Category talk:Bruges

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


In de cat Bruges zitten we nu een beetje met een mengelmoes van het gebruik van 'Brugge' en 'Bruges'. Wat wordt het nu? Het eerste niveau subcats ook hernoemen naar 'Bruges' of allemaal 'Brugge'? Wikifalcon 18:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Een beetje laten zoals het is (zie mijn talk by Siebrand) De laatste Bruges zijn er bijgekomen omdat je Juiced lemon wakker gemaakt hebt op de delinker pagina. --Foroa 18:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ja ik heb er al flink spijt van. En die persoon ziet blijkbaar ook niet veel graten in overleg. Als we nu eens een eenvoudige democratische stemming zouden houden? Want ik ben er zeker van dan Juiced nog zal terugkomen, tot het laatste catje naar 'Bruges' hernoemd is... Ik stem alvast op eenvormigheid, en voor het gemak zou dat dus 'Brugge' zijn. Wikifalcon 18:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Voor Bruges kan ik nog wat met beide leven, hoewel ik Brugge consistenter en juister vind. Maar voorlopige zou ik het nog wat laten rusten, wie weet verdwijnt diene ambetanterik hier niet eens de komende maanden ... tientallen commons-users wereldwijd zouden er wel bij varen ;-) --LimoWreck 19:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Kijk eens aan:-) Ggoed, we laten het even, maar ik doe toch nog even die twee dubbeltjes (Buildings en stations) weg, is nogal onnozel. Wikifalcon 19:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Juiced lemon talk page copy[edit]

The following sections contain a unmodified copy of Juiced lemon talk pages as referenced in several discussions on the Bruges category discussions.

Please STOP[edit]

Please stop spreading files and categories around. There IS NOT consensus to rename them, and spreading things around in two parallel category structure without any talk is NOT the way to do it ! --LimoWreck 23:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is NO consensus to keep categories with non-English names. Stop to remove the move requests and to empty the pages I create, and I'll stop to move the files. --Juiced lemon 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Then we remain stuck in this mess. Wikifalcon 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There is NO consensus to move things. There is NO consensus to empty categories on your own. Different people are discussing the subject. It makes NO sense to spread things around in separate parallel trees. And I don't think why some threat or intimidation is needed... --LimoWreck 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Category:Brugge has been moved to Category:Brugge. That implies the move of all “compound” subcategories with “Brugge” in their name. --Juiced lemon 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You can create galleries in local language, or rename existing galleries in local language. --Juiced lemon 23:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Juiced lemon, we are discussing internally alternative ways and improvements on the commons naming conventions and rules as to decrease the number of language conflicts. After all, there is no single major non-English city that follows the rather dogmatic commons naming rules. Bruges is our test and demo case, based on which we will make the commons use cases and naming proposal. So if you could please leave us working for a while on Bruges so that we can concentrate on constructive proposals, in stead of having to waste your and our time on useless fights. --Foroa 06:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not specially interested by Bruges, but the process to name categories is a major issue for this project, and will determine its future. In my opinion, any person in the World should arrive to the same name for a given subject.
Tell me more about you are doing. Make special agreements by language is not in the spirit of Commons. --Juiced lemon 17:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have little time now, but in a nutshell. I am a novice user here with only 2500 or so edits. I have been warned by several people about the hostility here, the lack of clear rules and a rather incomplete and messy category organisation. Because I work for several wikipedia's, I did not had the option not to work here. I want to address the following problems here as I perceive them through casual Use cases:

  • Hostile environment, few people feel "at home" here
  • The thousands of uncategorised images and floating cats
  • Incoherent category naming and organisation
  • Misconceptions and differences with a normal wikipedia
  • Language rules that are obviously not realistic: in most reasonable populated non-English cities, 30 % of the cats have names that are not compliant with the rules
  • Tools that are not efficient for the daily tasks
  • Badly understood differences between galleries and categories
  • Lack of documentation and entry points for finding items and connections with other wikipedia's
  • Mapping with iw's cats/articles
  • Procedures that inherently cause conflicts

I am not pretending that I have solutions for everything, but it is probably a good idea that a fresh user tries to summarise all the problems as he perceives them and tries to formulate the real needs. I do agree with you that the process to find the needed media is a major issue for this project, and will determine its future. And because I do care, I want to try to make an effort for a constructive contribution. It might however take some time. --Foroa 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is only one way to solve this. I think everybody can agree with me that the current category system is raising several objections to numerous people. When the category system was founded, it was probably never expected that it would raise such issues. I think the best way to go is to start anew and create a category system that is acceptable to more people. Opinions? -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Negotiating Phase[edit]

OK Juiced lemon, I give up. As there was no answer on my request above, and previous restores of other people caused no reaction from you, I assumed that I could continue to build my demo case. Although, personally, I don't care if it is Brugge or Bruges, I wanted to bring Bruges to a consistent state. As the vaste majority of the subcats and images were Brugge based, I went that direction. In the mean time, I learned a lot of this experiment.

