Category talk:Madison Square Garden (former)

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


Commons:Categories#Over-categorization reads in part: "Over-categorization is when a file, category or other page is placed in several levels of the same branch in the category tree. The general rule is always place an image [or category] in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those."

This category belongs to Category:Madison Square Garden, which belongs to Category:Madison Square, which belongs to Category:26th Street (Manhattan). Therefore, this category may not be placed in Category:26th Street (Manhattan).

Please respect our category rules; they exist for good reason. Vzeebjtf (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor is being overly strict in the interpretation of this rule - some categories may be legitimate sub-categories of other categories, and yet every sub-cat of the main cat may not appply. Things are not so cut and dried in the real world as the rule cited implies. Since there are multiple "former Madison Square Garden"s in multiple locations, and the current MSG is in an entirely different place, 26th Street is appropriate here. More importantly, the editor is insistent upon this not for any policy reason, but because of personal animosity towards me, whom he has called a "damned liar" (and was blocked for it). See this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Animosity runs both ways, and this disagreement arose before the animosity, which is irrelevant in any case.
  • None of the first three sentences even relate to the rule cited.
  • This mounts to, The rules are whatever I say they are. Which is a bad way to run Commons or any organization. Vzeebjtf (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I have no animosity towards you. I simply see an editor who believes he knows more about how things run here than his experience justifies, and who, because of that, makes some errors but is hypersensitive to correction or criticism from other editors, leading to ownership issues.

In any case, what it "amounts to" is using common sense to interpret rules, nothing more than that.

So, this little contretemps with you has taken up far too much of my time and psychic energy -- and yours too, I imagine -- which would much better be used to upload new images and improve articles on What do you say we let the past be past and work toward improving Wikimedia Commons and en.Wikipedia? Let's let this issue drop and move on from here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)