Category talk:Symbols by quantity

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Symbols by quantity[edit]

do we really need this upper category? What about "1111 symbols"? or "1110 symbols"? or "556 symbols"? Estopedist1 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So long as there are a number of categories in the "quantity symbols" format, the index category is fine to hold them. As for "1111 symbols", if we have enough media of exactly 1111 symbols, then I guess it would be okay to have a category for them, but I doubt that being a real issue of concern, I think the highest quantity currently is 11. Josh (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will there be as well 666 Symbols, or only '666 as a Symbol? What's the use of such Thingies by quantity categories? I can't come up with one single reason to keep any of these, they are completely and utterly superfluous. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 18:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sänger: Category:666 symbols does not exist, so your argument against it is rather moot. Josh (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to your argument, this category has to exist, or the whole branch of categories is moot. Either all numbers, or none. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 18:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need this category. User:Joshbaumgartner above is right, and User:Sänger is being unpolite but also (which is much worse) confusing the discussion by mentioning unrelated categories: Conflating Category:666 Symbols with Category:666 as a Symbol is either transparently misleading or extraordinarily dense — and neither has place in a healthy co-working environment. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also this forum shopping. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This "forum shopping" was because if the previous inserted forum shopping items by one of the inventors of this nonsensical cats. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 15:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin and Sänger: This is the right forum for discussing the use of these categories. However, since both this category and Category:Animals by quantity are being discussed on essentially the same grounds, it would make sense to subsume one into the other so the discussion can happen in one place. That said, the arguments by Sänger (talk · contribs), while I would not assume they are intentionally misleading, do indeed cite a category that doesn't exist, and thus are a classic strawman argument and not really constructive to the discussion. Josh (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for a use case for these categories, the fact that some users do not have (or are unable to come up with) a reason to use such categories does not mean that either the categories do not have use to other users or that they should be deleted. During discussion on COM:AN, one user in fact cited a specific use for children learning to count. Helping children (or anyone for that matter) learn to count would indeed be a perfectly good reason for material to exist on this project. I would extend on that a bit and say that supporting users who may be looking for media to illustrate materials they are designing to teach mathematics to children or others would also be a fine reason to have such content. It may seem a bit base for those in the ivory tower, but the education of people, even on the simplest matters, is at the heart of why this project exists in the first place. Josh (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, do I get it right: You, as the one who wants this category, will take it upon you, to go through all pictures in Commons to categorise them according to this categories. As you think they all are good cats, all pics should be categorised accordingly. And, of course, is Category:666 symbols a required category according to your arguments. Graf Zahl will thank you for that]].

These categories are not in a hierarchy for Categorie:Categories to help counting, bur stand for themselves in the symbols upper level cat. Some exemplary pictures in a dedicated Categorie:Symbols for counting learning could be fine, but this is a category, that should include all pictures of symbols anywhere on Commons. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 18:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your unhelpful snide tone aside, yeah, that’s pretty much it. Of course, if you keep uncategorizing the affected files and deleting these categories, it will take longer. It would be really good, if you could drop the crusade and go back to work on useful stuff. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sänger, Joshbaumgartner, and Tuvalkin: user:Sänger have points. Seems to be heavy meta-categorizing and rather childish. Question is: do we really need Category:Objects by quantity (except maybe "SUBJECT/OBJECT in art by quantity", which is more developed) quarry ([1])):

--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Yeah, Sänger has “points” and you have some too. You two keep coming up with new insults every time you try to engage in this kind of deletionism. Look, guy: If it seems childish to you, then look the other way. There’s a truckload of stuff here in Commons I detest, and about wich I could even articulate strong arguments against, but I don’t go around filing that stuff for deletion — I just tolerate it, by ignoring it. I strongly suggest you do the same about categorization you do not agree with — on narrowmindedness and faulty understanding of what Commons is. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: To answer your unfinished question, yes we need all those (and many more), and no, it’s not okay with me to delete some because they are not “developed”: they will never get developed if you keep deleting them, after all.

