Category talk:Famous Quercus in Wales
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Famous..." is subjectve. "Named...", or "Individual..." would be better. Andy Mabbett (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- We should probably be discussing Category:Famous trees and decendnet categories, but I'm not sure how to tag a whole category tree. Andy Mabbett (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 | Category:Famous Quercus in Wales | Move to/Rename as | Category:Quercus in Wales by name | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | "Famous" is a classic indeterminate subject. Something should be notable to meet inclusion criteria. What is notable but not famous? No real way for us to answer that so this category and in fact all 'famous' categories should go away. Notable organisms can be indexed 'by name' and that will do the job just fine. | |||
 | Josh (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
- Famous/notable trees don't necessarily have names. Category:Symbolic oaks in Wales not only doesn't indicate a specific name, it also contains individual files. The same is true of other subcategories under Category:Famous trees. If we have a "by name" category, it shouldn't contain individual files. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Agreed. If a tree is indeed 'famous', 'notable', or such, it should have its own category (even if this may initially only have a single image). These categories can then be categorized under a 'by name' or other appropriate index, or evcen simply reside at the main category level, quite frankly. They do not need to be grouped under 'famous' or 'notable' category groups. Josh (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner, Auntof6, and Pigsonthewing: "Unsharp" doesn't mean "undeterminate". Natural, unbureaucratic concepts are often unsharp, but can be relevant. An another question is to find the best category name for such significant/famous/memorable/notable/individual trees, and possibly also their hierarchy. "Individual" is not the best word, it can be understood as covering also anonymous solitary trees. "Named trees"? In my country, there is a register of protected individual trees (and groups of trees) and most of them are not named, they are registered under descriptive designation e.g. "oak nearby the rectory" (which can be hardly considered as "names") and have some ID number in the register. The official term for such protected trees is "memorable trees", however this term is used as distinguishing from other significant trees which don't have this form of registration and protection. The word "famous" sounds too pompously to me but I'm not a native English speaker - maybe, "notable trees" can be more restrained? As regards officially registered or protected trees, we should use the word used officially for such form of registration in the specific country. --ŠJů (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: Certainly if we were to group by some official designation, the name should indeed be aligned with such a scheme, but I don't think that is the case here, there is no indication that the content in question is specifically identified or registered by official agencies (or that they are not so). In fact, the content in this category has no particular rationale as to why they are considered 'famous', so merely renaming it to 'notable' is not a solution. Josh (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, Auntof6, and ŠJů: Closed (no consensus to change) Josh (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)