Category talk:Fountains in Lower Austria

190 files, 38 subcats! Why not give structure through the 4 regions? Unfamiliar to Austrians??

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Job done. Caution for Bezirken like Melk or Tulln which are on both sides of the Danube! Verifications are welcome!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Jacquesverlaeken: , Lower Austria (as Salzburg or Vienna) are federal states of Austria. As such, they are administrative entities. Weinviertel, Waldviertel are regions and as such they are not administrative entities. Their definition and borders are somehow unsharp and not suitable to separate things into smaller units. There is no mapping of districts to those regions. The next level of administration below the federal state is the district (Bezirk), so IMHO it is nonsense so separate things into the quarters of Lower Austria. There is nothing like the Category:Fountains in Vienna area, either you name it Category:Fountains in district Wien-Umgebung or you leave it on the federal state level. Lower Austria will not change by 2017. Why now create a problem with the reorganization of districts in Lower Austria by 2017 we did not have before? I'll put this to discussion on the proper Austrian pages (alas, German). regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of creating a "Vienna area" (which is nonsensical in its own right) 6 weeks before the political district ceases to exist? Braveheart (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Jacquesverlaeken: , as you did not argue for your change and the opinion on discussion on the proper Austrian pages (alas, German) is definitely against your change, I will undo it the next days. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I hope you do not intend to revert completely to the initial situation! I just voided the disputed 5th cat (Vienna area). See my proposal in the German discussion page. I am ready to start a work on the 25 districts. Or do you prefer going back to simply Fountains in Lower Austria? Whatever the decision, I hope that the work on Viertels is not lost! Parallell (related) cats are always possible if you believe (to my surprize) that the split of Lower Austria in Viertels is not a good idea. By the way, I do not understand the name Industrieviertel (I have not seen much industry there): Wienerwald is much more appealing! i speak here as a lover of Austria.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Jacquesverlaeken: ! The name Industrieviertel comes from the time of early industrialisation, see en:Industrieviertel. Nice greetings, --Häferl (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You can keep your categories for the Viertels as a parallel & incomplete structure (if you maintain it). i.e not every fountain needs to be put to one of the 4 Viertel categories. The main structure however will be Austria - Lower Austria (- districts) and in parallel municipalities. Districts, by their nature, cannot be part of the Viertels. For a small number of objects like these fountains, there is not need to spawn the category tree deeper and deeper. Splitting the fountains (hey, these are nice, but not that important objects) for e.g. district Melk into two different Viertels is not worth the job and the error proneness of it. BTW, Wienerwald is a mountain region not related to the Viertels. A large part of it is in the Industrieviertel. In the end what is categorization for? To allow tools to navigate that structure. The deeper the tree, the more difficult it gets for the tools. Please refrain from creative sub-categorizing. What intent do you assume people have to search for a fountain in Viertel context? In federal state context? People, except when splitting categories into subcategories, IMHO won't do that. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jacquesverlaeken: , can I have your ok? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I am pleased to provide here my OK. I am familiar with Wikimedia practices in terms of cats, and was a little surprized at the situation often seen for Austria. While it is beyond this talk to discuss all the pros and cons of subcats, to be practical I consider that the situation in Germany is ideal (and in line with Wikimedia policy): see Fountains in Baden-Wuerttemberg for ex. All Landkreisen have their entry (<= 48). Any further municipality is behind them. I understand that you accept the creation of the 25 Districts of Lower Austria (in the long term). There are 573 municipalities, too large amount for a marginal subject like fountains. The message may be: when there is a cat for a specific place, be sure to identify the Municipality (sometimes I have to search to find it). I accept (as a compromize) not to link the Districts to the Viertels, as some belong to 2! Last detail: regarding Wien-Umgebung (District?), let us wait 2017 to adapt to the final decision (Korneuburg in Tulln? etc). To caution for a special situation was the idea behind this (temporary) 5th cat. I will not repeat the interest for foreigners in the 4 Viertels: I often met them in booklets, in travel etc. I refer tothe English text for Lower Austria. Thanks for asking my opinion. Let us converge!! Sorry for not using the ideal communication tools, because I havn't learnt them.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. My main point was your division into Viertels. Not for fountains, not for other similar entities. For mountains we definitely stop at the federal state level (reason: the smaller the level of containment, the more duplicate categorization is necessary due to border affinity of mountains). This is not the German speaking WP, so on Commons we might follow different strategies. For the districts it is definitely the wrong time, as things get reorganized soon. See [1] for data.

If it would be common understanding to have a category fountains in municipality as a subcat of fountains in district / Landkreis as a subcat of fountains in federal state as a subcat of fountains in state we could ask a bot to create all those categories and hierarchical structure for all states, federal states, districts and municipalities all over the world. Still, I believe, that a category should contain a valuable (non empty and not ridiculous) set of images. Splitting a category into subcategories is quite an easy task, resolving existing cats and DR them, is hard work. We do not need a cross cutting category for any two topics like Category:Baroque fountains of the 1810s in Bad Vöslau etc. IMHO. In the end every category gets emptied from images and all images recursively are moved down to further subcategories. Just as my opinion and philosophical remark. I would prefer the other way, if we have a handful of fountains in Bad Vöslau, we can move them to Category:Fountains in Bad Vöslau and put this to Category:Fountains in Lower Austria and Category:Bad Vöslau without affecting the lonely fountains in the abandoned municipalities in Waldviertel, still in their municipality and in Lower Austria.

BTW: If you are interested in categorizing difficult stuff, here's a search for 2016's uncategorized fountains [2]

So I will do the work soon. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)