Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Production and manufacturing

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

Category:Production and manufacturing[edit]

see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/05/Category:Industry

This compound category needs to be split between Category:Production and Category:Manufacturing as these are separate and distinct concepts. In fact, "manufacturing" is a sector of "industry" which is a subset of "production" and categorization should reflect this. Josh (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment According to the English Wikipedia Category:Production and manufacturing, this category is based on JEL classification codes for classifying the article on Journal of Economic Literature, and its original title is D2 Production and Organizations.
The purpose of Wikimedia Commons is a common media repository for all Wikimedia Projects. If we changed the category structure only on the Commons, it may be inconvinient for the other Wikimedia Projects. So, It seems appropriate to leave the correspondence with the JEL classification codes as it is.--Clusternote (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons categories are already far different than those on the individual Wikipedias and other sister projects, each of whom administer their own structures to meet their own needs. Likewise, we administer our categories to meet the needs of a media repository, and thus 'conformance with English Wikipedia categories' is not a guideline or policy for administering Commons categories. Josh (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment the Wikipedia Category:Production and manufacturing is not only existed on English Wikipedia, but also similar categories are existed on 56 languages version of Wikipedia. Thus, the notion of “Production and manufacturing” or “Production and Organizations” (original notation on JEL classification codes) seems already defact standard on the various Wikipedia projects.
How about leaving the current category structure untouched and creating a different hierarchical structure that coexists with them? For example, there is an example of the coexistence of multiple hierarchical structures with rational reasons, Musical instruments classification. --Clusternote (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clusternote there're all kinds of codes in this world. why are we following jel? what about Dewey Decimal Classification, Universal Decimal Classification, Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Library_classification#Methods_or_systems...?--RZuo (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RZuo: If you want to add those taxonomies as categories, please do it yourself. Because I respect inclusiveness, I have no objection as long as they coexist as independently as possible. In fact, I've already experienced to make coexistence of multiple taxonomy categories under the Category:Musical instruments classification‎. --Clusternote (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW: Following is my thoughts on this issue. If it couldn't apply to this issue, feel free to ignore it.
In my view, this issue seems possibly caused by some misunderstanding on the categorization. On Wikimedia Commons,
  • the simple entities or notions expressed by media files are often taken as the main subjects of categories.
    For example, Category:Products and Category:Manufacturing (originally "Organizations" on JEL) are this case.
On the other hand,
  • more complexed notions, including the relationship, or interaction, (and possibly ambiguities) between the simpler entities or notions, are also sometimes taken as the subjects of categories.
The reason why JEL classification code includes “D2 Product and Organizations” may be this later case, in addition to the importance or interests on this compound region for the JEL, --Clusternote (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clusternote and Joshbaumgartner:
  •  Agree that this category is redundant and should be split into Category:Production and Category:Manufacturing, the last one being a subcategory of the first one. I do not see any benefit in combining these concepts. Production is the umbrella term, for the making of all kind of products, for tangible products as well as intangible ones, like services. Manufacturing is only about the creation of tangible products.
  •  Agree that in Commons we administer our categories to meet the needs of a media repository, independently from other projects. They can give some guidance, but are not leading. On Commons there is no need to have a category for each Wikipedia article, in whatever language. Via Wikidata items the Commons categories can be linked to the corresponding articles in other projects, even with projects outside Wikimedia, like the JEL classification.
  •  Disagree that "Production and manufacturing" exists on 56 languages version of Wikipedia: when you look at this Wikidata item, you see that a lot of those Wikipedia articles in other languages than English are just about "Production", not about the combination.
JopkeB (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment This discussion seems unclear on: what to do the correspondence with an English Wikipedia w:en:Category:Production and manufacturing. Note that the timeline is:
  1. Category:Manufacturing has been already exist on Commons since 04:03, 17 November 2004,
  2. Category:Production has been already exist on commons since 08:11, 14 January 2007‎, and
  3. Category:Production and manufacturing was then created in 20:46, 10 February 2015,
    as a correspondence to an English Wikipedia w:en:Category:Production and manufacturing,
    and it can be interpreted as "relationship, or interaction, (and possibly ambiguities)" between above two categories, as mentioned above. [added]
--Clusternote (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC) --[added]Clusternote (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. Corrected the {{Wikidata Infobox}} to show wikidata:Q7013216 (Wikimedia category "Category:Production and manufacturing"). --Clusternote (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why should we on Commons bother about the correspondence with w:en:Category:Production and manufacturing? We just have to take care that in Wikidata are items for Production and Manufacturing, and that these two Wikidata items have links to the two Commons categories (which is already so). We can remove the Commons link from the Wikidata item Production and manufacturing so that there is no link from Commons to EN-WP anymore for this redundant category. (And of coarse make the other proposed changes on Commons.) JopkeB (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your post seems often missing the important points.
Originally this commons category was created to correspond to the Wikipedia category/Wikidata category (Wikidata:Q7013216), so if you want to delete this correspondence, you should explain why. --Clusternote (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is exactly my point: a Commons category should not be created just because there is a Wikipedia category or a Wikidata item with the same name. A Commons category should only be created because we need it on Commons and for no other reason. And then, when there is indeed a similar Wikipedia article or category and/or a Wikidata item, then we can link it, not the other way around. So when we decide that we do not need a Commons category (anymore), then we just can remove the connection with the Wikidata item. JopkeB (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's just your belief and I disagree.

