Category talk:Trees
Overloaded[edit]
This category is hopelessly overloaded! Please help reduce the number of articles and images directly categorised here, by removing category duplication and/or indexing them to subcategories - MPF 13:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:ŠJů#Changes to Category:Trees. --ŠJů (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi ŠJů - your changes here, although I'm sure were done with good intention, are unfortunately not too useful: as long as the category is kept clear of image files, there were not too many subcategories, and it is much more convenient to have the subcategories all in the one category, rather than having to dig deeper to find them. Hope you won't mind if I put them back to how they were before? - MPF (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hello MPF. Can you explain why it should be better to have the categories with taxonomic names directly in the Category:Trees instead of in Category:Trees by taxonomy? The latter seems to me to be the standard way of categorising on Commons (which is an advantage in itself) and requires just one extra click. Nillerdk (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi MPF. There are 19 categories of trees by taxonomy, and cca 20 other categories directly in the "trees" category. This was clear case which is a typical candidate for a subcategory. 19 categories grouped out of alphabetical order isn't a standard treatment surely. I think, your deletion of this category without any previous CfD discussion wasn't a good idea. Do you remember how the category Tree was looked earlier than it was divided into several subcategories? A chaoticcaly mixture. If we had only one big main category at Commons, it's serviceability wouldn't be better. With regard to the fact, that "trees" isn't a taxonomy category in itself, this is no reason to privilege taxonomy subcategories within it in this way. Taxonomy is one of several criteria only, not the main criterion of categorization of trees. --ŠJů (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do remember how it used to be, it was a lot easier to find subcategories that one wanted! Several of the subcategories currently placed in 'Trees by condition' have nothing to do with the condition of the tree at all, no-one would expect to look for 'Trees with people' or 'Trees at night' or 'Trees in winter' there. And 20 categories isn't a lot; a category page can hold anything up to 200 items before it gets unmanageable. Each extra level a subcategory is pushed down, the more difficult it becomes to find, or to think to look for. - MPF (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi MPF. There are 19 categories of trees by taxonomy, and cca 20 other categories directly in the "trees" category. This was clear case which is a typical candidate for a subcategory. 19 categories grouped out of alphabetical order isn't a standard treatment surely. I think, your deletion of this category without any previous CfD discussion wasn't a good idea. Do you remember how the category Tree was looked earlier than it was divided into several subcategories? A chaoticcaly mixture. If we had only one big main category at Commons, it's serviceability wouldn't be better. With regard to the fact, that "trees" isn't a taxonomy category in itself, this is no reason to privilege taxonomy subcategories within it in this way. Taxonomy is one of several criteria only, not the main criterion of categorization of trees. --ŠJů (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)