Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/01/Category:1900s

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:1900s

[edit]

Suggest rename to 1900s (decade), and doing similar for sibling and child categories ending in two zeros; to avoid confusion with the period 1900-1999. Obviously, this would be wide-reaching, and I cannot tag every category concerned! Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, chewing: The first link on top of that page reads Category:20th century. --Achim (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about a redirect?199.7.156.141 22:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
from what to where? Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking 1900s to 1900s (decade), but apparently not thinking too much. They don't have it for w:Category:1900s, and no such cats on WQ nor WS, FWIW.199.7.156.141 17:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As it does on, for example, Category:1980s. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just tagged a bunch of similar base categories (e.g. Category:1800s) which further convinced me that this is a good idea. Category:0s could definitely use additional clarity. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This change would mean changing our many templates that generate decade categories, nav boxes that link to decades, and maybe other things. If we do this change, I think we should turn the existing pages into dab pages. (If left as redirects, we'd probably have the same problem.) I think this change would affect so many different things that we should probably try to publicize this proposal more before taking action. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't like that idea. There is the same category structure in en-wiki and a lot of editors used to it. It's quite enough to have a notification & navigation panel. People add often wrong /sometimes completely wrong/ categories. But in's not the reason to make things more complicating for everyone. --Fleur-de-farine (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it Category:1900s redirects to Category:1900s (decade), I don't see how it would become a hassle for anyone. If you could be more specific about the potential downsides, I might understand. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's left as a redirect, it wouldn't solve the problem. If someone added Category:1900s thinking that it meant the 100-year span, it would get recategorized to the decade category by the bot that checks redirected categories. Making it a dab page would be better. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. If enwiki uses exactly the same solution. I tend to vote  Keep. We almost always follow enwiki solutions because these are often the results of discussions--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1900s shouldnt refer to 1900-1999, so no need to change.
anyone saying 2000s referring to 2000-2999? RZuo (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2000s might be different, but in common English usage, saying something happened in the "Seventeen hundreds" refers to 1700-1799, not 1700-1709. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: no consensus. --✗plicit 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2017/01/Category:1900s&oldid=880967320"