Last modified on 1 June 2013, at 17:21

User talk:TwinsMetsFan

Return to the user page of "TwinsMetsFan".
alt= link=
Archives
Archive 1

Why re-add the category sort keys?Edit

In your recent edits you readded sort keys to categories in Category:State highways in Arkansas. I see no reason for this as it does not change the sort order. Why did you do it? Allen4names (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is consistency with literally every other state in the US. A slightly longer answer is that the sortkeys group the categories by number (the one and two-digit routes under "0", the three-digit numbers by the first digit in the number) instead of tossing everything under "A". For that reason, there's no advantage to removing the numerical sortkeys. – TMF (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me like it is nothing more than "all the states have the cruft keys so Arkansas (and every other state) shall have the cruft keys." If you come up with a better explaination please let me know. Allen4names (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't read the longer answer... – TMF (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I did read it, so many words, so little meaning. In other words wheres the beef. I may start removing sort keys from the categories listed at Category:State highways in Washington (state) and reduce the number of level 3 headers from 11 down to 3. I will give you some time to answer first. Allen4names (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow... you might be the most condescending user I've ever met on Commons. Do you view the sortkeys of Category:State highways in Washington as redundant? If so, we're clearly not going to agree on this issue. – TMF (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
And after reading your post again, only one thing comes to mind: why? What is the advantage to removing the sortkeys and dumping everything under the same header? It makes as little sense as you're accusing the current setup to be. – TMF (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
If you remove all those sortkeys, not only do you have more time and patience than I, but the sorting will become 1, 10, 11 ... 100, etc. How is that ideal? –Fredddie 16:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Fredddie on this... there's no advantage to the funky sorting that would result, and I'm in favor of retaining the existing sortkeys. Imzadi 1979  16:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Some of the sub-categories would need the {{DEFAULTSORT:}} magic word anyway, particularly if they are also in other categories. Whould you prefer that all category links in those sub-cats have keys? Allen4names (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a straw man argument. The discussion is about the sortkeys for the "State highways in X" category and its subcategories, which we're saying should remain numerical, using three digits to avoid funky non-numerical sorting. Do what you want with the other categories, that's not an issue.
As an example, for articles on enwp, the sortkey for "Category:State highways in Michigan are all numerical, but the sortkeys for "Category:Transportation in Marquette County Michigan" is "M###" to sort them numerically in the Ms. Imzadi 1979  18:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. At least on the English Wikipedia, gnomish edits that don't improve anything are problematic and result in sanctions. Here, we have gnomish edits that actually make things worse! --Rschen7754 18:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
"[A]in't broke" Rschen? You and everyone else involved in this discussion please take a look at what I set up on my user page. Even taking into account that the sort keys do not show up in the category lists it looks ugly and broken. Aside from this Fredddie was the first one to provide an explanation that amounted to more than "I just don't like it when the sort keys are removed." BTW Imzadi, in the future please remember to link to the Wikipedia pages as I have. Allen4names (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't see it as "ugly and broken", others who have replied here don't see it that way, and no one has viewed it that way in the six-plus years that the current sortkey convention has been in place. "Ugly and broken" is merely your opinion, and that amounts to clear "I don't like it" on your part. The long-standing consensus has been the status quo, and it's clear from those who have posted above that the status quo still reflects consensus.

As Imzadi mentioned above, this discussion is only pertaining to the "State highways in Foo" categories. No one cares how the route categories are sorted for any other categories, nor are all parent categories of a specific category required to share a common sortkey. There are certain situations where another sortkey works better than the "standard" sortkey (such as "Arkansas Highway #" with leading zeroes), and the "State highways in Foo" category set is one of those. Again, it makes absolutely no sense to force an entire state's routes to be lazily grouped under a single header that does nothing to help organize the category. – TMF (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The primary advantage I see to the sortkeys is the fact that for most (but not all) US highway systems the difference in number between a 2 and 3 digit route has significance, and for several, the first digit of the 3 digit route also has significance. For virtually all states, lower numbers are reserved for the key importance routes. As such the sort keys provide logical grouping for those (even unconsciously) familiar with the system. Most people in the US instinctively know that Interstate 5 is a major route, while Interste 205, not so much, even if they don't know how the numbering system works. Crufty? perhaps, as this significance will be lost on those who don't know or care to learn what that significance is. <scarcasm=on>if only there were an online encyclopedia that had articles to explain that. Oh wait, there is =-).<sarcasm=off> I'll admit that commons would survive just fine without the sortkeys. However, why spend effort to remove what is useful functionality, to at least some of the users of commons, to gain ?????? (presumably nothing, I've not seen an explanation of how this will improve things). Dave (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If I do take this up again it will likely be at one of the Village Pumps. Allen4names (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

US Highway sortkeysEdit

Separating this from the thread above since the two are unrelated. – TMF (talk)

I don't understand the whole sortkey thing, please explain to me why a sortkey of 278 isn't good for State Route 278, you have it as 78-2. How does that make sense?--Mjrmtg (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a US Highway, not a state route, and US Highways use different sortkeys than state highways. Remember that three-digit US Highways are "child" routes, with the last two digits of the number coming from its parent. In the case of US 278, it's a spur of US 78, and the "2" in the first digit distinguishes the highway from other spurs of US 78. The "78-2" sortkey reflects this point, and it allows US 278 to be grouped with its parent and any other sibling routes in the category.
Like the sortkeys discussed in the thread above, this is a convention that has been in use and accepted by the community for a long, long time on here and on the English Wikipedia, and any changes to the convention will likely face massive resistance. – TMF (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Stony Point, New YorkEdit

There ought to be a category split between the Town and Hamlet of Stony Point, New York. ----DanTD (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of categories for hamlets because hamlets don't have defined boundaries, and thus it's somewhat subjective to say whether a photo was taken in the town or the hamlet. That said, 53 hamlets of various sizes do have categories, so the ship has kind of sailed on that theory. If you feel strongly about this idea, title the hamlet category Category:Stony Point (hamlet), New York and make it a subcat of Category:Hamlets in New York and Category:Stony Point, New York. – TMF (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Town hallsEdit

Copied from User talk:DanTD

Dan, are you really sure of this one? [1] If I were looking for images of a type of building (town halls) in Nassau, I don't think I'd ever think of heading down the hierarchy in this particular direction. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, User:TwinsMetsFan put the ones from Suffolk County there. Why don't you ask him. ----DanTD (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

End copied
So, here I am. Thoughts? - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing an issue. It might be worth categorizing the categories under "Buildings in Foo County" as well, but it's hard to argue that they don't belong as subcats of "Towns in Foo County". – TMF (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, for starters, although we use the term "town halls" as a generic term, many of these are for villages, not towns. So, for example, Category:Municipal Building, Freeport, New York is in Category:Freeport, New York and in Category:Town halls in Nassau County, New York, but Category:Freeport, New York is in Category:Villages in Nassau County, New York, which has no relation to Category:Towns in Nassau County, New York. So, actually, I would argue that in this case they don't belong as subcats of "Towns in Foo County". Possibly Category:Town halls in Nassau County, New York needs to be renamed, but that is a different question than where it is in the hierarchy. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, village halls shouldn't be in a category titled "town halls". While "town" might be a generic term in some parts of the US, it's not in New York, where town refers to a specific level of government. If the community wants to put media relating to the buildings of different levels of government in the same category, then the category needs to be renamed. If said renaming takes place, then I have no problems with the category being moved from "Towns in Foo County" to "Buildings in Foo County". – TMF (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
It should also be noted that there are already separate categories for village halls for many counties. – TMF (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)