Last modified on 6 November 2013, at 12:11

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:Tulips miscellaneous group

Category:Tulips miscellaneous groupEdit

This grab-bag grouping under a "miscellaneous" title is inconsistent with the approach on Commons to categorization and simply renders it more difficult to find the content (there are times when a miscellany category makes sense, but this is not it). I'm guessing that the intent was a good faith intention to clean up the main tulipa category, but grouping subcats that have very little to do with one another in a "misc" category is not a great way to do it. I would have though the better way to do this would be a category along the lines of "Tulipa by species/type/genus..." (whatever the right jargon is), so as to clearly delineate the subcats pertaining to types of tulips from those pertaining to other subjects. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that the similar categories have also been created for other types of flowers (e.g. Category:Lilies miscellaneous group). I will tag those as well, and direct people to this discussion so we have more input. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
And Category:Miscellaneous Lilium to make it simpler. Miscellaneous is a wonderful word for categories. --Foroa (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind that category so much (althought it should be Category:Miscellaneous lilium), although I'd prefer that such images remain in the main category until such time as a subcat is created for that particular species/type/cultivar/etc. (again, I am demonstrating my complete lack of knowledge of flowers by not knowing the right word to use here). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It appears to only be two categories - for lilies and tulips. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
And don't forget Category:Tulipa Miscellaneous Group using uppercase to make confusion complete. --Foroa (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Nice catch. I hadn't noticed that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The reasons for my doing:
We have in commons a very valuable botanical and zoological taxonomic system.
There are many new non-taxonomic categories for user with other interests (e.g. themes collected in "Tulips miscellaneous group").
There is the scientific name Tulipa, used for the botanical part.
There is the no-scientific name "tulips", used for the non-botanical part. Orchi (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I wish you would not use the term "group" for these informal collections of categories. The word "group" is used as a formal name for groups of cultivars, as recommended by International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. Uleli (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Orchi that the vernacular name "tulips" should not been used.
I agree with Uleli that "group" is not suitable. For me it would suggest that this category contains e.g. a group of "Tulipa hybrids" ot "Tulipa cultivars".
Why would we, e.g., not rename this category "Tulipa miscellaneous" or only "Miscellaneous"? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest to move Category:Tulips miscellaneous group to Category:Categories related to Tulipa or Category:Categories related to Tulipa taxon: it might be a better name and used in a systematic way for isolation between taxonomy and common names. . --Foroa (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for interest and proposals. I agree with with user:Uleli entirely. Thanks to user:Foroa's proposals.What do you think about a short and universal way: e.g. „Category:Tulipa non-taxon“ or „Category:Lilium no taxon“. Orchi (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I remain surprised how much you Taxonomy/TOL people are really immersed in your Taxon world (to the extent that I called one of the colleagues a taxomaniac). So what you are proposing, "no taxon" is just a statement meaning "all the rest that is not from our Taxonomy world, so stay out, I don't care". I guess that 95 % of the Commons contributors shy away from the complex Taxonomy world with their Latin abracadabra, so they will happily dump their stuff in miscellaneous categories or non taxon categories as this is the easiest passe-partout. So a number of comments on the proposed Category:Categories related to Tulipa taxon :

  • It describes exactly what we intent, Tulip non-taxon could mean anything
  • By its name, it is a meta category, so no images should be dropped in it, only categories, decreasing maintenance work
  • you all try to use the shortest possible name, but this is nor really relevant here as it is only manipulated to structure categories, not images.

Anyway, without clear names and by using category names like miscellaneous, various, other, ... you are just attracting lazy categorisation and subsequent maintenance work. And frankly, I fail to understand why I should not drop any special Lilium image into Category:Miscellaneous Lilium; I guess that a substantial part of the Lilium images would qualify for this category.

We better decide carefully as this type of Taxonomy/common name bridge category will probably propagate very quickly to other taxon. --Foroa (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm concentrating more on the rose categories, but I will repeat here what I already said for Category:Lilies miscellaneous group - in my opinion, it would be better to create a category named Category:Tulipa species and have the categories collected in Category:Tulips miscellaneous group moved back to Category:Tulipa. As the main category for tulips, it should be possible to have different topics concerning this plant in the main category. If one topic takes over (as is happening with the species), you have to create a metacategory for this topic - not for all others, as you did here...
I also don't think that anybody can easily understand what exactly can be found/should be sorted in miscellaneous group... Anna reg (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)