Category talk:2023 US Open (tennis)

@Kacir: Guess I'm late to noticing, but perhaps slow down on creating subcategories? Some are so small that I question the utility of splitting them out of (e.g.) Category:Taylor Fritz in 2023, which is the actual path that someone looking for photos of a specific player will use. The size of the main category Category:2023 US Open (tennis) doesn't really matter, it's more for maintenance. As a rule of thumb, I was making new subcategories only when I got to about 50 photos. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a standard creation of category tree organization, where categories have a standard name and are a logical part of the tree. There is only one photo in a number of categories (BK 2013, BK 2014). Nevertheless, it makes sense to establish such categories because they correspond to the meaning of the tree. I noticed you created a practise category. It seems redundant to me and without adequate linkage to other existing categories. There is no such type of tree here. Kacir (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kacir: I understand where you're coming from, and of course you're right that filling out category trees is allowed (cf. Commons:Category inclusion criteria). But subcategories for each player at a specific event are not the same as subcategories for a player in a year. For the latter, navigation between years is reasonable to expect. For the former, I'll repeat that isolating a small number of pictures from one event within the player in year category is unnecessary – that makes these photos harder to see a level down in the current player by year structure. Put another way, it's unnecessary to fill out the "X at the 2023 US Open" category tree when a handful of photos is already not hard to find in the "X Player in 2023" categories. I'll add that it doesn't seem worth the effort to try to delete the unnecessary categories you made, but if you're thinking about doing this for every tournament, maybe find consensus first.

The practice category is a separate question – though there wasn't much precedent, I made it because it seemed slightly misleading to have pictures in a top-level category which were in some sense not them playing in the event. Feel free to discuss that too, though. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is inadequate, inappropriate to have hundreds of files in one category. BTW, the consequence is poorer clarity and searching. Sorting images into subcategories by subject even with a few files is a normal approach:

A) Kiira Korpi in 2011

B) 2006 FIFA World Cup – Cat tree sorted by subject

• Matches of Brazil

• Brazil v Croatia‎ (5 files)
• Brazil v Australia‎ (3 files)
• Japan v Brazil‎ (3 files)
• Brazil v Ghana (2 files)
• Brazil v France‎ (2 files)

C) World Games 2013 – Cat tree sorted by subject

• Countries at the World Games 2013

• e.g. Belgium at the World Games 2013 (1 file)

--Kacir (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kacir: I think we just disagree here, not on policy but on practicality. It is inadequate, inappropriate to have hundreds of files in one category: Not really here – this "one category", 2023 US Open, seems less likely than player in year categories to be used when searching for photos (save for your galleries on cswiki). Poorer clarity seems actually to be an effect of subcategorizing: when searching for a player's photos in a certain year, some photos are now hidden a click further, which is especially unnecessary when the few photos in that category wouldn't overwhelm the parent. And it makes it harder to see at a glance how many photos there are for a certain player in a year. Anyway, compare your example (A) of Kiira Korpi with almost every other member of Category:Figure skaters in 2011, even those with 20 or more photos. (I have no issue with the category schemes in [B] and [C].) Sorry to go on about this, but why make tiny categories like Category:Yosuke Watanuki at the 2023 US Open when what really need splitting off are things like Category:Frances Tiafoe at the 2022 US Open (redlink at the time of posting). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem (probably not only) in tennis is the lack of Wikipedians who would categorize, update and check. Systematic categorization serves readers by making their search easier. Year categories are still missing for many tennis players. Many file names do not contain the tournament name, player name or year. So a reader looking for a specific tournament with a year has to open the files blindly and check their categorization, e.g. if I want to find out if there are Kokkinakis' pictures for Wimbledon 2015, 2016 or 2017? Or if there are files for the participation of Konta in 2015 at the Wimbledon, Eastbourne, Birmingham or Roland Garros? Systematic categorization saves the reader time, because he does not have to search and sees the categories at a glance. This corresponds to the trees A, B, C in the examples above. Kacir (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kacir: Incomplete file naming seems like an okay reason to do extra categorization but that's not the case here. And you're definitely right that Kokkinakis needs sorting by year, and I'll try to get to that soon enough. On the other hand, Category:Taylor Fritz at the 2023 US Open seems like a very unnecessary branch of Category:Taylor Fritz in 2023, and I hope you won't mind if I return the files in it and other tiny cats to the main year cats eventually. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, I prefer a systematic approach to creating categories, where it is common to categorize even single files to the lowest level. I don't know what number of images you intend for an own category to exist, because no such number exists. Everyone will probably have a different idea, own POV. Kacir (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]