|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Categories.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
How to add a category to a few thousand files?Edit
I have a list of 3,000 files that I want to add to the category Taken with Sony DSC-WX60. What are the options for doing it with maximum efficiency? AWB is not automatic, that means I have to click 3,000 times, which is insane for such a basic task. I can also use Cat-a-lot but it currently has some issues because of the edit speed limit. What other options I have? Thanks. -- Fructibus (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Reverted edit of the passage on "category names"Edit
I had changed the passage on the page to look like this:
Category names should generally be in English (see Commons:Language policy). However, there are exceptions such as some proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language (or there is no evidence of usage of an English-language version). Latin alphabets are used in original form including diacritics and derived letters, non-Latin alphabets are transcribed to the English Latin script. Basic English characters (ISO/IEC 646) are preferred over national variants or extension character sets (for instance, 'straight' apostrophes over 'curly'), where reasonable.
- Types or groups of objects or people should generally have names in plural form: Category:Tools, Category:Artists, Category:Lakes, Category:Paintings, Category:Sculptures, Category:Popes etc. and in English if possible.
- General themes or activities require a name in singular form usually: Category:History, Category:Weather, Category:Music, Category:Painting, Category:Sculpture, Category:Papacy etc. and in English if possible.
- Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which do not have an established English variant are not translated ad hoc but use the original form.
Further guidelines to choose a correct name for a commons category page:
Categories grouping subcategories by name should generally be named "by name" rather than "by alphabet" (e.g. Category:Ships by name).
We still lack internationalization for category names, but this issue should be resolved with appropriate changes to the MediaWiki software (see bugzilla:29928). Creating intermingled category structures in different languages would only make things worse.
See also: MediaWiki's manual page on categories "
The idea to include a reference to the English Wikipedia "Naming conventions" came from this page (which by the way also lists Commons:Rename a category as a page containing "category naming conventions").
I find the Commons help pages a bit confusing and tried to improve the layout and the wording a little in order to make it easier for people to recognise the basic policy pages and to estimate their relevance.
You reverted my changes commenting "English Wikipedia conventions ≠ Commons guidelines". This is interesting of course and maybe should be explained a little further.
I have the feeling, that some basic information regarding the naming rules and guidelines is lacking on Commons. (For example the fundamental question of whether two categories can have the same name does not seem to be addressed anywhere.)
The English Wikipedia help page goes into a lot more detail, so I think it should probably be mentioned as a reference.
If there are major differences to the way things are done on Commons then this should probably be mentioned alongside the link to the English Wikipedia policy page. And the differences could maybe be explained in more detail at another place.
Do you maybe want to suggest how the link to "en:Wikipedia:Category_names" should be commented to put things into their right perspective and could you explain the differences you were alluding to?
- @KaiKemmann: From my experience, people frequently name categories the way the subject is referred to on Wikipedia, which often conflicts with our own established category naming standards for that particular area and can lead to significant inconsistencies. I fear that listing the English Wikipedia's naming conventions as a guideline on category naming here on Commons might further amplify the mentioned inconsistencies. While wrt category naming there are some major differences between Commons and the English Wikipedia (example) that could probably be briefly addressed by the policy section, category names should as a general rule just match established schemes here on Commons (besides following the other aspects of this policy), therefore I don't believe a reference to the English Wikipedia conventions is necessary. 22:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply, FDMS.
- In my understanding the majority of topics adressed in "en:Wikipedia:Category_names" are of a general nature and apply to most Wikimedia projects (such as: "Avoid abbreviations").
- Passages that are specific to the English Wikipedia (such as the "Special conventions" paragraph probably) might not be all that many and could be pointed out in the paragraph carrying the link.
- Especially the latter should go your way by specifically preventing people from inadvertantly copying Wikipedia's standards. ::And it would (at last) be clear to anyone which rules apply to naming categories on Commons and which rules don't.
- As far as I have seen there seems to be no equivalent description of naming conventions on Commons yet, or is there? You are referring to "the established naming schemes on Commons". Is there any page that summarizes them? Where do I find the rule that says: Two categories cannot have the exact same name, or can they ..?
- Otherwise deleting the link to the Wikipedia naming conventions, for fear some parts of the page might be misunderstood, seems to me like saying: Let them go blind or they might find themselves attracted to the liquor store.
- best regards
- KaiKemmann (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @KaiKemmann: Even if they'll eventually find the liquor store anyway, I wouldn't erect a sign to it at a school or workplace … Also, Commons doesn't avoid abbreviations as much as the English Wikipedia does (or claims to do) for practical reasons (our categories tend to have more subcategories). Anyway, while I absolutely agree that having more detailed category naming guidelines would be desirable, such have been rejected by the community in various forms in the past, so it's not up to us to just write some. As long as there is no project-wide consensus on aspects not currently addressed by the policy (such as abbreviations), local consensus (e.g. at a COM:CFD) will always trump any observations we may put in the policy. That being said, again, some text briefly explaining major differences between Commons and English Wikipedia category naming could imo be helpful.
- Is there any page that summarizes [the established naming schemes on Commons]? Nope, all I'm aware of is COM:PEOPLECAT (and a few more in Category:Commons category schemes, though I have some doubts all of them can be described as established). Two categories cannot have the exact same name, or can they? No, but that certainly is explained in the MediaWiki manual we already link to.
03:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Should your last sentence maybe read, FDMS4: "No, but that certainly should be explained in the MediaWiki manual we already link to."? - As I can find no such statement - neither in the MediaWiki manual nor in any help page on categories I have consulted.
- If you are entitled to add content to help pages, please consider adding this basic fact in some place people can find it. I for my part have already been scolded for trying to improve the readability on German Wikipedia help pages.
- I came across the question when I wanted to subcategorize the images of all the buildings that were included in the main category of a city, say Cologne. The obvious choice would be to put the images of the 'Kölner Dom' in a category named "Dom" or -more general- "churches" and place this as a subcategory into the "Cologne" category.
- If the structure was a simple hierarchial tree this should not be a problem per se. But naturally a problem arises when all church categories are also placed into a common "Church" category.
- So looking into the existing structure one quickly realises that in a case like this, the name of the superior category is to be added to the name of the sub-category to distinguish it from other "Church" categories, e.g.: "Churches of Cologne"
- Not a big deal. True. But maybe it wouldn't hurt to briefly mention this (and possibly some other general rules on 'naming') on the help page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiKemmann (talk • contribs) 13:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- KaiKemmann (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)