Category talk:Sylvia (genus)
What would be the purpose for this move? Quadell (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposal according to the english disambiguation en:Sylvia, en:Sylvia (genus) and other WPs- Orchi 16:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is it likely that those other meanings of "Sylvia" will ever need their own categories named "Category:Sylvia (something)"? The persons who need categories can use the full name, e.g. Category:Sylvia Plath, the asteroid can use Category:87 Sylvia if needed, and I don't think the rest of the meanings are very likely to need categories. /Ö 00:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Request to move category "Sylvia" back to "Sylvia (genus)"
[edit]There are many items with the name sylvia, as can been seen in de:Sylvia, en:Sylvia, es:Sylvia, fr:Sylvia, it:Sylvia, la:Silvia, nl:Sylvia, ja:シルビア, nn:Sylvia, pl:Sylwia, pt:Sylvia, fi:Sylvia, sv:Sylvia and they concern not only persons first names. Moreover, in many languages, there is a confusion between sylvia and en:Silvia. Giving the priority to the Genus creates only problems, so there was no reason to move "Sylvia (genus)" to "Sylvia". --Foroa (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree strongly, completely un-necessary. This is about categories, not pages. No confusion is going to occur; people adding categories are not going to place images or categories of persons named 'Sylvia Xxxxxx' in Category:Sylvia. Compare more importantly en:Category:Sylvia, es:Categoría:Sylvia, pt:Categoria:Sylvia, which all match current usage of Category:Sylvia here - MPF (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Commons has 50 % more categories than the en:wikipedia, and will have twice as much within one year. Commons goes simply deeper in categories, so we might as well look at the wikipedia article names too. There are several places starting with Sylvia without counting possible/likely confusion with Silvia (we are serving 270 languages). Apart from the birds and the tens of persons with Sylvia as first name, we have already Category:Sylvia (ballet), Category:Sylvia, Kansas, Category:Sylvia Park, Category:Sylvia gate, Category:Sylvia park (Gatchina), and this is only the beginning as you can see in de:Sylvia, en:Sylvia, es:Sylvia, fr:Sylvia, it:Sylvia, la:Silvia, , nl:Sylvia, ja:シルビア, nn:Sylvia, pl:Sylwia, pt:Sylvia, fi:Sylvia, sv:Sylvia, ... not to mention the various Silvia's. --Foroa (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see why that affects it at all. By the same reasoning, Category:New York should be a disambiguation, because there are several places named New York (a US state, the major city in that state, and various other smaller towns and villages around the world). But of course, it quite properly isn't. And the lists on various wikis of people named Sylvia Xxxxxx are totally irrelevant, they will never impinge on Category:Sylvia; if they are relevant as a category on commons, it would be to a (hypothetical) Category:People named Sylvia. Also, as disambiguation doesn't work very well with categories, and should only be used where absolutely essential; this is nowhere remotely near such a case. - MPF (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- The basic category name rule from COM:Cat: "The category name would be enough to guess the subject". This is clearly not the case here. It is not because you are concentrating on scientific Sylvia birds, that the whole world thinks of Sylvia (genus). I normally prefer to have such type of generic name categories non-existing as they attract all sorts of lazy and bot categorisation. I monitor the creation of such generic category names as to rename them properly as soon as they get created. Only for countries (Georgia), capitals and cities with a very long historical past, we don't disambiguate, mainly for practical reasons. We have to serve 700 Commons clients, 270 of them wikipedia's, so we cannot assume that they all have a priority for the USA, the Western world, TOL, .... --Foroa (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Foroa, Sylvia (genus) is a better name. Multichill (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- This category has not attracted any "lazy or bot categorisation" in the past, and is not likely to do so in the future either. Yes, maybe commons will double in size in a year or two, but twice zero is zero. Conversely, who is ever going to think to place a photo of a new Sylvia warbler in something so obscure and unintuitive as "Sylvia (genus)"? (there's still well over half the species in the genus we don't have pics of yet). There are plenty of far higher risk categories that also don't particularly benefit from being made into disambiguations. And even if one or two files a year get mis-categorised here . . . so what? Someone can keep an eye out and edit them as required. That is needed on every single category in commons anyway. Just put a note in the top of the page "see also Cat:xxxx for xxxx" for anything that could perhaps be confused. Vastly simpler than all the mess this 'Sylvia (genus)' idea creates. - MPF (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Proposal: Sylvia (genus). Better in my opinion: Sylvia (Sylviidae). Orchi (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not necessary. Keeping it at Category:Sylvia is not generating any problems, whereas any change to any other name does. - MPF (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Proposal: Sylvia (genus). Better in my opinion: Sylvia (Sylviidae). Orchi (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- This category has not attracted any "lazy or bot categorisation" in the past, and is not likely to do so in the future either. Yes, maybe commons will double in size in a year or two, but twice zero is zero. Conversely, who is ever going to think to place a photo of a new Sylvia warbler in something so obscure and unintuitive as "Sylvia (genus)"? (there's still well over half the species in the genus we don't have pics of yet). There are plenty of far higher risk categories that also don't particularly benefit from being made into disambiguations. And even if one or two files a year get mis-categorised here . . . so what? Someone can keep an eye out and edit them as required. That is needed on every single category in commons anyway. Just put a note in the top of the page "see also Cat:xxxx for xxxx" for anything that could perhaps be confused. Vastly simpler than all the mess this 'Sylvia (genus)' idea creates. - MPF (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Foroa, Sylvia (genus) is a better name. Multichill (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The basic category name rule from COM:Cat: "The category name would be enough to guess the subject". This is clearly not the case here. It is not because you are concentrating on scientific Sylvia birds, that the whole world thinks of Sylvia (genus). I normally prefer to have such type of generic name categories non-existing as they attract all sorts of lazy and bot categorisation. I monitor the creation of such generic category names as to rename them properly as soon as they get created. Only for countries (Georgia), capitals and cities with a very long historical past, we don't disambiguate, mainly for practical reasons. We have to serve 700 Commons clients, 270 of them wikipedia's, so we cannot assume that they all have a priority for the USA, the Western world, TOL, .... --Foroa (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see why that affects it at all. By the same reasoning, Category:New York should be a disambiguation, because there are several places named New York (a US state, the major city in that state, and various other smaller towns and villages around the world). But of course, it quite properly isn't. And the lists on various wikis of people named Sylvia Xxxxxx are totally irrelevant, they will never impinge on Category:Sylvia; if they are relevant as a category on commons, it would be to a (hypothetical) Category:People named Sylvia. Also, as disambiguation doesn't work very well with categories, and should only be used where absolutely essential; this is nowhere remotely near such a case. - MPF (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I support the move to whatever name is less ambigious. And have to say once more that these discussions are a giant waste of time. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
.
(Unindent) why has this nonsense of moving this reappeared? There is no risk of confusion whatsoever with pages; this is a category, not a page. No need for the move has been demonstrated from cited examples. Placement at "Category:Sylvia (genus)" is incompatible with the {{Taxonavigation}} template used on all of the numerous subcategories and pages linked to this category, and should therefore not be done. - MPF (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please issue move requests before moving such categories; --Foroa (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- You have still failed to demonstrate any relevant need at all for this very unhelpful move - MPF (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Restored the disambiguation. If you want to waste more time, Commons:Categories for discussion is the place to be. Multichill (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)