Category talk:Rivers of Italy by name

Archives Categories for discussion

Archives Categories for discussion (12/2009)

redirect

Foroa, please open a new discussion if you want to redirect this category. Don't just move things around that were discussed before. -- User:Docu at 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a discussion starting on my talk page. Don't reopen the discussion on all fronts for a category that has been merged three weeks ago. --Foroa (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please point me to the discussion about the merger. -- User:Docu at 16:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please point me to the discussion where there was an agreement to split rivers of Italy in two separate categories. Lets have an adult discussion in stead. --Foroa (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please check the archives. -- User:Docu at 07:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this category suitable

The discussion has started on Foroa's Talk page, but can continue here at the right place.

To summary it, yes, I find this category suitable :

• to avoid overcategorisation
• for maintenance purpose (if many rivers)

In Italy (and France), there is a category "Rivers by region". Tiber flows through Umbria, then falls into Category:Rivers in Umbria, which is in Category:Rivers of Italy. If we want to have all rivers of Italy on a same screen, this is the only neater solution to create Category:Rivers of Italy by name, like Category:Rivers of France by name. But the main work is then to fill it... Jack ma (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As I will explain later, the so called overcategorisation problem is a false problem. In the mean time, there is no single problem to maintain, as in the world standard river categorisation, everything in Rivers of Italy where there is no problem finding the Tiber. Splitting rivers in Italy in two categories would only create confusion, unnecessary deviation from standard naming conventions and yield two categories: one Rivers of Italy with 4 meta-categories and Rivers of Italy by name containing all the rest, so nothing really gained. --Foroa (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we already discussed this. Please see above. -- User:Docu at 07:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See also related discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Some of categories "by alphabet". --ŠJů (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Population of this category - unmerge

 Oppose the creation of this category. See Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/09/Category:Rivers in Italy by river. Don't unmerge before there is a consensus. Category:Rivers of Italy contains 5 subcategories at the left and the rest are rivers. There is nothing to be gained by splitting it up in two separate categories. The overcategorisation is a false problem as the meta-categories are side categories. This works perfectly for example in Category:Rivers of Poland that is a comparable situation. Finally, I think that we need an agrement of Italian users before changing their categorisation method as "rivers in Italy" is the most standard and natural category name to look into for finding rivers in Italy. --Foroa (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Foroa, we know you like to add {{Oppose}} to all category talk pages, but please refrain from undoing others work and deleting this category just because you happened to disagree with it at some point. I think it's now time for you to take a breath and move on. Try to build and expand some categories rather than opposing others who try to do so here. -- User:Docu at 07:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah seriously. The opposing is getting old. Everywhere I go I see you opposing anything and everything while making claims that there's no consensus, yet you're the only one doing the opposing. It also seems like some of the opposition is directly due to the who's making the request (Docu seems to be a favorite). Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I don't, but it's the way you go about it. It ruins the collaborative spirit.. maybe stop starting everything with an {{oppose}} to begin with? It's not really the friendliest way to start a discussion. We used to work much better. Rocket000 (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I agree with you on this one. Rocket000 (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It was manytimes clearly explained that "If we want to have all rivers of Italy on a same screen, this is the only neater solution to create Category:Rivers of Italy by name, like Category:Rivers of France by name". (See above and see the special Cfd disscussion.) Such metacategory is needed to avoid overcategorization. The fact that one user don't understand this argument shouldn't block the whole Commons. --ŠJů (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I will only reply on incorrect assertions. The remainder of the discussion on Cfd/2010/02/Rivers by country by name.

1. In Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/09/Category:Rivers in Italy by river there was indeed a consensus about eliminating "rivers in Italy by river". There was no conclusion formulated.

2. In the same cfd, you stated "I support to delete this category and to merge its content directly into Category:Rivers of Italy. Rename to Category:Rivers of Italy by name is also acceptable". Hardly a consensus, and you seem changing your mind. --Foroa (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The question of metacategories "by name" was discussed (Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Some of categories "by alphabet") and concluded. It was evidenced that such categories are useful and commonly used by the community. Only one or very few users don't receives them, and their arguments was disproved. Only one user ignored the conclusion of this discussion and obstructed its execution. Categories of "rivers by name" ("rivers by river") were also included in this discussion. Should we repeat every discussion again and again up until just Foroa's opinion will winn, while Foroa will to practise his actions without any discussion and without a consensus and he may unrespect CfD conclusions repeatedly? I think, the usefulness of "by name" categories was approved clearly and unambiguously. This category was deleted by Foroa unrightly and out of accord with the Cfd conclusion. Also the next Cfd, which was broader and more systematic, didn't upheld the Foroa's ideas. --ŠJů (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Could you show me where the conclusion is of Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Some of categories "by alphabet" ?

2. In Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Some of categories "by alphabet" there are many people that objected the need of several "... by name" categories. So that is not a consensus whatsoever. There was a consensus about a uniform naming for such categories that is unavoidable, and the majority leaned towards "... by name".

3. In the light of the above, your statement "... approved clearly and unambiguously..." is rather tendentious, don't you think so ?

4. Are you saying that the position of Rocket000 above is an obstruction too ? --Foroa (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Foroa, you introduced the example of Category:Rivers of Poland which should be analogous to this one. But in the category Category:Rivers of Poland there is no subcategory Category:Rivers of Poland by voivodeship and no subcategory of rivers by voivodeship yet, that's why for the present the category Category:Rivers of Poland by name also isn't needed yet. Do you really don't understand the reason why categories of individual objects should by metacategorized by name if and only if they are simultaneously categorized by region or by some other criterion? --ŠJů (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To avoid spreading this over another 5 talk pages, I restarted a discussion about the river categories at Cfd/2010/02/Rivers by country by name. -- User:Docu at 12:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

1. I am in no need for condescending lectures. So far, I have seen no proof that further Voivodeship subcategorisation will improve the role of Commons as a media server. This is a job for wikipedia's.

2. Obviously, Rocket000 shares my opinion too.

3. I appreciate your sentence: "... the present the category Category:Rivers of Poland by name also isn't needed yet ..." and I am sure that one day, you will say: we don't need more. --Foroa (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You omitted to mention that you merged and deleted this category despite the previous discussion. I doubt Rocket000 would agree with this approach.

As this category isn't much different from others where you copy and paste your stuff, please continue on Cfd/2010/02/Rivers by country by name -- User:Docu at 18:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)