Forum:CT:Single-image categories

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Single-image categories
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support proposal. 1358 (Talk) 13:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Currently, our Layout Guide states that "In the instance two or more images and/or sound files on Wookieepedia feature the article's subject, corresponding categories must be created."

For some time now, there has been general agreement on Discord that it is acceptable to create image categories for single images. This allows the placement of Mediacats on articles that have only one image and also clears up some categories such as Category:Images of individuals by name/A (while the actual number of things in the category might not change with the addition of single-image categories, it is much easier to identify the contents of an image category than the contents of a file). Note that mediacats with only one image already have precedent; see Jey Parks, which is close to passing as a CA. By making this change, we will make large categories more easily navigable and therefore more useful.

This proposal, therefore, seeks to codify that these categories are acceptable. I propose amending the language of the LG to the following:

"When one image and/or sound file on Wookieepedia features the article's subject, a corresponding category may be created. If there are two or more images and/or sound files, corresponding categories must be created."

There are likely status articles that would be affected by this rule, but it wouldn't be the first time this has happened, and I'd be happy to take care of any articles that are missing appropriate mediacats.

Support

  1. VergenceScatter (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. This has been done on several status articles, and it is something that has been an unofficial standard set by several users over the past year through long discussions, including some admins. Not only will this prevent cluttering of the higher order image categories, it will also provide better navigation of said image categories. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 02:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Per Erebus. Dentface (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. This is something I've thought about a lot in the past and I think that while there is the potential for clutter, it's unlikely to be a common problem and is something we can easily clean up on a case by case basis. Meanwhile, not having single image categories leads to a lot of images that should be categorised lacking categorisation because they were the first of that category uploaded. As mentioned, this is especially the case for group shots or artist categories, where if someone uploads a new image that would fit in to the same category there's almost no way without potentially extensive research to go and locate these other uncategorised images that would allow for the category to be created. As such I think the benefits of creating these categories in terms of navigation strongly outweigh the risks. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. Per above Editoronthewiki (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. Files are inherently harder to search for because there is no filename standardization. Even if the name does describe the contents, that doesn’t necessarily make it easy to search for. Unless someone wants to go through and rename the tens of thousands of images on the site, the most efficient alternative seems to be to create single-file categories. Besides, the only thing stopping us from doing this is past precedent. There is nothing about the definition of “category” or technical issues that prevent us from doing this. It just makes it easier for readers to navigate the wiki and find images they’re looking for. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 20:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. As others have pointed out, having single-image categories is a separate issue from {{Mediacat}} in articles, as is standardising filenames. As I said on the Jey Parks CAN, I'm of the opinion that Mediacat should not be added to articles where the linked category contains only one image that is already featured in the article, and coupled with the fact that the current policy has to do with files of a subject (rather than by) and doesn't forbid single-image cats, this vote doesn't affect that article whatsoever. All it does is make sorting files more specific to each subject matter, putting them in categories of their own and thereby helping readers and editors alike. OOM 224 20:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  9. Per Ayrehead NBDani (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  10. Per the above folks. Tommy-Macaroni 19:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  11. Lewisr (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  12. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  13. Per Ayre and Fred. Zed42 (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  14. With the rewording to may instead of must and supplemented by this mediacat CT, I can support this. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  15. I can see why single-image categories is a little silly, but in the end more categorising makes for easier navigation and less clutter. Fan26 (Talk) 01:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  16. IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  17. Per Immi. LucaRoR CIS roundel (Talk) 05:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  18. Also per Immi. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  19. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 03:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  20. NanoLuukeCloning facility 13:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Image names should describe the subject of the image, rendering the need for a single-image category as unnecessary. Where the name doesn't describe the image for some reason (eg a group of people), multiple images would necessitate a category per the current wording (eg separate images of each of those people in the group image, as well as the group image itself). The creation of single image categories shouldn't have been established in place of updating the image names if vague image names are the problem Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. I vehemently disagree. It is rediculous to create a category for a single image. Period. Even more so if it is just so that {{Mediacat}} can be added to a page, status or not. If there is only a single image in a status article nomination, then Mediacat should not be required for it to be granted status. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. I really don't see why it's necessary to have a category for single images. If an article contains that one image, say in the infobox, it's unnecessary to add a Mediacat that says "Explore all of Wookieepedia's images for this article subject." This was made so that all images that could not be covered in the article (due to space and size and etc), could still be connected to the article in question. I think this is very unnecessary. Per JMAS as well --Vitus InfinitusTalk 12:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    Per all above. LucaRoR CIS roundel (Talk) 14:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. Excess work for little payoff. I echo what's been said above. Stake black msg 14:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. Not seeing a need for this. And regarding the Jey Parks example: IMO it's fine to have single-image categories for artists, but that's different from images of a subject. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 17:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    As I noted below, must create is different from may create. I'd support affirming that they may be created, not that they must be. If I'm looking to see if we have an image of a subject, my usual path is checking the article for that subject, seeing what images are there, then utilizing the mediacat (if present) to see if there are more; I do the same for a sound file. When I'm creating a new subject category, it's because there's more than one of some subject. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  6. I agree this would be unnecessary, and just makes things messier. JMM (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  7. Per the above. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 18:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  8. I'm hardly the only person to point out that creating categories for single images will not reduce clutter. It will, in fact, simply relocate the clutter elsewhere, namely the category section. Let's not. SilverSunbird (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

