule in English that sentences (or titles, as in this case) should not start with a numeral. Can you direct me to any policy or guideline that supports your changes? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC) :@World's Lamest Critic: Apologies, this is the result of a pair of CfDs (listed at Category talk:Groups). I had been adding the CfD links to talk pages for a while, but didn't on these latest ones, simply putting the aforementioned note. Numeric representation improves international access as well as supporting easier use of templates to manage categorization by number. Josh (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC) ::That discussion is you and one other editor. And you closed it yourself. Category names on Commons are in English (for better or worse) - international use is really a non-issue given that starting point. And we should follow the common English usage. Categories which start with a quantity should be spelled out. Categories that don't start with a number can use the numeral. They are different cases. I suggest you stop what you are doing until there is a wider discussion of this issue. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC) :::More than one, but regardless the discussions were open for some time and all users who either checked the CfD pages or browsed the tagged categories were able to voice their opposition if they had any. I understand your concern about English sentence structure, but there is nothing in category naming policy that states category names must follow a particular formal word structure or specifically that numbers at the start of titles should be in a particular style. I completely disagree with you that maximizing the ability of people to use Commons categories regardless of language is a non-issue. We use English for titles of categories, generally, but that is no reason to use English in such a manner as to make things harder on non-English speakers. Biological taxa are by the way specifically listed as an exception to the English-first rule. Josh (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Further posting at VP |
|---|
| Joshbaumgartner started a discussion at Category talk:Groups about standardizing category names for groups of objects. Only one other person commented and the discussion was closed. Joshbaumgartner has begun renaming categories and recategorizing images based on that discussion. When I noticed that he had moved Category:Two cats to Category:2 cats, I started a discussion on his talk page. Standard English usage is to spell out quantities if they are at the beginning of a sentence or title. So a picture of 2 cats would be in category:Two cats but a package of 2 donuts would (hypothetically) be in "category:packages of 2 food items". I understand Joshbaumgartner's reasoning and I am sure he is doing this with the best intentions, but to prevent future disagreements, can we get some other opinions about this change? Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
Oppose I oppose returning to spelled out numbers for the same reason as I supported the original proposal to use numeric representation (as modified by Auntof6 (talk · contribs)'s suggestion to drop 'Group of' at the start). Numeric representation is easier for users of any level of English proficiency to use and also asier for templates and other automation to interface with. However, returning to the original proposal, to include 'Groups of' at the start of the name, would seem to meet both positions as it would not offend those who do not wish to see a numeric at the start of a title, but also satisfy the readability desire I stated originally. Josh (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note, per the additional posting by World's Lamest Critic (talk · contribs) at VP, it would seem this is not specific to cats, but instead would apply to all "Category:Quantity objects"-formatted category names unless I am mistaken as to their intent. Josh (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Correct. This is not specific to cats. I see no point in discussing individual category moves. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Perfect, I have modified the note above to said effect. Josh (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- I started the discussion at the Village Pump so that we could have a centralized discussion with greater visibility. Let's discuss it there, not here. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Perfect, I have modified the note above to said effect. Josh (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Correct. This is not specific to cats. I see no point in discussing individual category moves. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Besides the imho general futileness of such categories: This is an international project, thus it should use as simple as possible english phrases, and the numbers are far more easy then the words. English niceties are just irrelevant, form follows function. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, obviously. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not to imply a stance on the Cfd generally (I'll exply it: '25' is easier to search than 'twenty-five'), but what's obvious about your statement? Arlo James Barnes 00:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose and
Keep it's part of the whole category-tree, for example ... - Category:Groups of 1
- Greets Triplec85 (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Another argument: both spellings are allowed. However, an important argument in favor of numeric notation is accessibility for non-English speakers. Because Commons is used for all language versions of Wikipedia, and in many countries English is not spoken or not spoken well. However, the numeric notation can be more easily understood by all. Greets Triplec85 (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Support I recognize that my opinion will probably be the outlier here but I doubt anyone would know how to spell the English word "cat" but not "one." I'm pretty 99% of the time people learn how to count to ten in English before they learn the names of animals. Even in ESL classes. It would just be extremely bizarre if someone could spell "hippopotamus" but "two." Otherwise, at that point I doubt they would even be able to navigate this site in the first place. Nor should they. That said, I'd also support the whole "groups of" thing instead of the numbers being spelled out. Either option is better then the status quo. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: the 99% you throw into the round here is of course only your gut feeling, and if you want to know exactly, just not true. You have to keep in mind, if you want to rely on numbers, that only about 20 percent of the world's population speaks English. I repeat: 20 Percent. If you doubt it, I'll give you a reference right away: https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/how-many-people-speak-english-and-where-is-it-spoken. This means that 80 percent do not speak English or understand it poorly. My school days are already 2 decades back. I don't know the correct spelling of the English letters anymore, maybe I didn't know it perfectly as a student. Numerical spelling, on the other hand, is better understood worldwide. ... I would like to ask provocatively: Should Commons only be useful and easy to use for English-speaking people? ... I would like to quote Josh with his argument from above: Numeric representation improves international access as well as supporting easier use of templates to manage categorization by number. Commons should be easy to use for preferably 100 Percent, not just for 20 Percent.
-- Triple C 85 | User talk | 21:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: the 99% you throw into the round here is of course only your gut feeling, and if you want to know exactly, just not true. You have to keep in mind, if you want to rely on numbers, that only about 20 percent of the world's population speaks English. I repeat: 20 Percent. If you doubt it, I'll give you a reference right away: https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/how-many-people-speak-english-and-where-is-it-spoken. This means that 80 percent do not speak English or understand it poorly. My school days are already 2 decades back. I don't know the correct spelling of the English letters anymore, maybe I didn't know it perfectly as a student. Numerical spelling, on the other hand, is better understood worldwide. ... I would like to ask provocatively: Should Commons only be useful and easy to use for English-speaking people? ... I would like to quote Josh with his argument from above: Numeric representation improves international access as well as supporting easier use of templates to manage categorization by number. Commons should be easy to use for preferably 100 Percent, not just for 20 Percent.
Oppose That would complicate the whole category tree unnecessarily. --Geoprofi Lars (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose There should be an additional rule for numbers starting over 10 or 12 written as digits, up to 10 or 12 in words and we have to look to all the new created categories. This garanties work for years. And renaming thousands of categories too. In short: no. Simple as possible: digits. --XRay 💬 22:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Numbers are much easier than words, especially for people who are not experienced in English. I do not see any advantage to use words instead. --HubiB (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Adamant1, Triplec85, World's Lamest Critic, Geoprofi Lars, XRay, and HubiB: Closed (no consensus to change) Josh (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)