These category contains a few pictures of lace. The category is the *only* category containing these pictures. The category name however does not reflect the real world characteristics of these pictures however. The category is *only* a category grouping a few pictures made by a user, as is clear from its name. Therefore, 2 solutions:
1: this category can be removed, and the pictures are moved to category:Lace.
2: maybe the category can be kept (there are other categories on wikipedia grouping pictures from one user, or grouping pictures from some source, with some license, made with some software or so ?). But then all pictures in this category should also have category:lace added, so they are *also* part of the normal categories right ?
I think 2 is a valid solution, and 1 is not necessary ?
Also, the category description violates the GFDL license. No one can claim someone has to ask permission to modify something ? --87.106.27.17 20:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No it does not violates the GFDL license; you can change the pics, not the cats or the text. Like it is right now it is fair, My name is obviously written, when you cat all in cat: lace, you start with dubble cats, i'll never accept that my private collection is categorised as ordanary 'Lace'; see also: The Collection of Friedrich II von Preußen; here the paintings are aswell presented as a collection, with underlines the value of the collection. Besides why Am I having an discussion with an anonymus person, show yourself! Carolus 22:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This collection does not look notable enough to have its own topic category as a subcategory to Category:lace. Therefor I think the category should be considered a user category, as described in Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy. Such user categories should not be included in the topic category tree as subcategories (as discussed here). So I think solution 2 is the better option. /Ö 08:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What? I gave my private collection to commons, and you say that it does not look notable enough? What the hell???Carolus 09:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with User:Ö. This user isn't a notable person, so his personal maintenance categories should be part of the Category:User galleries you pointed to, and not the normal categories. This can even be a bit redundant, as the user already has a gallery with the pictures User:Carolus/Lace Collection, but that his decision how he wants to organize his user space pages. The category can not be a part of category:Lace I think, as the user itself is not notable to deserve an own category, and the pictures shoudl be accessible through category:lace in a normal categorization. Also not that cries like "!!!!!!!!!DO NOT TOUCH WITOUT PERMISSION OF CAROLUS !!!!!!!!!!!" in the category description are completely incompatible with the GFDL. Regards, <name removed> --81.169.137.209 11:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I stop with negotiating, because my privacy is given public by 81.169.137.209!! I do not continue until the anonymous guy/girl is blocked! Carolus 15:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say I agree with Ö here. Category:Private Lace Collection of Carolus should be categorized as a user gallery, and all images in it should, additionally, be put into Category:Lace. As for the GFDL issue: images are allowed to have a number of free licenses, among them GFDL, all text must be GFDL. Keep in mind that you do not own any text here, if you create a category or a gallery you automatically accept that people are allowed to change them. You do own, in a way, your pictures, of course, but you cannot specify what shall be done with them. Once you publish them under the GFDL they can be used in many ways without your explicit approval, including putting them into a different category. --rimshottalk 10:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy. The solution acording to that page is to add Category:Lace to all images and remove Category:Lace from Category:Private Lace Collection of Carolus. By the way all of these images seem to be in User:Carolus/Lace Collection already. /Lokal_Profil 22:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So in fact there is no problem. No changes have to be made. Anonimous contributor using (two) different ip-s both blocked on nl.wiki in november 2006 as sockpuppet and open proxy, has clearly started his trolling actions to harm Carolus (also a user from nl.wiki). Administrators on Commons are kindly requested to take notice of these facts and think twice before rewarding this attack on Carolus en run the risk to shy away this art-loving user who has been so kind and selfless to upload lots of unique en often beautiful material - like the collection on hand-made Belgium lace - and who is definitely not a native speaker of the lingua franca on Commons. There is no harm in having this private collection and no need to take is apart. If administrators think there is, instructions on how to make changes should be given in Dutch. Kind regards - Aiko 11:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Lokal Profil's solution looks fine to me. Carolus will have to take no action himself, we will add the appropriate category. --rimshottalk 09:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added Category:Lace to these images, but before I saw the link to this discussion. Nevertheless I intend to leave it, as it's quite inappropriate to have a sub-category of Lace which is not a type of lace or other scientific subdivision but simply a reference to the user that has uploaded the images. The comment "!!!!!!!!!DO NOT TOUCH WITOUT PERMISSION OF CAROLUS !!!!!!!!!!!" in the category description is in clear violation of the GFDL license which automatically applies to all text on this site (see the wording that appears below the edit box whenever any text is being typed in - not only image text but any text). I have accordingly deleted that warning. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to de-link that private category from the lace category. --MichaelMaggs 19:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Lokal Profil. Since the contents of Category:Private Lace Collection of Carolus is now categorized in category:Lace, I think that the discussed category is no more useful, therefore my opinion is: empty and delete. --Juiced lemon 19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something does not look very consistent: all sorts of user categories are allowed but not this one. And if the lace is a real private collection, what then ? --Foroa 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the current policy is one user category per user, but this category shold only be a subcategory of Category:User galleries and not be mixed into the normal categories. /Lokal_Profil 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not clear in Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy, so there is probably no clear reason to delete such a cat. This "private stuff" shouting is obviously against the commons spirit and GFDL. Nevertheless, iy is quite possible that this lace is part of a real private collection, in which case it can have its own category I should think. --Foroa 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't care about private collections, unless these are famous ones, hence referenced. --Juiced lemon 21:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider Category:Taken by Lar and its subcategories. We do not prevent people from putting images in user categories, the restriction is that the image should not be in ONLY that category (or it's not very useful to others) and that the user categories should not be commingled with topic categories (as that's confusing to others). So, in my view, this category could stay... but the images need to be reviewed and added to other categories (Category:Lace or perhaps subcats or related cats) as well. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Images are already in category:Lace so then the only thing which remains is to remove category:Lace from the user category, which I just did. /Lokal_Profil 00:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOW I STOP WITH COMMONS! YOU CAN FORGET MORE PICS OF LACE, ROYAL PALACE PAINTINGS ...Carolus 13:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Carolus, it's unfortunate you feel that way. The actual result here is that the items were put into a more generic category, and left in the user specific category. That is common practice. It happened to me too and at the time I was a bit put off by it but I saw the logic. You are free to contribute or not, as you like, and you are free to license your images in a way that requires attribution, if you are concerned with credit, but we have to do things in a way that benefits the most people. I hope you understand, and every best wish in future. This discussion has reminded me I have to take some pictures of my mother's bobbin lace and lacemaking equipment... nowhere near as nice as your collection to be sure. ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|