Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indiana/Article Category Hierarchy

Unititled
This is (not all of) it. It doesn't completely express what I had in mind, but I'll get some other comments before I make it any more complex. Kurt Weber 20:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Five to start a municipality might be too little to bother making a new subcategory. I waited until there were ten relating to Jeff township and Charlestowb township before I subcategorized them from Clark County.--Bedford 22:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the proposal is sound and I agree that articles should be categorized as deeply (i.e., specifically) as possible. As for the required number necessary to start a sub-category, I don't have a strong opinion -- I've seen logical categories with as few as two or three entries. Five I think is reasonable.

Huwmanbeing 00:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For browsing purposes, I think someone like me would more likely find an article if it is both in the "Indiana" category and in the deepest-possible category. Just my thought. Haonhien 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken. Also, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if it's such a good idea to limit it to one deepest-possible category.  For example, Bob Griese would be appropriate in both a category for people from Evansville, Indiana and a category for athletes from Indiana.  Perhaps instead of simply saying "one category", it should be "the deepest-appropriate category in each appropriate branch of the category hierarchy".  Kurt Weber 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest a greater threshold than five. About 20 or 30 or so. A multitude of tiny categories isn't particularly useful for searching. ( Radiant ) 13:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Image categories
From the proposal, "In each County category is an Images category for all images pertaining to that county." Since I got my digital camera and started uploading photos, I've been uploading them to Commons rather then here. From what I've seen, most of the images (at least, the non-fair-use-ones) in Indiana-related articles are on Commons rather then Wikipedia. Likewise there seems to be a push for people to upload free images to Commons instead of uploading them directly to Wikipedia. So, are there really enough images to warrent separate image categories here on Wikipedia? Should we take this proposal to apply to image categorization on Commons as well? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really mess with commons too much--but really, isn't this project concerned with Wikipedia itself? I don't think the project needs an official standard regarding Commons one way or another.  Kurt Weber 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but if most images used in Indiana articles are uploaded to Commons, do we need a separate category for images, as the proposal suggests? That's what I was asking.
 * I guess I'm still not clear, sorry. Are you asking if images on Commons should be placed in the "Images of X" categories here?  Kurt Weber 12:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm asking if there will be enough images hosted on Wikipedia to warrent a separate category for "Images of County X". If it only has one or two images because all the other images are in Commons it seems silly to have a category for those one or two images. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already had several Image categories already for pics from Clark, Harrison, Scott, and Washington counties. Heck, I was able to create subcategories of those for Jeffersonville, Clarksville, and Charlestown.--Bedford 20:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the one for Jeffersonville, and noticed that you are the uploader of all of them; and all of them are licensed as Public Domain. I haven't looked at the rest.  If you choose to upload them here rather than Commons (where other language Wikipedias can use them) that's fine and maybe we do need a category here on Wikipedia for locations where you take a lot of pictures (though there are still only 20 of them in the Jeffersonville category).  However, if you haven't noticed (as I did the very first time I uploaded a picture to Wikipedia) there's a sentence on the upload form that reads, "If you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), consider uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons where it can be used across projects."  I take that and a few other things I've seen around to mean that uploading free images there is preferred to uploading them directly here.  In other words; most of the images uploaded here should be fair use.  Moreover, I know people who are going around moving free images from here to there (I've only done that with mine).  So again, do we really need separate image categories for every county?  Why can't the few fair use images and the few images whose uploaders choose to upload them right to Wikipedia instead of commons stay in the parent category? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm never going to make a dime off them, so I just let thwem into the public domain. To me, categorizing images by city/county means that if a school kid sees a pic from his home area and clicks on it, he'll have an easier time finding additional pictures of his home if they are in a subcategory.--Bedford 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I guess I see the usefulness then. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 14:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Commons is associated with Wikipedia. The point is that an image put on commons is also usable in the other-language versions of Wikipedia. ( Radiant ) 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)