Also: The haphazard way you listed these categories, here above, instead of in a nested hierarchy reflecting a cladogram (e.g.: Lisbon trams < trams < rail vehicles < vehicles < objects) — that was a mallicious ruse trying to mislead unaware bystanders into thinking that this is just a “childish” mess, or it’s just reflecting your technical shortcomings and/or inability to understand how categories work?… (Et avec ça ends my envolvement in this dialogue with you two: It’s either bad faith or incompetence on your part, or both, and I will engage with neither.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sänger, Estopedist1, and Tuvalkin:

Keep The reductio ad absurdum by Sanger that Commons can only have a category structure if a user volnteers to sort 'every file on Commons' is unreasonable: no user is ever going to be able to go through every file on Commons to apply any particular categorization. Shall we delete 'by country' categories on the basis that no user will take it upon themself to go through all files on Commons to categorize them by country? Of course not. It is also wrong that they are "not in a hierarchy for Categorie:Categories to help counting"; that category is simply named Category:Groups, and it exists. Calling these categories childish is also no insult; I would hope that Commons is able to count children amongst the beneficiaries of this project. In the end, none of these arguments are a compelling case for deletion, as none demonstrate an actual harm to the project by keeping these categories, nor have they proven there is no possible benefit to keeping them. Deletion requires demonstrating harm that outweighs demonstrated benefit to such a degree that deletion is deemed the only fix. None of the statements presented here do that. Josh (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: "childish" doesn’t mean "aimed at children" nor even "done/made by children" but rather "done/made by adults whose abilities are immature and unprepared, akin to those of children". Which works as an insult. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since we’re voting, here’s my unambiguous vote to keep these and all other such categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tuvalkin: Not so much voting... but I find that for longer discussions it is sometimes helpful to add a visual distinction to show at a glance where I am at on the matter. As for the 'childish' bit, I certainly wouldn't characterize any efforts or categories as childish myself, just trying not to presume mal intent on the part of others. Josh (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin, Joshbaumgartner, Auntof6, Themightyquill, and Sänger: sorry for the word "childish". But let's assume this "by quantity" stuff is in project scope. It certainly encouraged to create something like "2 red bridges", "4 yellow pencils" ... --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to come up with an example of a ridiculous category, you’ll easy find a many (a few years ago we deleted some horrible JPEG tables that listed celebrities by their zodiac sign…), but the slippery slope caveat is almost always a fallacy: After all, if we start creating some basic categories, such as Category:Animals, that certainly encourages others to eventually create Category:Swimming white animals seen from above by century… meaning that’s better to create no categories at all?

But, anyway — so what? If there’d be media files in those putative categories you made up and those files were also categorized according to other criteria, what’d be the problem? If you have 3 or 4 million images of pencils, you sure will want to categorize them by number and color (and brand, date, background, sharpness, cross section shape, length, setting, position, framing, and more).

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

somewhat more hierarchical to show depth of subcategories:

Aircraft by quantity

Animals by quantity

Automobiles by quantity

Bicycles by quantity

Boys by quantity

Boys in art by quantity

Buses by quantity

Carts by quantity

Categories by quantity

Categories of London by quantity

Children by quantity

Children in art by quantity

Devices by quantity

Doors by quantity

Equipment by quantity

Equipment pieces by quantity

Females by quantity

Females in art by quantity

Flags by quantity

Girls by quantity

Girls in art by quantity

Groups of insects by quantity

Helicopters by quantity

Helix pomatia by quantity

Horses by quantity

Insects by quantity

Land vehicles by quantity

Lisbon trams by quantity

Machines by quantity

Males by quantity

Males in art by quantity

Men by quantity

Men in art by quantity

Motorcycles by quantity

Objects by quantity

Parts by quantity

People by quantity

People in art by quantity

Plots by quantity

Rail vehicles by quantity

Symbols by quantity

Tramlink trams by quantity

Trams by quantity

Trolleybuses by quantity

Women in art by quantity

--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now you show us that these cats have subcats. And your point is…? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced users may get ideas if they see the system. Eg to show unsystematical approach: eg sometimes there are categories with "many", eg category:Many automobiles. I also see in 2016 was related discussion: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_62#Massive_creation_of_questionable_categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced users and newbies alike would be better served if you get to your point instead of listing an apparently unrelated grabbag of disparate categories and their subcat tree. It’s not evident what you are trying to show. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories of many are fine, as to whether they strictly should be under 'by quantity' is a fair question, but rather unimportant. There are clearly people who find no use in these categories, and just as clearly there are those that do find use in them. Thus they should be kept. Josh (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1, Tuvalkin, and Sänger: Closed (no consensus to delete) Josh (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Symbols by quantity

Category:Symbols by quantity[edit]

Navigation menu

Search