|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Categories.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
Today I had a discussion with another user about a form of over categorisation that I believe to be a problem at Wikimedia Commons. I think it is appropriate to bring it up here for the involvement of other editors. For example, this file of the South Korea Supreme Court illustrates its intended subject very well. However, I do not believe it to be very useful at illustrating Hyundai Sonata automobiles which the image is also categorised in because it contains a small glimpse of the said vehicle. By the same token, one could also add categories for the deciduous trees, the sky, power lines, the road, and foot path/side walk. These also make up a small/minority part of the image. However, none of these items contained within the image would be particularly useful for someone searching for a photo of a road or a tree.
Considering that most images of locations in built-up areas taken near a road will contain vehicles as incidental subject matters, the systematic categorisation of these vehicles cause massive over-categorisation problems.
To me, if it bothers a user so much to have such items as "unidentified" so to speak (because there is not category to specify exactly what the minority items are), then Commons would in my view be better served by using annotations on the image itself or by placing a note in the description. Clogging up categories with junk seems quite counterproductive.
- I agree on the principle, but I'm concerned about contributing to instruction creep. The Commons:Categories#Categorization tips section already mentions that categories should be set based on the main subject and noteworthy features. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I also agree and have seen and cleaned up this problem in the past. (For example Category:Overhead lines in Germany had lots of random images of trains and railway lines which happened to have an overhead line. Duh.) But I also think that the instruction about "main subjects" and "noteworthy features" is sufficient. --Sebari (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)