Category talk:Images by subject

Naming standards of subject-specific image categories

This reminded me of something I've been meaning to address for some time. I'm pretty sure I made a post about it somewhere a while ago, but I can't find it anywhere anymore.

Thing is, while our category naming is currently all over the place, the original intent was to adopt a similar format as comparable categories in Wookieepedia. The gist is that categories should follow similar capitalization standards as article titles; ie. non-proper nouns should not be capitalized in running text. As said in the relevant bit of the MOS, "Category:Images of armor abilities" is the proper form, while "Category:Images of Armor abilities" is not. Also, the idea was that with things of which there are more than one, the category name should be in plural (e.g. "Images of gravity maces", compare to Wookieepedia), though that's pretty much never followed RE weapons, vehicles and other equipment and would be pretty hard to implement at this stage without a bot, so I'm almost willing to drop that part.

Still, I know there are already a lot of categories which follow the "flawed" standard but as with other similar instances (e.g. the still-ongoing shift to our current capitalization standards in mainspace articles started years ago), we could still try and right the boat at this stage and start adopting the proper format in new categories that are being made. --Jugus (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2017 (EST)

Agreed. I think we should begin using the "Category:Images of gravity maces" naming method for example, and just changed other category names whenever we have free time. --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:59, 22 February 2017 (EST)

Yeah, that's the better solution. We just have to be a bit more alert about not letting it lapse again. --Jugus (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2017 (EST)

Location tagging

It's something I've been meaning to address a while, but I find it kind of silly that images like this get tagged with the location (in this case Installation 00). In that image's case, it's true that it is on Installation 00, but the image's informational content when it comes to the location is practically zero as we only see a white-gray blur. I'm thinking there should be a rule of thumb where the location (or subjects in general, really) are only tagged if the image actually shows something, anything, to do with the location.

As for examples, I think even this would be a borderline case as the background is so hazy, though it would probably pass, while this wouldn't make it IMO. --Jugus (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

Yup! Agree. Japeth555 (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2017 (EDT)Japeth555

Agreed. --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:37, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

Person who's been doing that but agreed.Sith Venator (Dank Memes) 10:20, 20 June 2017 (EDT)