User talk:Adamant1
Add topicSorry
[edit]Sorry, this was my error here. I did not notice that it was on the wrong board. GPSLeo (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Question about 2 of your speedy deletion requests
[edit]Hello, Adamant1. I saw your speedy deletion requests for the following categories:
- Category:Collections of photographs by library (as opposed to Category:Photographs by library)
- Category:Collections of photographs by museum (as opposed to Category:Photographs by museum)
Was there a discussion to eliminate these categories and use the other names instead? I think we need to keep them. "Photographs by <institution>" can mean different things:
- Photographs owned/displayed by the institution (collection categories)
- Photographs of the institution
- Photographs acquired from the institution (source categories)
I've always disliked having to use "Collections of" for some kinds of things but not others, but I think it's needed for the kinds of media that Commons hosts so that the listed things don't get confused.
For example, in Category:Photographs by library I see categories with the following wording:
- Images from
- Photographs by
- Photographs from
- Photographs in
In Category:Photographs by museum, I see all of those plus:
- Media from
- Photographs kept by
The "from" wording is used for source categories, but possibly for other things as well.
Anyway, for now I have declined the speedy request and turned the "Collections of" categories into redirects. Please let me know if there was a discussion about this. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: There was no discussion, but the problem with the categories was that they contained subcats like Category:Photographs in the Austrian National Library which IMO isn't a "collection" in any meaningful way. IMO a "collection" should actually be one, like . Not just a category that has one or two random photographs that happen to be housed in the same library. Plus the proper category for photograph collections seems to be Category:Photograph collections anyway. Not Category:Collections of photographs.
- So it seemed natural to delete the categories with that and the categories only containing categories for "photographs in whatever library" instead of actual collections. I don't care if they are redirected for now though. But ultimately they should be renamed to "photograph collections by library/museum." I just forgot to do it at the time. Hopefully that explains things. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Just so long as we get back to some name that is less ambiguous, I'm good. I personally would go with Category:Photograph collections by library etc.: clear, not over-wordy, and will easily cover both the case where there is a single, undifferentiated collection (e.g. a small history museum, or even a large one like MOHAI in Seattle which as far as I know does not break down its million-plus photos into separate "collections") and where there is a formal breakdown into multiple collections. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I created Category:Photograph collections by library. I still think there should be a clear distinction in the category system for a category containing random "photographs in a library" versus a legitimate, named collection of photographs that are being stored in a library. And I'm not sure how there just be a bunch of overlap between that and Category:Photographs by library. It seems like you have a use for it though. So whatever. I'll leave actually putting stuff in the category to other people but it would be good if it was used exclusively for actual, named collections. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, I don't see any particular use of something called Category:Photographs by library, unless it were to be a disambiguation. - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I guess the question would be if there's any photographs in a library that aren't part of a "collection." If not, then it seems like having the word "collection" in the name of the category is pointlessly redundant. Just like there isn't a Category:Vehicles with paint because most, if not all, vehicles are painted. Otherwise I don't see why Category:Photographs by library wouldn't be a useful category. Really, it should be in both cases unless I'm totally missing something here. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Because people would misunderstand and add photographs of the library. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I guess the question would be if there's any photographs in a library that aren't part of a "collection." If not, then it seems like having the word "collection" in the name of the category is pointlessly redundant. Just like there isn't a Category:Vehicles with paint because most, if not all, vehicles are painted. Otherwise I don't see why Category:Photographs by library wouldn't be a useful category. Really, it should be in both cases unless I'm totally missing something here. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, I don't see any particular use of something called Category:Photographs by library, unless it were to be a disambiguation. - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I created Category:Photograph collections by library. I still think there should be a clear distinction in the category system for a category containing random "photographs in a library" versus a legitimate, named collection of photographs that are being stored in a library. And I'm not sure how there just be a bunch of overlap between that and Category:Photographs by library. It seems like you have a use for it though. So whatever. I'll leave actually putting stuff in the category to other people but it would be good if it was used exclusively for actual, named collections. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Just so long as we get back to some name that is less ambiguous, I'm good. I personally would go with Category:Photograph collections by library etc.: clear, not over-wordy, and will easily cover both the case where there is a single, undifferentiated collection (e.g. a small history museum, or even a large one like MOHAI in Seattle which as far as I know does not break down its million-plus photos into separate "collections") and where there is a formal breakdown into multiple collections. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)