Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Books published in London by year

Category:Books published in London by year

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Books from Great Britain by year and Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:Books from the United Kingdom by year.

This category seems way too granular. We do not have books published in city by year (compare Category:Books published in New York City, Category:Books published in Paris, etc.) The problem is each category creates a tiny tree of year in London, and books in London by that decade, and basically each category is the entirely of the Books published in the United Kingdom by year parent. The largest category here (Category:1908 books from London does contain 68 categories but the parent Category:1908 books from the United Kingdom has eight more. Better to upmerge these to decade, rename these into a England category (likely the same) and merge in the books from the UK. This is also helpful because of the complicated prior-1707 books from London categories which have a mix of books from GB/books from the UK where England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland are a better split. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I also note that this is the only "published in" category versus the other "from" in the parent tree. Published in is used for the city categories but it isn't done by year. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm responsible for this work-in-progress, but I expect that all of these categories can be sufficiently filled, like Category:1647 books from London and Category:1847 books from London. I started this experiment for two reasons: first, there are 140'000 "Books published in London" which is far too broad for a category. Second, this is tying together the category trees of Category:Books from the United Kingdom by year, Category:Books from Great Britain by year and Category:Books from England by year (the last one was sparsely filled even before I started; the territorial name changes also didn't help).

It seems granular, but London had for centuries by far the largest output of books in England if not the world, dwarfing entire European countries. My efforts are also restricted to London right now, so no wonder London stands out. As for the name, it is a sub-category of Category:Books published in London; but the per-year-categories are always using the "from"; so all child-categories are using the "from London" as well. I don't object to renaming the parent category into "from". --Enyavar (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Enyavar I understand that the volume is incredible but I still don't think by year makes sense. Looking at the template for Category:1647 books from London, you are creating Category:1647 in London (which has enough on its own), Category:1640s books from London (which totals maybe 100 items across the decade) and Category:1647 books from Great Britain/Category:1647 books from the United Kingdom (which are being separately discussed). If it went to England, I doubt there would be a difference because there isn't much non-London English stuff. You can have the books in Category:1647 books from England, Category:1647 in London and Category:1640s books from London. I'm not chucking the whole ideas of breaking down books published in London but maybe decades are a better start. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit (update): I did not create the categories that are (at the moment) still red, I only created the "from London" categories. If the categories "from GB"/"from UK" exist, the template makes it easy to navigate towards them and check if there is content that can be moved into "from London" (we would also need to empty the GB/UK categories per the proposal to move into "from England", right?). I am/was aware that these two parent categories are essential duplicates and at times anachronistic. For the time being they are both heavily used in the 19th century, so I included them temporarily until the matter of the CfDs is resolved - please nobody create them just for the purpose of having them around, this cannot be a permanent part of the template anyway.

I see the future of this part of the category tree as follows: "Books from <national-unit-of-the-British-Isles> by year" (the name of the nation changes, but there can only be one of them, not UK and GB parallel). This parent category then invariably owns the category "Books from England by year" and additionally Scotland, Wales and Ireland as needed. Within "Books from England by year", there is "Books from London by year". As far as I checked, even in the 1590s there are enough books from London to justify this distinction. Probably in the 1550s and earlier, we might not have enough books each year, so we can only use the "Books from <England/London> by <decade or century>" instead. (I did some work and now have sorted about ~100 books in the 1590s and 1600s, and in the 1640s there are at least ~250 from London. Updated as of --15:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC))

What I don't think is worth doing, is "at first" setting up three categories in each file, and later come back to replace the three categories with the one that I wanted to use all along. It means doing the same work but four times instead of once. --Enyavar (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

this category is cleared, Cfd will be removed anro (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)