Category talk:Objects

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

Related category discussions[edit]

Expand to view current and archived category discussions related to this category
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Physical objects[edit]

This category was recently created by Allforrous (talk · contribs). However, what is to be achieved by this sub of Category:Objects? Everything in Category:Objects is a physical object, so this essentially would be an attempt to rename Category:Objects to Category:Physical objects as everything in Objects would need to be moved to Physical objects. As Category:Objects is a main topic, this should be discussed before embarked upon. Josh (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is demonstrated even more clearly by the subcategories - 'Human bodies', 'stones', 'astronomical objects'? This category is useless in its current state, and if everything inside objects was moved to it in order to make it useful we wouldn't gain much. In my opinion this should be deleted as it seems to have been created solely from the Wikipedia article, but that article doesn't benefit for this category. YuriNikolai (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Pinging @Allforrous to get clarification on the intended use of Physical objects in contrast to Objects. TilmannR (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Physical objects into Category:Objects per above comments. Josh (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Merge Category:Physical objects into Category:Objects
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Ontology and usage[edit]

Objects are one of the fundamental entities in the ontology of Commons categories which manifest themselves as topics. Generally, objects can be further sub-categorized by several methods:

  1. In combination with another object or concept using a relation, generally in the form "object 1 relationship object 2". Ex. Category:Aircraft in France, where 'aircraft' is object 1 and 'France' is object 2, with the relationship 'in' indicating that the aircraft is within the boundaries of France.
  2. In combination with a property, generally in the form "property object". Ex. Category:Red trucks, where 'trucks' are the object and 'red' is the property.
 Comment Category names may not exactly match the formats above in all cases.

Discussion on ontology and usage[edit]

Please add any discussion regarding the ontology and usage of Category:Objects here, or start a new talk post below. Josh (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content respectively sub-categories within Category:Objects[edit]

>>> moved from Category talk:Organisms: Categorizing of Organisms as Objects <<<
Are there any objections against my categorizing Category:Organisms under Category:Objects by type, implicating analogous treatment of subcategories (e. g. Category:Animals of India<Category:Objects of India) I recently carried out? And if so, for what reasons? --Abderitestatos (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as reported to Abderitestatos on his talk page 19:59, 24. Jan. 2013‎ in his mother tongue, his 'effort' in re-categorisation of the sub-categories of Category:Objects is (as of January 23, 2013) was not the result of a discussion respectively consense by the Wikimedians interested in that topic. As re-categorized by Abderitestatos, imho it's a very personal 'definition', p.e. to categorize 'Animals' and 'Fungi' in addition as a 'object' (they imho are not) respectively to remove existing categories and to re-categorize some former sub-categories (on country level) p.e. as 'Culture of Switzerland' etc.etc.etc.

As also pointed without any doubt in our commen mother tongue, it's not a problem related to p.e. 'Objects in India', pointed to that we have to find a consense in general and not for 'organismn' etc.

Regards, Roland

As Category:Objects is placed near the top of the Commons categories tree, it must be considered as quite comprehensive, so organisms certainly belong therein. Following some documents defining organisms as objects: [1] [2] [3]. --Abderitestatos (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonizing animals as objects is at the least an incorrect practice that has most probably not yet gained acceptance on Commons and should thus be avoided or forwarded to somewhere along Village Pump or equivalent. Orrlingtalk 00:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]