Category talk:5 horses
Groups by number should use digital numbers instead of long-form numbers in their names. Category:Groups of twenty-eight should be Category:Groups of 28. This would better match most other number-based categories and would make it possible to access with templates (one could easily categorize in [[:Category:Groups of {{{1}}}]] in a template where parameter 1 is a number. This would also be that much easier on non-English speaking users. Josh (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good plan in every way. Support. --Pitke (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support 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)
Proceeding to make the aforementioned changes as there is no objection or further discussion at this time. Josh (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Naming of groups should be standardized as much as possible. We have a variety of different naming conventions. Groups of 10 widgets may be categorized as: "10 widgets", "Ten widgets", "Groups of 10 widgets", "Groups of widgets - 10", and a few others. Solitary items have even more various ways to be named. I propose a simple convention for objects of which there are groups to be categorized:
- Category:Groups
- Category:Groups of object
- Category:Groups of 1 object
- Category:Groups of 2 objects
- Category:Groups of 3 objects
- ...
- Category:Groups of object
Using the number '1' instead of 'one' seems better for internationalization. The object should be a countable, definable entity. Josh (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm fine with standardizing, but one item is not a group. Maybe these categories should be named something like Category:Foo by number shown. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you can have a group of 1. It may sound a little odd, but nothing invalid. "A group is a number of people or things that are located, gathered, or classed together." - en:Group; "1" is a number. You can absolutely have a group or set of 1. "Category:Foo by number shown" ("Category:Foo by quantity depicted" would be a bit more precise) works fine as the index category, but how do you structure the subs then? Josh (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- "1 object", "2 objects", etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that could work. So something like:
- "1 object", "2 objects", etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you can have a group of 1. It may sound a little odd, but nothing invalid. "A group is a number of people or things that are located, gathered, or classed together." - en:Group; "1" is a number. You can absolutely have a group or set of 1. "Category:Foo by number shown" ("Category:Foo by quantity depicted" would be a bit more precise) works fine as the index category, but how do you structure the subs then? Josh (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: This is fine, still achieves the goal of standardizing the format and avoids the oddness of 'groups of 1'. Josh (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- On further looking into it, this version has a problem...where do you put images with a number of objects for which there is no category, such as one where the exact count is too high to matter, or is unreasonable to identify exactly. Leaving them in the 'by quantity' category would not work since such categories do not typically permit files to remain there, and to have "Category:5392 objects" seems impractical. Leaving them unsorted in the main category also seems less than optimal. Josh (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- You could either put them in the parent category "Category:Objects" (no number specified) or have a category like "Category:100+ objects". --Auntof6 (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: As it turns out, there is Category:Many (adjective) that covers large numbers that one would not necessarily count exactly. I have no problem with Category:Many objects residing under Category:Objects by quantity. I do not think putting them in the parent category is really a good plan, because it becomes harder to sort out files that should be sorted from the main to a sub from those that are just to remain at the parent level. Josh (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- You could either put them in the parent category "Category:Objects" (no number specified) or have a category like "Category:100+ objects". --Auntof6 (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- On further looking into it, this version has a problem...where do you put images with a number of objects for which there is no category, such as one where the exact count is too high to matter, or is unreasonable to identify exactly. Leaving them in the 'by quantity' category would not work since such categories do not typically permit files to remain there, and to have "Category:5392 objects" seems impractical. Leaving them unsorted in the main category also seems less than optimal. Josh (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Closed (modified proposal; use "# object" format) Josh (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)