Category talk:Defunct airlines

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Conversion to "flat list"

[edit]

As there are and have almost always been several sub- or parallel categories to this one, it is proposed to rename this category "Defunct airlines" to "Defunct airlines (flat list)".

This has already been successfully done with Category:Ships by name (flat list). See also Category:Categories by name (flat list).

Leaving the others in this parent category might be considered as a COM:OVERCAT violation and somebody may start to "fix" that, sorting them back into their sub-cats (or at least removing the extra listing).--Uli Elch (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The category definitely violates COM:OVERCAT and thus should be immediately emptied, regardless if some flat list category is created at some point. If such category is created (I have no objections to that one), I think it should be named Category:Defunct airlines by name in accordance with Category:Airlines by name. ––Apalsola t • c 16:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Until agreement in this talk page has been found the category "Defunct airlines" must not be removed. This is what discussion pages are intended for. Any further such actions are vandalism. --Uli Elch (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me some Wikimedia Commons policy supporting your statement? I think COM:OVERCAT is quite clear on this topic. ––Apalsola t • c 16:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you and me will not be the only participants in this discussion, and that it is not solely up to you to decide the outcome. --Uli Elch (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this category should not be renamed. Instead, it should remain as the parent category for all other defunct airlines related categories and a new subcategory (Category:Defunct airlines by name or Category:Defunct airlines (flat list), I prefer the former one) should be created to include all defunct airlines.
The fact that this category currently violates COM:OVERCAT is completely unrelated to this on-going discussion about a possible new category. ––Apalsola t • c 16:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I am not saying I would solely decide the outcome of this discussion. I am saying that fixing over-categorisation is normal maintenance work on Commons. Calling that as "vandalism" is quite serious accusation. ––Apalsola t • c 16:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When reading my initial contribution with which I had opened this discussion, you will notice that I am very much aware of the COM:OVERCAT problem, which I intentionally mentioned. My intention was and is to find a commonly agreed consensus on how to solve that problem.
By writing "... somebody may start to "fix" that, sorting them back into their sub-cats (or at least removing the extra listing)" I wanted to avoid exactly what has happened now with your numerous reverts.
BTW: Neither in "Finncomm Airlines" nor in Category:Blue1 and others it was me who had inserted the category "Defunct airlines"; Ardfern appears to have the same opinion.
Anyway we should have a bit of patience until others have voiced their opinion. In the end, you may be right, I may be right - but best of all would be to commonly agree on one solution. --Uli Elch (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you mention some problem is not a reason to try to prevent other users from fixing that problem. It is unrelated to this discussion since the per-airline categories would still be categorised under Category:Defunct airlines.
Anyway, I think we indeed need to find a solution and I am curious to hear what kind of category structure are you proposing? My proposal is as follows:
This kind of solution would be consistent with Commons policies and practices and overall categorisation structure. And over-categorisation would not be a problem. ––Apalsola t • c 18:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, my preference would be for your first two bullet points above. Changing it to Defunct airlines by name seems pointless as they would have exactly the same content. Not sure I understand the value of it being made a flat list, but seems unnecessary. Ardfern (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing changing it to "Defunct airlines by name". I am proposing creating a new category "Defunct airlines by name" under "Defunct airlines" and moving the per-airline categories under it. That is because currently Category:Defunct airlines is over-categorised. ––Apalsola t • c 22:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the first two bullet points above; you probably meant to include Category:Airlines by year of establishment here as well.
A question is whether a possible new Category:Defunct airlines by name has to be sorted under Category:Defunct airlines or directly under Category:Airlines, as it is the case in Category:Companies by name.
I consider a dedicated Category:Defunct cargo airlines as unnecessary, as it will prevent having a complete list of all airlines. Very few users are familiar with the specific role of a certain airline, like charter, cargo or helicopter airline. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not mean to categorise Category:Airlines by year of establishment under Category:Defunct airlines. Instead, it should be categorised under Category:Airlines because it applies to all airlines, not just defunct ones.
And "Defunct airlines by name" clearly should be subcategory of "Defunct airlines", whereas Category:Airlines by name should be (and is) subcategory of Category:Airlines. Categorising "Defunct airlines by name" directly under "Airlines" would break the Hierarchic principle.
"Defunct cargo airlines" was just an example of a category that could be categorised under Category:Defunct airlines if such category was created. However, it would not prevent categorising all airlines (directly) under Category:Airlines by name and all defunct airlines (directly) under Category:Defunct airlines by name. ––Apalsola t • c 12:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ Apalsola: Is that > Category:Defunct airlines by name < what you mean? --Uli Elch (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Maybe it could be categorised also under Category:Airlines by name. ––Apalsola t • c 13:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first, general part. However inclusion in Category:Airlines by name will lead to a double mention of those airlines which are defunct: 1) in Category:Airlines by name and 2) in Category:Defunct airlines by name. --Uli Elch (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, airlines usually have "Category:Airlines by name" as a Non-topical/index category. --Uli Elch (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Defunct_airlines&oldid=359205378"