  • When we put a move cat, then you can in all freedom remove it. If someone else removes a move cat that you placed, you are shouting about disruptive and incivil behaviour, followed by other insults. So the rule seems different for you than for other people. Most people now will understand that they can remove your move cats without problem if they feel so, without any discussion. They are allowed to state that you have an incivil and disrupting behaviour too.
  • Maybe you better understand now what damage move cats, your favorite weapon, can cause
  • When starting the edit war, you did not answer my request nor explained whatsoever, just blind edit war. That must be very bad for your health.
  • In such a case, I would assume that something like the RR3 rule comes into play, which you probably forgot all the time in the fight

Although I tried a couple of times, I slowly come to a conclusion that communicating with you is rather difficult. --Foroa 11:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your previous answer was not about Category:Bruges, but about more general issues. I have not ready answers to these numberous general issues: I can just initiate discussions in another place.
There are two major issues regarding Category:Bruges:
  • the move procedure
  • the language policy
I think we should discuss first about these issues. --Juiced lemon 11:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Juiced lemon, I stated above: "So if you could please leave us working for a while on Bruges so that we can concentrate on constructive proposals". The primary issue I have, more than language policy and move procedure, is "Hostile environment, few people feel "at home" here" probably a major reason why the commons doesn't grow as it could do.

We just saw a demonstration of my statement above that I repeat: "

  • Procedures that inherently cause conflicts".

I think that I have to make my analysis and proposal as a whole, not as bits and pieces of isolated discussions on a particular point and subsequent patching of a detail. --Foroa 12:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Procedures can be adjusted in order to do not make conflicts: they don't inherently cause conflicts. Administrators have to enforce correct procedures. --Juiced lemon 12:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Procedures can be adjusted in order to do not make conflicts": that's why I want to propose alternatives
  • "they don't inherently cause conflicts": you just cooperated on a demo of the inherent conflict of the move cat procedure
  • "Administrators have to enforce correct procedures": you probably have an angel on your right shoulder
--Foroa 12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
“Administrators have to enforce correct procedures” presupposes that procedures are correct, and seldom it's the case. --Juiced lemon 12:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That's right, administrators and procedure writers have probably the devil on their left shoulder. So we have to make a procedure to chase the devils and angels away from this wiki. --Foroa 12:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I go to update Commons:Rename a category, in order to prepare the discussion. --Juiced lemon 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Juiced Lemon, please note the folowing
  • apparently, the move cat procedure; which is the one that troubles me the most, makes apparently no part of the procedure
  • in a lot of cases, a cat rename is needed for several cat's at a certain level for several reasons which are not necessarily justifying for one single cat change but for a whole group (think of provinces in Wallonia, "xxx in/from/of yyy" cases and uniformity --Foroa 14:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Both of you need to stop, now. This is absolutely rediculous, and if it continues, you'll both be given a wikibreak. Talk about it somewhere (COM:VP, COM:AN, etc.) where you can get some community input, because the revert war needs to stop right now. --SB_Johnny | PA! 13:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. We go to work about ways to prevent that in the future. I have just noticed, in Commons:Rename a category, that these actions were called “Unambiguous fixes”. --Juiced lemon 14:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
They are in one way, but not in others. When Faroa put that template on that category, it ceased to be unambiguous and became controversial, and you (Juiced lemon), should have brought it up on COM:CFD rather than accusing him/her of vandalism and engaging in a revert war. As it happens, I actually agree with you (Juiced lemon) about the naming and populating of the category, but I'm no more a WikiGod than you are, and my opinion (like yours) doesn't matter any more than does Faroa's. However: I warned you clearly and distinctly about accusing other contributors of bad motives, and you have apparently ignored that warning.
I'm glad you two have toned it down and are working together now, but it should not require a reminder from me to get you to treat other contributors respectfully, and you're way too experienced in these conflicts not to know when you're getting into one again. Next time I need to remind you to be civil and at least act like you're assuming good faith, the reminder will come after I have blocked you. --SB_Johnny | PA! 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion to prepare and tune highly sensitive texts such as Commons:Rename a category on the talk pages to have minimal noise. If you change two words a day, you can insert whatever you want, but one day, someone might revert it all back in one go. And try not to insult people that have another opinion. Building such sensitive texts are like the procession of en:Echternach: three steps forward, two steps back. --Foroa 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a text about “how to proceed”, therefore not a highly sensitive text. The naming policy for categories has to be specified elsewhere, but not in Commons:Rename a category. I improve this page, but I don't make choices: choices will be discussed in the talk page. --Juiced lemon 18:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
JL, when someone objects, it's controversial, and you should bring it up on COM:CFD rather than "making it personal". Clear? --SB_Johnny | PA! 19:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

State of affairs[edit]

This discussion seems still in progress, according to the notice on the Category:Bruges-page, but I can't find where. At present we have a cat with the English name (which seems reasonable, cf. Antwerp, Cologne (also very French!), Vienna, Warsaw), some subcats with the same name, but some subcats with a Dutch name. Some subcats should also undergo a name change (the ones with Brugge, I would say). The only exception I could find to support "Brugge" (local instead of English) is Category:Kraków, which to me is as hard to understand as "Brugge". Fransvannes 11:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/08/Category:Bruges, it's just that nobody has replied in a while. --rimshottalk 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I've repeted my remark there. Fransvannes 18:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)