Category talk:Images from Annals and Magazine of Natural History

Keep the category at it is Images from Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 38 categories within the Category:Images from journals start with category name Images from ... and well as the main category on the Main page is Images from journals. --Snek01 (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Shot answer: No. See Category:Journals, Category:Serials, periodicals and journals by topic, Category:Serials, periodicals and journals and compare the different use of the word "journals".

Long answer: The problem is between Category:Journals and Category:Serials, periodicals and journals by topic, or really the differing use of "journals" on Commons. It starts at Category:Serials, periodicals and journals and extends to . There are basically 2 large batches of "journals" content (50-100 periodical publications each), which are generally hidden from each other. It must be straightened out under one main metacategory system starting there, because at present it has 2 which don't match and don't really intermesh.

For most Commons content from "journals" sensu lato it is assumed (correctly) that it is 90% or so page scans or similar "[raw] images from", hence it is not considered necessary to add that. It is bad practice to make names/paths longer than necessary.

Annals and Magazine of Natural History is by the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, which is "records of the transactions of a company, society", hence it goes into the brnch where "Images from journals" is not. "Annals and Magazine of Natural History" goes into "Serials, periodicals and journals by topic" by the definition as it now stands, and does not go into "Journals", and does not go into "Images from [Journal]".

If you look at Category:Serials, periodicals and journals about science and technology, you will note that the bulk of periodicals is not using "Images". The word "journals" in "Images from journals" means non-scientific journals only by definition in the category "Journals". This is bad, iut breaks everything.

Category:Serials, periodicals and journals by country must be populated BTW.

So I would suggest that we start to work out the problems starting at "Category:Serials, periodicals and journals". Where would one start a discussion? It is affecting much, more than half the "journals" sensu lato content on Commons is not locatable one way or the other except by searching.

Perhaps the most ideal way would be to put "Serials, periodicals and journals" under "Images by source" at the very start (with "Images from books", "Paintings" etc). Because most content in "Serials, periodicals and journals" IS scanned images with usually little text. And then unify the metacategory tree below it. Then, we can expand on that. I would define "Serials, periodicals and journals" very loosely, add diaries, and merge the "Scientific journals" into "Journals by topic" which would become the main metacategory under "Journals".

I don't presently see a way of fixing it that involves less work (less than 100 category moves/merges in total I think). Someone else might.

We don't put "Category:Central Park" under "Category:Photographs of parks" <--- as you can see, we don't have such a category (and we don't have "Photos of parks" either, and we do not even have Category:Photographs of nature). We create subcategories like "Maps of Central Park, New York City" (11 files...) within it for the ~10% of total content that are NOT photos.

Same goes for periodical publications, I'd say. Main type of content is implied, not mentioned, as SOP on Commons. Hence, content from periodicals is per default assumed to be "images". We could make e.g. a category "Images extracted from journals". That would be for cleaned, cropped etc images. We could make "Maps from journals". Etc. These would go under "Category:Maps by source", "Category:Extracted images by source" <--- why don't we have this? It would make sense I think. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)