Wikimedia Commons is the media repository for all Wikimedia projects. And to bridge the gap between
(1) the self-contained category structure of Commons, and
(2) the practical category structures on other Wikimedia projects,
we need introduction of
(3) some form of the interpolating categories, such like a GoF's proxy pattern, for example.

Without it, other Commons users who also belong to other Wikimedia projects (shortly, inclusive users or (A)), would be plagued by the semantic gap between above (1) and (2), and they will be forced unique interpretation, which will lead to widespread confusion. We can avoid this problem by introducing above (3) in advance.

On the other hand, for Commons users who only concentrate on the Commons category structure (shortly, exclusive users or (B)), a proposal on the second comment on this discussion, "the coexistence of multiple hierarchical structures" may be useful.

In other words, (B) exclusive users should stay within (1) self-contained Commons category layer, and (A) inclusive users can create the (3) interpolating category layer, in considering with (2) practical category on other Wikimedia projects.

We have been solve this type of problem by this way, for several decades. --Clusternote (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It cannot be several decades, because Wikidata only exists since October 2012 and Commons since September 2004.
Josh: could you please answer to this view? I learned that Commons is independent in its decisions about categories and should not bother about other Wikimedia projects; in Commons we judge whether a category should exist only upon the criteria of Commons itself and I cannot find a Commons policy or guideline that says that we should have a Commons category for every category on other Wikimedia projects, no matter how illogical the category name on that other Wikimedia project is. JopkeB (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "several decades" in here means the history of the proxy pattern, its application, and my experiences in this field. The core issue on this discussion is also an application of it, in my opinion. You seems better to read the inter-wikilinks (or references, in other case) before negative response :) --Clusternote (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have asked the question about who decides about Commons categories on Commons:Village pump#How independent is Commons in deciding which categories are appropriate?. --JopkeB (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete unnecessary union cat.
we should use cat:manufacturing as the corresponding cat for Q7013216. production is a much broader and more ambiguous term that includes things like movie production, music production...--RZuo (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete Per RZuo and others. These types of compound "apples and oranges" categories seem to work on Wikipedia to some degree because articles don't necessarily have to be about a single main subject, but they aren't a good way to organize images since the actual objects in them often aren't at all related. Like with RZuo's example of music production. No one calls music producers "music manufacturers" and somewhere that manufactures the physical products that are used to record music onto aren't "music producers." So why combine these two concepts into a single category? "But Wikipedia/Wikidata" obviously isn't a valid reason. We are here to organize media and while other projects might interface with Commons that doesn't mean they dictate best practices or control how we do things. Especially if them doing either one would lead to subpar organizational systems. Really, Wikipedia could probably do with rejiggering a lot of their "apples and oranges" categories and articles also. It's not like they don't cause problems there to in some, if not all, cases. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2022/12/Category:Production_and_manufacturing&oldid=791146524"