User talk:Hdamm/Archives/2008/April

correct usage of categories

Hello there Hdamm. Each image has to be in at least one category, the most specific one if possible. Since we do not know if other users will upload further images of for example a museum or temple, it makes sense to already create a specific category for that. Red links are fine too, since often a times someone else will also have put images or categories into a red link. When someone finally links the red link, making it a proper one, many other items appear in it suddenly.

About your question about Wats, I think you will agree with me that a temple is clearly a building. Whatever other function it has, you can add other categories to it, for example "Religion in Thailand" or something like that. sincerely Gryffindor 21:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gryffindor. Maybe you're right concerning the "most specific one if possible". What I'm complaining about is the inflationary, overwhelming and confusing amount of new categories. Example: I like to use the meta:CatScan-Tool for scanning new or altered images in Commons. It tells me: "scan aborted after 675 categories (4 levels)". 675! How can you ever find a proper category for a new picture out of more than 675? Especially if your conception of certain categories differs from other people's (see my complain about Wat).

BTW, you don't need to explain WikiMedia to me.

--hdamm 08:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make up the rules. All I know is that images have to be put into a category, and the more specific it is the better. Look at for example categories for fauna. We don't put insects all into one category called "insects", they are instead all very specific. I have serious problems for example when a building category holds large amounts of pictures, it is easier for me to navigate if they are neatly cleaned up and sorted, somewhat like in a library. Gryffindor 09:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)