Category talk:Seasons

Category scope

I think it would make sense to define the scope of this category and its subcategories, and I wonder whether people agree with the following points:

1. This category is about the four calendar seasons. Category:Wet season and Category:Dry season should be moved to a new Category:Tropical seasons.
2. All subcategories only contain media related to the meteorological and climatic manifestation of the respective season. Media that happen to relate to dates in a given season but not related to any meteorological or climatic condition do not belong here.
3. All subcategories relate to the typical climate and vegetation of the respective season rather than to the exact meteorological definition, so a typical winter landscape will be categorized in Category:Winter, even if the picture was taken in March.
4. As a result of the previous two points, it is not correct to sort month based categories in the seasons categories.
5. The categories are not limited to pure nature photography, they can also contain media related to, for example, seasonal fashion, seasonal traditions and so on. In such cases, the relationship to the season should be explained in the description of the file or subcategory, unless it is obvious.
6. The subcategories of Category:Seasons by year should focus on media showing extraordinary conditions or events in the given season of that specific year (like: very dry summer, stormy autumn, etc). The description of the file or subcategory should explain what was specific. The categories per year should not be used for the sole purpose of reducing the number of images in the main category.

How do others think about these points? Please feel free to add  Agree or  Disagree with a short comment below each of the items! Thanks, --Reinhard Müller (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6, Incnis Mrsi, AnRo0002, Themightyquill, and Crouch, Swale: I have just seen that you've already discussed related topics elsewhere, so with this I ping you to make you aware of this request for comments. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Agree anro (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC) I only add my images to season categories when you can see it. Most of my season fotos are from plants and landscapes and I disagree with season fotos of building interiors for example. Another point: Winter in northern Europe is much longer than in southern Europe and winter in subtrocical zones does not really exist. And in central Europe the seasons begin or end earlier or later from year zu year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnRo0002 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 24 September 2018‎ (UTC)

• Thanks for starting the discussion and inviting comment, Reinhard Müller, though I'm afraid I don't agree. On almost any points. I think categorizing images by "season" is very rarely useful and often confusing. Obviously categorizing Category:Winter Olympics under winter might make sense, but that sort of thing is about my limit. Seasons and "typical" seasonal weather is highly regional/subjective. If there is never snow or "typical winter weather" in, say, Southern California, does that mean that winter never comes there? Of course it does. So if we have "winter fashion" do images of people walking around Southern California in January fit? Or "summer fashion" in Arctic or mountain communities? If we use specific month OR weather descriptors instead, we'll have a more useful system, especially if all media has to relate to specific meteorological phenomena anyway, as you suggest. Beyond that, using 4 seasons as the standard and wet/dry seasons as exceptional is rather eurocentric. Maybe Category:Temperate seasons or something could be used instead if you want to separate them. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand your points and they are indeed arguments against having categories for seasons at all. However, looking at how big the category tree is now, I think that uploaders will always look for these categories and even create them if they are not there, so it might be better to have them at least as useful as possible. And looking at it from the other side - from the viewpoint of a person looking for pictures - I think that "Winter" or "Spring" can be very useful categories for searching photographs for some purposes. So while I fully agree that the categories are not perfect, I still think it's better to have them than to not have them, and to have the category scope defined based on the usefulness for the user rather than on strictly scientific criteria. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agree In particular with the 1st point. We should be strict with inclusion and I'd be tempted even to be ruthless and say that the Seasons category and the 4 specific seasons should not actually contain any pages, but just be there as a dumping ground for pages that need to be moved to better categories, an image of Hyde Park with trees and snow that gets put in "Winters" should be moved to Category:Snow in the City of Westminster and Category:Hyde Park, London for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: just to be sure: do you agree with my proposal or with Thimightyquill's statement? --Reinhard Müller (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Reinhard Müller: Yes I agree with both. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for pinging me, and for starting this discussion that I had been thinking we needed. My responses to your points are below.

1. It seems to me that "Seasons" is pretty generic and could include other kinds of things (for example, Category:National Football League seasons). However, we can limit this discussion to calendar seasons.
2. I disagree with the first part of this. Meteorology and climate are weather, which is not strictly season-related. Just because people typically associate snow with winter, for example, doesn't mean that all occurrences of snow belong to that season. In a given place, any meteorological or climatic phenomenon can happen at any time of year, in any season, under the right circumstances. If there is a freak snowstorm in the middle of what people would normally consider summer at the location, that event should not get categorized under winter. There are apparently great differences in people's definitions of the seasons. We need an objective definition, such as the calendar start and stop dates (the solstices and equinoxes): any other definition is subjective and/or too variable.
3. I strongly disagree. A typical winter landscape, by which I assume you mean a landscape with snow, should be categorized as a snowy landscape, not a winter one.
4. I agree that it's not good to categorize months under seasons, for reasons I explained at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Weather and climate characteristics. Seasons and months should be in separate parts of the category tree. Most of what happens in a given month isn't really related to a season and doesn't need to be categorized by season. This is further complicated by the facts that seasons are reversed in the northern and southern hemispheres, and that some months belong to multiple seasons.
5. I think I'm OK with this in principle, although I think that nature photography probably belongs under months, not seasons.Things tied closely to the seasons (for example, the Summer/Winter Olympic Games, or festivals celebrating the seasons themselves) may be the only things that belong in the season categories.
6. I don't think very dry summers or stormy autumns are extraordinary: that probably depends on the part of the world you're talking about. In any case, the things you're referring to here all seem to be weather, not specific to seasons. Just because something happens in a given season doesn't mean it's related to the season. We can't tie weather phenomena to seasons, especially in these days of climate change.

--Auntof6 (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)