Category talk:Megaliths

The Megaliths category is under development

The Megaliths category is under development. Xvdvoort (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You did a great job, but I have a couple of comments:

• categories are for quick browsing, and texts should be limited to a strict minimum. I'd suggest to move you very long intro text into an article in Category:Commons category schemes.
• I still oppose your non-standard country naming in the Category:Megaliths by country. I corrected already for the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, which you deleted and reverted. As you can see in other category:categories by country such as category:People by country, a minimal courtesy is to respect the naming and correct English use of the in front of the names. If we can even get that uniform, we'll better stop making new schemes.

--Foroa (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am considering to move all text and sample images to Category:Commons category schemes, however it seems to me that the purpose of the text, to help users classify their megaliths in a subsequent sub-category is lost.

As to the country naming issue. Because of this I think it ito use the category names without "the" as this also makes it easier in alphabetical lists.

Xvdvoort (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The category scheme intro is an eternal debate here, but you should remember that the categories are used in 99,x % of the cases to quickly browse from one cat to another. Therefore, consensus seems to be that intros (what it is in a few languages) and how it should be categorised, should be limited to half a page, maximum one page.

What the country "the" prefix is concerned, I guesstimate that there are so far about 400 "xxx by country" categories and 15 countries that need (and use) that "the" prefix. Obviously, if only in your particular case, you drop "the", we can hardly speak about a categorisation "system" and people will be lost in your private categorisation system. --Foroa (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments. I will shorten the Intro en move the subsequent classification scheme to an artice in Category:Commons category schemes, or elsewhere.

On the country "the" prefix problem: as I stated before:

I looked up Category:The Netherlands and it doesn't exist, thus supporting my decision to loose the "the". Category:The United Kingdom has the same story and Category: The United States reverts to Category: United States.

Why the do you call this my "private categorisation system", as this (at least to my knowledge) cleary is the general way how these countries are referred to here on Commons. Or am I wrong?

Regards,

Xvdvoort (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The "the" is an English language characteristic. In the French fr:Catégorie:États-Unis, you make "l'accord" too with les états Unis, les Philippines, les Iles de Bermuda, .... I call it private categorisation system (I should have called it private naming system) because you don't respect the language rules, unless you can show me some cats that follow your rule and not the English rule. --Foroa (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You asked me to show me soms cats that follow "my rule". I mentioned Category:The Netherlands, as you can see it doesn't exists. I also gave the example Category:The United Kingdom, which also does not exist. Also I mentioned the case of Category: The United States which reverts to Category: United States. To neither of these examples you have made a specific comment, which I find disappointing.

However, on further studying the Category:categories by country I agree with you that everyone else is using the "the" in this category. Although I find this at odds with the examples I mentioned, I see your point, and I will revert to using the "the". Please allow for a little time. I am very busy. Thanks again for you constructive comments.

Xvdvoort (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Category intro restructured

Hi, I restructured this category using more or less "standard element"

1. The headers are removed
2. The message "This is the root category for images and pages concerning megaliths" is replaced by the {{Categorise}} template.
3. I introducted the new {{On Wikipedia}} template add direct links to all Wikipedia articles about this subject.
4. I removed the message "The category includes any items consisting of rock(s) hewn in definite shapes for special purposes", which I think better could be added to the Commons:Category scheme megaliths
5. I moved the category sheme with in structions to the Commons:Category scheme megaliths. A category intro shouldn't contain such instructions. This sheme contained only multiple references to that page any way. And... that category sheme is in fact still present in the listing of the subcategories.

This action is part of my effort to create more standard category introductions in Wikipedia. If you don't agree please let me know.

I'm impressed by the way the category introduction is improved here, by the creation of the two categorie scheme's. I think creating a gallery Megaliths by type could be an other step to further improve the situation here. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The gallery Megaliths by type is already in place. It's part of the Category scheme megaliths and it's called Megaliths by type.

Xvdvoort (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just renamed Category scheme megaliths by type to Megaliths by type. The first name was confusing. Only "Commons:..." gallery should be named "Category scheme....". -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

status February 24, 2010

Cleaned up top level by moving all images to the appropriate countries

Xvdvoort (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)