Category talk:Trams in Stockholm

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Renaming?

[edit]

I suggest that this category is renamed to Category:Trams in Greater Stockholm, because two of the subcategories refer to tram lines mainly located in other municipalities. Please give your opinions about this. --Zejo (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I oppose, mainly for consistency grounds. While there IS a Category:Greater Stockholm, this tram category is in fact within the category Category:Transport in Stockholm, which in turn is in Category:Stockholm. It is a fact that Wikipedia categorisation is sometimes a bit casual in such definitions between the "core" city and the "greater region". If you want to change such a structure, you should not start with one single category way down at the bottom, you should be making the case much higeher up (but I think there's a sysiphyan task there, which does not necessarily improve Commons).
If this category is changed, all it creates is a dilemma as to whether it should be moved out of the position it is in, up to Category:Greater Stockholm, and then most people won't find it anymore. Ingolfson (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the category, if it is renamed, should go into Category:Greater Stockholm. The category structure in Wikimedia Commons is often illogical and sometimes not a structure at all. But remember, in the end it is just as good as we make it. Taking small steps to improve it is probably what most of us can contribute with. --Zejo (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my objection. If you want to make a go at this, please feel free. But please don't stop halfway through - at least ensure that all appropriate transport cats are moved, and create "Greater stockholm" parent categories even where they contain nothing but the "Stockholm-only" subcategories of their same type. Cheers and happy editing Ingolfson (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided not to go ahead with this. There are other ways to solve the ambiguity problem. --Zejo (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]