Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/11/Category:Logging in King County, Washington

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

Category:Logging in King County, Washington

This makes no sense. Why should a category called "Logging in King County, Washington" have parent categories that are specific to railways & locomotives? And why, in any event, is it useful to break logging down to a county level? The latter seems to me to be inappropriate geographic splitting. Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the category Category:Logging in Pierce County, Washington.
Logging is not necessarily a county function, but the nature of watersheds and access to transportation routes are similar to the way county boundaries are created in mountainous areas. Thus this category is accurate for limiting the geographic search for images about logging. The other option is to identify commonalities of images by companies, and activities. Not choosing to take the time to research the how these images are related, it was simpler to create a county category. Chris Light (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. Why split more locally than state at all, other than where we can split by company?
2. Why these particular parent categories? - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Jmabel: It appears the categorization has been cleaned up--I did not find any railroad categories when I looked at it--so I think we are just talking about sorting by county at this point. I do not think there is an arbitrary limit to how granular of a location warrants categorization 'by location'. The rationale should simply be: is there sufficient media which can be identified as being in a specific location? Looking at the King and Pierce County categories above, it seems both have more than enough images where the county is identified to warrant such categories. Thus I see no reason to delete them. Josh (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: it's been cleaned up because I cleaned it up after Chris's remarks here gave no explanation of why those should be parent categories. - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Yeah, I didn't see any issue with that. Josh (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. I was the nominator. I'm still not in love with breaking this down to counties, but now with the inappropriate parent categories removed, that issue isn't worth fighting about. - Jmabel ! talk 05:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]