Category talk:Gardens

Comment
This should be the category of individual gardens, such as the entries on list of gardens, while Category:Gardening should be for topics in general. No article should be in both "gardens" and "gardening" category, that's mixing two different things together. Stan 21:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am not in total agreement with you Stan. While I don't think that these two categories are precisely the same, still there can be perfectly valid reasons why an article might rightly appear on both. I do not agree that this should be simply another way of listing "individual" gardens&mdash; rather that this category concern itself with the "place, the garden (and all that entails and encompasses). Subsequently, the "gardening category" should concern itself with the "activity" of gardening (and all the miriad of activities that belong to "gardening"). Sfdan 08:09, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Think of this way; a category is in many ways equivalent to a list (thus the pluralization for instance), so for instance this category is the "list of gardens" while Category:Gardening is the "list of gardening topics", we having to add the word "topics" to make it grammatical. It doesn't make sense to put greenhouse on a "list of gardens", likewise it doesn't make sense in Category:Gardens. What you're suggesting sounds more like a category that would correspond to a "list of gardens and types of gardens", which seems rather awkward, plus it's unnecessary - types of gardens will invariably be included in the "gardening" category anyway. Stan 13:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Organizing related categories into logical hierarchy
In an effort to ensure all articles relating to gardens & arboreta, etc. are rolled up & connected in a logical & organizaed way, I recommend the following order or levels for categories & subcategories for this broad subject. This way all of these categories end up connected to location, which I don’t believe they are under the current scheme. I realize this is not a perfect solution. For this org structure, Level 2 is a subset of Level 1, etc.

Level 1: Country, state/province or city: such as Category:Texas

Level 2: Visitor attractions: such as Category:Visitor attractions in Texas

Level 3: Gardens: such as Category:Gardens in Texas

Level 4: Botanical gardens; Herb gardens; Arboreta such as Category:Botanical gardens in Texas

The three categories in Level 4 are connected to Level 3.

I believe these categories may have originally been setup this way, but morphed over time. Also, I can’t tell, but Arboreta may have been at one time a subset of Botanical gardens. In any case, I recommend formalizing & documenting a scheme to keep the categories organized in a standardized way that makes sense.

Another possibility is combining connecting Levels 2 & 3 directly to Level 1. I personally like that option because it flattens the organizational structure & makes it easier to navigate.

Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)