User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2013

See User_talk:Foroa/archive_2012#Category:Buildings_in_Foo. --Foroa (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

By "root category", do you mean the highest level (which I see as the country), or the lowest level? If I understand you correctly, you're saying that "Buildings in country" would be under both "country" and "Structures in country". So you'd have it in two places under the country, something like this:

country - buildings

country - structures - buildings

Since "Structures in country" is already under country, I don't understand why you'd need buildings directly under country as well. Wouldn't that be redundant? As for the architecture category, I don't really care much about that, but everyone seems to want the buildings under that architecture category, so I go along with that. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I reinserted Category:Buildings in xxx to its base category Category:xxx; don't expect people to find buildings via the weird geography, structures, culture or architecture building cats (or even via society in some cases).

OK, so you're saying buildings should be directly under the country (or city, etc.) so the category is easy to find. Could/should they also be at some other point in the category tree? It seems a natural fit to put them under structures, if there is a structures category for the country/city/whatever. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The ideal structure depends from what angle you look at the category tree. If you look at the conceptual level, one has to go via country - culture - architecture - structures to arrive at a building. If you look from the organisation perspective, then you have to go via country - city - quarters - streets/squares before you come to your building. If you look from the guy that brings a new picture (mostly of buildings, such as "wiki loves monuments"), you want city - buildings, no more. And yes, we have to think bottom up too. Many, if not most, towns and cities start with a first structural category "Buildings in ...". This is often the trigger for further category structural developments, why I always place it at the parent level in a systematic way at all levels. People need to see a consistent model that they can clone easily. You don't want people to create for each town a art, culture, architecture, structure or geography category before they can start building categories.

Right, and I wouldn't create those just to have the category structure. If they do exist, though, should the building categories be there in addition to being directly under the country/city/etc.? To me, that's messy, but I could work with it. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

German contributors used to set buildings always under architecture; they created consequently tens of Italian cities with the architecture/buildings/churches trees, often for one church, which created much confusion and bad categories. As stated, the top level visible part has to be easy to clone/replicate. And anyway, there is clearly no consensus if structure is part of architecture, and if architecture should be root, or part of art or culture, and if culture should be root or part of society ... --Foroa (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If Commons can still grow without too much pain (more than 2.66 million cats), it is thanks to category consistency and the fact that people can easily clone category structures.

Moreover, many people don't see structures as architecture; they reserve architecture for the artistic side of it, why many buildings are not necessarily considered as "architecture".

Yes, I'm probably one of those. As I said, I only kept architecture in there to be consistent with what already existed. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I you look on the structure above the buildings in Portugal and Germany, they are completely different, but anyway, buildings is too deep as it serves as a categorisation model for the majority of villages and cities, especially in the beginning.

OK, but when you get to where you do have categories for architecture, structures, and buildings, what relationship, if any, should there be between them? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My view is buildings --> architecture, but some people will insert the structure between the two. --Foroa (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

--Foroa (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See category:Buildings in Slovenia for yet another interpretation. --Foroa (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)