Category talk:Jura, Scotland

Arrangement

Since this will have individual pictures and lowest-level categories, I'm setting this up the way Islay and some others have been organized by me and others: the general categories, such as maps; mountains and hills; etc., at the beginning and the geographic locations in the lettered categories. If Islay is any indication, the geographic locations will be quite a few for only a dozen or so general categories. In contrast to the specific categories, the general categories will reference multiple specific places; to wit, a panorama from a mountain top may picture several identifiable places. If it isn't done this way, then you have redundant cats; that is, cats that are repeated at the same level in the same line, which is not the policy. This approach does not apply to more universal categories, such as all Scotland, which have no or ought to have no specifics, except for alphabetic lists, say of all towns and villages in Scotland. I'm not currently working in that area, only with the specifics. There sure is a lot of work for so many pictures! But who else can provide such a pictorial resource?Botteville (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The Page

No doubt following a local precedent that got started, editors have been dumping the Jura pictures onto the page rather than subcategorizing them. As a result we are somewhat short of subcategory structure. I do not believe commons as a whole uses this method. As far as I can see, pages are used more for presentation. For example, suppose commons gets a large donation of pictures labelled in the Cyrillic alphabet, which most editors cannot read. It is a wonderful alphabet used in the terrific Slavic languages. I wish I knew one. Most of us American ignoramuses are monolingual, a regretable condition, but there you have it. I've seen a page used to present the pictures in English translation. So what shall we do with the Jura pictures? Well, there is always room for a page. You can do more with them presentationally. They are parallel to article pages, but they deal only with pictures. If you are going to say a lot about the pictures it should be on a page presentation. I never request the deletion of a page unless I created it by mistake. There is room for a Jura page at least for pictures that are beyond the scope of a specific geographic location and do not fit a general category. What I want to do, then, is gradually subcategorize these pictures, removing them from the page, unless there is a good reason to stay on the page. There is no reason I know of why a picture can't be duplicated on the page, but you would not wish to have a complete duplicate set. Pages are for articles; picture categories for commons. Just as there are article categories so also there are commons pages, but, as I see it, only for supplementary information in each case. Now, if anyone cares to do a full-page presentation with all the bells and whistles, that would change the situation. My feeling is, we have articles and Wikivoyage for that, but I have no desire to restrict anyone's creativity. So, I expect there to be only a few relevant pictures on the page, barring a better presentation. Why duplicate the resource?Botteville (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)