Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Lutsk by day

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Lutsk by day

Clarification: This request is for Category:Lutsk by day and its immediate subcategories.

The subcategories here are for individual days, which is more detail than needed. Many of the subcategories have only a few entries, some as few as one. I think categories by month would be enough to cover what there is here. Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Obviously, each day might have an infinite number of images. This is only the beginning of categorization. Others arguments are too subjective to discuss them and not valid for deletion. --sasha (krassotkin) 18:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be creating categories for things we might have in the future. I really don't see value in categories like this that contain images for a specific day, such as March 2, but for any number of years. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no empty categories for the future. They are created as needed and gradually replenished. Just this work has begun not so long ago. For the second sentence. I do not see any value in this topic. So what? This is not an argument. The same day in different years is often closer to each other than two days in the same year. There we find a similar events, weather and much more. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there are similarities between the same date in different years, but there would be the same similarities with a longer time frame, such as a month. If there is an event that occurs on the same day each year, files for that event can be grouped under the month category. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You should not worry, we'll have thousands of photos in each category of day. I'm working on it, as you can see. At least they do not need to be combined by this reason. --sasha (krassotkin) 09:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think these are useful, even if they get thousands of photos. To me, this is a case of creating categories because we can, without regard to whether they're useful. I also would not like to see this extended to other places. No matter how this discussion ends, I think I'll start a more general discussion about having month/day categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, many of the images in the subcategories don't show anything that's significant by day. I just looked at the images in one of the new subcategories you just added, Category:Lutsk on July 30. That category has two images of a building, and one is the interior of the building. Having those in a category for July 30 but without a year isn't useful. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only because we are not yet completed categorization. Both are starting to emerge in a more complete categories. For example: Category:Lutsk on August 24 - but this is only beginning too. --sasha (krassotkin) 09:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just that. It doesn't matter how many files are in each category: I'd still think these aren't useful. Are you really putting every file for Lutsk into one of these categories? That seems so unnecessary. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You think it is useless, others think that it is useful. But it does not violate any rules and nothing got harm. I don't understand for what create conflicts of nowhere. --sasha (krassotkin) 09:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they don't violate any rules doesn't mean they should be kept. The harm is that there is now a growing category subtree -- and other subtrees for the similar categories linked above -- that will have to be maintained even though there is no explanation of what purpose they serve. The harm is also that putting files into these categories could make it harder for people to find what they're looking for if the files aren't fully categorized in other respects. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But if you do not like something also doesn't mean they should be deleted. The maximum exact categorization is our advantage. Each additional "tag" helps us in search. We have no restrictions on the depth and branching of category tree. --sasha (krassotkin) 11:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that just because one person doesn't like something, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. The issue here, though, is usefulness, not whether I like the category. There are lots of categories I don't like, but which I can see are useful, so I don't nominate those. You keep saying this category is useful, but you haven't said how it's useful. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Krassotkin Someone in the future *might* upload an enormous numbers of photos of 2:37pm on January 24, 2015 in Lutsk, but that doesn't mean we create Category:2:37pm, 24-01-2015 in Lutsk just because we have one photo taken at that time. There is absolutely no need to sub-categorize by day like this, and it makes each category less useful because of the small number of images in each. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: We should not wait for the future. We have hundreds of images on each day right now in subcategories of the city. I just recently have started to categorize them on this basis. Your suggestion for categorization is not as absurd as it seems. As you know, several years ago, we started to create a category for each date (for example Category:2016-11-19). Now we have sub-categories for this for countries and themes (for example see: Category:Photographs taken on 2016-11-17). And everything indicates that we will have even more detailed categorization in the future. --sasha (krassotkin) 15:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krassotkin: The dates you mention have years attached. The subcategories being discussed here do not, nor do the Putin and Medvedev categories. However, even if they did have years, we should wait until there are a reasonable number of files before creating a category, which is why I also nominated the Switzerland categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A-priory dates are even more detailed than days and their subcategories always will have fewer files. We shouldn't anything. Here is no such rules. --sasha (krassotkin) 20:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krassotkin: "We have hundreds of images on each day right now" because it's easy to lump together images by useless criteria. At this very moment, we probably have hundreds of thousands of photos on commons taken at 10:23am, but we don't have Category:Photos taken at 10:23am because it would be useless. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Y[reply]

I don't think it's something absolutely incredible or useless. For example for such images: File:London, Elizabeth Tower -- 2016 -- 4802.jpg. --sasha (krassotkin) 10:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed completely. We have Category:Time 10:02. If there were enough photos of a certain clockface at a certain time, I'd even support sub-categorizing that by time. A clock looks noticeably different at 10:02 than at 10:03. The images have something visually in common. What do the images of Vladimir Putin on April 3 (of any year) have in common visually? Nothing. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems like mass deletion. Similar topics: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Switzerland by day, Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Vladimir Putin by day, Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Dmitry Medvedev by day. --sasha (krassotkin) 15:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. No files would be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The categorization in these topics has been established by many people. Its removal is similar to files deletion. Anyway in my opinion it will worsen the semantic coherence of the project. --sasha (krassotkin) 20:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless there was a public discussion about whether to create these categories, it doesn't matter how many people were involved in establishing them. I'm asking for evaluation on whether they serve a useful purpose. If they don't, then the files in them would be recategorized, not deleted. The category would be replaced by something else, whether it's something that exists or something new. I don't understand what you mean by "the semantic coherence of the project". --Auntof6 (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per krassotkin Evrik (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Intersection is a mechanism that can be done by software. So I'm not the only one who is waiting for the day the wiki soft provides that feature when showing category pages (without use of any external tools). On that day many thousands of intersecting categories will become unnecessary and will be deleted for sure. --Achim (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By month is good enough. No need to get more granular than that. Abzeronow (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one will care about images on the exact same day but on various years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Delete the categories
Actions	Done
Participants	Auntof6 (talk · contribs) Krassotkin (talk · contribs) Themightyquill (talk · contribs) Achim55 (talk · contribs) Abzeronow (talk · contribs) Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) Evrik (talk · contribs)
Notes	To quote a comment by Krassotkin from 2016 "we'll have thousands of photos in each category of day." Yet 8 years most of the categories still only have image. Gee, who could have guessed the categories wouldn't be filled with "thousands of photographs" years later? Anyway, there's absolutely no reason legitimate reason what-so-ever to keep the categories if they are never going to have more then a couple of images. Really, they should have just been deleted back in 2016 or better yet, not created in the first place. BTW, it's worth mentioning that the user who originally created these categories, Krassotkin, has since been globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation for violating the Terms of Use.
Closed by	--Adamant1 (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]