Category talk:Ancient Greek jewellery

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Oppose the move[edit]

  • 1) "Ancient Greek jewellery" belongs to a series of categories belonging to Category:Ancient Greek art, from "Ancient Greek statues" to "Ancient Greek pottery" and so on. If "Juiced lemons" wants to change this jewelry category, he should then change the whole lot, to avoid creating a patchwork having different rules for evey kind of item. Furthermore, there is no categorisation of "Jewellery" yet, so that the move may be not explained with the need of uniformity with the rest of the series.
  • 2) "Ancient Greek" jewellery does not come "from Greece" alone, but from Italy, Syria, Libya, Tyrkey & re. as well. The reason why the formula "from Ancient Greece" was not used dealing with Ancient Greek artifacts, is that what we call "Greece" today, and what was called "the Greek world" in the past, DO NOT OVERLAP. Greek art jewels from Sicily are not "from Greece" at all. Sicily was never called "Greece". This is "Ancient Greek" art, indeed, but it is not "from Ancient Greece".
  • 3) There is not a single category phrased "Ancient Greece something".
  • 4) The need to change the spelling "jewelry" with the more archaic "jewellery" escapes me, especially since Google allows to calculate that the first one is more used wordlwide by a ratio of 3:1 (309,000,000 against 89,000,000 items). However, being not a native English speaker, I shall not insist in opposing the change of the spelling, since for coherence sake the most important thing is that we only use one spelling, so let's go for "jewellery", if Juiced lemon can't live without it. So I can adapt to Category:Ancient Greek jewellery.

As usual, contributors are asked to avoid acting as if they were the only ones working at Commons, since many other people are at work on it, and there "might" be some reasons behind their choices. Thanks. --User:G.dallorto 03:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In the English Wikipedia Ancient Greeks is a redirection page to Ancient Greece. In Wikipedia Commons, Category:Ancient Greeks has been deleted on 10:39, 13 April 2007, moved to Category:People of Ancient Greece, deleted on 10:19, 29 April 2007: striking series of stupid deletions of categories, which are contrary to Commons policy. So, though I have not a distinct preference between “Ancient Greeks” and “Ancient Greece”, I take in that the parent category for this subject is Category:Ancient Greece. The whole substructure of Category:Ancient Greece results from this basic choice, which is not “my choice”.
According to the Universality principle, which is explained in Commons:Naming categories, you cannot use different terms to refer to an unique subject.
1. As long as Category:Ancient Greece remains the parent category, the categories of its substructure will be renamed accordingly.
2. “Ancient Greece” is not a specific location. Locations are mainly categorized according to current political divisions (see Commons:Territorial division of the World).
3. It's nice.
4. Classic English dictionaries have no “jewelry” entry. More, the article in the English Wikipedia is jewellery. That's why “jewelry” is a problem, in my opinion.
--Juiced lemon 15:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a former debate between the Commons users working on Ancient Greece/Ancient Rome. The final solution which was adopted by consensus was to use the naming form "Ancient Greek/Ancient Roman xxx", since it avoids any confusion between the country and the cultural area. When writing "Jewelry of Ancient Greece", there is a major doubt if it refers to "Jewelry from Ancient Greece, whatever the culture" or "Jewelry made by Ancient Greeks, whatever the country". And it is more likely that people will understand the first, so bad point. It is not tolerable to introduce an ambiguous form to fit in general schemes which were not thought for special cases, such as old civilizations.
As for the spelling of "jewel(le)ry", I don't have any religion. We just have to be consistent. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 15:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Your private and obsolete arrangements don't matter. In Wikimedia Commons, adjectival forms in category names are deprecated because they cause confusion and disrupt the classification process. Cultural subjects are associated to near all the countries, and are properly categorized, according to our custom rules. There is no reason to invent a specific system for “Ancient Greece” and “Ancient Rome”, though these countries are not different than the other ones.
You have choosed to categorize this category in the substructure of Category:Ancient Greece, so the subcategories must be named accordingly. Currently, “Ancient Greece” is perfectly defined, due to the parent category and the English Wikipedia article Ancient Greece, while “Ancient Greek” is indeterminate. “Ancient Greek” is a puzzling term which would not be used. --Juiced lemon 17:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact, Commons is not made by inapropriate rules but by aproriate users; so yes, private arrangements matter when the rule sucks. At least 3 mature contributors and one sysop decided to choose an “Ancient Greek/Roman xxx” form after discussing several possibilities. So the result is currently that the cat would not be renamed. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 19:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
JL, these arrangements are neither private, nor obsolete. It all took place some months ago. Please read the debate before trying to reinvent the weel. Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome are not former countries like the USSR, but cultural areas; different circumstances call for different measures. This has all been talked and talked before. This is beginning to be very tiresome for those who work on Ancient Greece and Rome here. Honestly, there are much more important problems about Commons categories than this particular points. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)