Category talk:Pelle Hedman
Source category
editPlease see this discussion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Source categories are for images - not for persons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
See link above where this is discussed. Removing this source category and the explanatory text goes against consensus. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fact is not all of the images in category:Pelle Hedman were oploaded by Southerly Clubs. And for very few of these images Southerly Clubs had a claim of copyright. Nothing justifies placing this category under Category:Ristesson History. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- You (or your club) are the only user who is trying to categorise content categories in source categories. If there was any consensus for doing that I think there would be more people doing that. And we would have lots of "category:categories by user:x" and useless comments like "this category was created by user:x, but of course other users can use it to" in category descriptions.
- To keep track of cateogries you create you can list them in a user page like User:Mattes/Contributions/Categories created/0-F, or User:Scapler#Categories Created. /Ö 13:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see no harm in the way this has been set up, nor did Howard Cheng (see link above), and everyone seemed to agree at that time. Then what happened? That isn't clear. The complaints here do not seem to be intended to improve Commons in any necessary way, nor to prevent damage to the project. No damage is being done here, as far as I can see. There is nothing "useless" about the wording, it clarifies the fact that
one image4 images from other sources now have been added. The importance of this criticism escapes me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see no harm in the way this has been set up, nor did Howard Cheng (see link above), and everyone seemed to agree at that time. Then what happened? That isn't clear. The complaints here do not seem to be intended to improve Commons in any necessary way, nor to prevent damage to the project. No damage is being done here, as far as I can see. There is nothing "useless" about the wording, it clarifies the fact that
- Southerly Clubs is trying to claim this category and this person. But it does not matter that User:EmilEikS created this category - do not mention that on the page, one can read that in the history. Southerly Clubs people uploaded some stuff, but they are not a source for the material - they just scanned some PD images from printed publications. And there are also uploads by contributors in this category that have no connection with Southerly Clubs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how one claims a person. Don't understand what that means. The images contributed by SC are rare prints from the Ristesson files that never would have been here if SC hadn't scanned them, processed them, worked on them and contributed them, plus a photo taken of Hedman's house by SC's chairman. No one has ever mentioned or inferred any SC "copyright" to these images before so that complaint is just scurrilous. SC has an amount of rare info on this person because he was a first cousin of the chairman's grandmother. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- The best scans here did not come from Southerly Clubs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Im perfectly fine with removing the person from the source category. Just because some of the images are from some source does not make the person connected to the source in an hierarchical way. Just because most of our Britney Spears images are from flickr.com does not make Category:Britney Spears a subcategory of Category:Flickr. Remove all persons from Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives (except e.g. they are founders or employees of that club), thats all an inapropriate mixture of source and topic categories. --Martin H. (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
p.s.: If you want to create an overview of what rare images was photographed by that source you may create a gallery Southerly Clubs Image Archives
-
Mia Adolphson.
See also category: Mia Adolphson. -
Swedish cabaret show AlexCab. See also category: AlexCab.
The Gallerie namespace, with all its opportuities not yet discoverd very well, is the perfect place to build the conection without intruding the hierarchic approach of the category namespace.
This is a subcategory to Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives (link below) because Southerly Clubs uploaded the first 14 images on the topic to Wikimedia Commons in 2008. Of course, subsequent images can be freely added to it.
Is a coincidence. Maybe its a hierarchic connection in Wikimedia Commons but not an evidence for any hierarchic connection in the outside world, and that is what we categorize here. --Martin H. (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment I agree with those who have suggested that this category, Category:Pelle Hedman, should not be a subcategory of Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives. In this and the other similar cases, not all images relating to the subject of the category will be from the Southerly Clubs Image Archives so the categorisation is inappropriate. All images from the Southerly Clubs Image Archives should be directly included in Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives, not via a category of a subject like this one. The current situation is not how categories are meant to work and so there would need to be strong consensus to go against the conventions for categorisation which it doesn't seem there is. Can we now remove Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives? I can't see strong consensus for the current situation. Adambro (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)