The use of {{Mediacat}} seems to be a separate issue to discuss from single-image categories themselves, but since I'm the nominator on Jey Parks and raised that issue on my nomination, here I am! I don't understand why an article requires a {{Mediacat}} when there's only one image in that category and that image is already displayed on the article itself. Navigating to Category:Images by Jey Parks just shows the same image already seen, thus serving no useful purpose ("hey, a category exists, but if you wanted to see more, oh well because there's nothing else here). So, when it comes to Mediacat, I disagree with using it for single images.
To me, a "category" contains two or more things that have something in common. However, I understand that part of the purpose of single-image categories (at least when it comes to artists) is so we can credit an artist on an image's |artist= field; if they have no category to list in the |cat artist= field, the article ends up automatically placed in Category:Files without artist categorization. The category then also serves the purpose of... well, existing, should that artist create any future work to place in it. I assume for subjects and Category:Files without subject categorization (currently at 5344(!) files), a single-image category similarly serves the purpose of "in case another image should be uploaded so we can go 'there is another' and put them together." Is that assumption correct? Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I would argue that Category:Files without subject categorization should NEVER have been created. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I think it's useful even if we don't have single image categories, just for maintenance purposes. But I'm a little confused, on discord a few months ago you seemed to be in favor of this idea. VergenceScatter (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't recall the full context of that discussion, TBH. But if there is only a single image uploaded attributed to an artist, then I don't believe a category Images by so-and-so should be created for that single image, and therefore, said image should not automatically fall into Category:Files without artist categorization. For the aforementioned situation, there should be an option in the {{Information}} template to allow an image to not fall into the Files without artist categorization category. Such as putting "skip" or something there. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • To Immi's point, I would certainly prefer categories to have more than one image, but I think that the issues that you mentioned are valid reasons to create those categories.
  • I'd also like to point out that single-image categories may be important if we ever end up splitting imagecats by continuity. There are plenty of canon subjects that have only one image, and in that situation we would end up flooding other categories with suddenly category-less image. VergenceScatter (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    • If this does come to fruition, and there was only a single image of XYZ, then we should only have two categories. The canon image can remain in Images of XYZ and then create a subcategory Legends images of XYZ or Images of XYZ/Legends or however we decide to name them for all the Legends images. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • As Immi mentioned, Mediaccat is a separate issue to this vote. We could very easily just not require mediacat be included on pages when there is only a single image in a category since that seems to be a concern for many people. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'd rather see something like: "When one image and/or sound file on Wookieepedia features the article's subject, a corresponding category may be created. If there are two or more images and/or sound files, corresponding categories must be created and linked to via the {{Mediacat}} template [...] The {{Mediacat}} template should not be used if there is only one image and/or sound file in that category." Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I'd be okay with a change like that. VergenceScatter (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
        • If so, well, you know the work involved in a vote change! But right now, stating that this amendment will make it acceptable to have single-image categories—well, it already is, as far as I can tell. The policy you propose amending mandates categories "must be created" when there are two or more files, but doesn't mandate that categories "must only be created if" there are two or more files. The proposed amendment would expand the category-creation mandate to single files, and mandating that is what I voted to oppose. To my knowledge, nothing needs to be amended for single-image categories to be permitted. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)