Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Harp Guitar Form 3a

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

There is extensive text including bare links to an external website at the top of this category. "NOTE TO RESEARCHERS", all caps, italics, and bold font as well as a line of stray text need to be discussed and determined if appropriate. I don't know if it is promotional or test edits. FeralOink (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked further, about what I referred to as "atypical" content for this Category. Per this comment by Billinghurst (paraphrased), Category definitions should be as short as possible, with references and commentary provided on the Category talk page. This Category as well as Harp guitars and and Harp organology (submitted to Cfd too) don't seem to conform. That is what I think needs to be discussed.--FeralOink (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is the "3a" here anything other than one writer's designation in a somewhat arbitrary list? Unless this terminology has wider currency, it does not belong in a category name. - Jmabel ! talk 05:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Jmabel! You are correct, however, there are many more, e.g. Category:Harp Guitar Form 3c, Category:Harp Guitar Form 2c. See the subcategories of Category:Harp_guitars for additional examples that I just found now. And they were all created by the same Commons user. Arbitrary assignment of "Form Nx" where N=the real numbers and x={a...z} is not how we should name categories (unless the terminology DOES have wider currency among harp guitar uh organologists, which I don't know. The same is true for Category:Harp Guitar "Relatives". Historical musical instruments that "aren't harp guitars but are relatives or distant cousins"?!--FeralOink (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it reasonable to include a link or reference explaining that "3a". I think the description should end and not start with the reference. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Enhancing999, that the category should not start with the reference, to avoid confusion and clutter. What is the difference though between 3a and 3c, i.e. do we truly need both?--FeralOink (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the reference is fine, but we should quote the minimum (the current lengthy quotation is excessive and might even have copyright issues). Also, assuming the "3a" etc. is entirely the creation of the one cited writer, this should be replaced by a descriptive phrase meaningful if not to the average person in the general population, at least to the average person likely to work on classification of instruments. - Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there is no way to put text at the "end" of a category. It always precedes the category members. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody asked for that, but maybe it should be possible. Try Commons:Village_pump/Technical if you have a usecase. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Special:Diff/905620939 improves it. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, Template:Reflist-categories should provide better layout. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, it would be much easier of this was available at Wikidata (or Wikipedia). Enhancing999 (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]