Category talk:Valued images of Canada

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

Category:Valued images is a comunity project Commons:Valued images, it is of course POV, not topic realted maintenance. Its a hidden project category and all files are sorted there, its perfect. Its the status quo.

Splitting it up will not suddenly create a topic, it will not suddenly allow to create quality controlled categories in Category:CommonsRoot-topic tree. Quality controll is what Commons:Galleries are for, in this case: Canada.

The perfect place to promote this part of the valued image project will be a portal or project page for Canada such as en:Portal:Canada for media files. The worst place to do this is to declare "Valued images" a topic itself. Its not a topic, its only an assessment. --Martin H. (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A bureacratic distinction that does nothing to help the end user. My thoughts are set in further detail at User talk:Martin H./Archive 22#Quality/featured images by location. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
No, a clear reason to keep this project an educational project. Since then I (you not made any efforts, right??) I created an idea to promote the qi/vi/fp projects, the situation that topic categories are not a place for projects or pov is still the same.Open a portal or project, such ideas are underdeveloped at Commons. Or make better use of Canada, most projects link to Canada, not Category:Canada (thats why the gallerie has more visitors). Find sollutions that help the visitor, not just search for sollutions that you like or that you can do without taking care for the rest of the project. --Martin H. (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
p.s.: and its long standing consensus of Category:Valued images et al., just because this category was splitted up - unecessearily because we already have galerie pages for particular topics for collections of fp/qi/vi (Special:PrefixIndex/Commons:Valued_images/, Special:PrefixIndex/Commons:Quality_images/)- does not mean that there is a change. This is a Commons project category, it not belongs into topic categories. --Martin H. (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am have made no efforts at the Commons, and therefore have no entitlement to an opinion. And I clearly have no interest or care for the overall project, preferring only solutions that I like. It's always nice discussing things with you, Martin.

Please understand that other people need not agree with the distinction you are making, nor do they attach the same importance to the distinction. The last time I tried to have this discussion with you, you seemed terribly annoyed that anyone would have the temerity to question your logic, and it did not seem to matter to you that other editors had concerns with your approach. Let's leave it at we agree to disagree. Since you are seeking to implement a change, then look to achieve consensus. As far as I can tell, the "long-standing consensus" to which you refer is simply solutions that you have imposed over the objections of others (see discussion from March). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, I try to keep it the way it was. Before the split up and before the incorrect mixup of project and topic. Thats the status quo of the project, and thats a status that I not want to change. Its educationaly correct, and there are enough other ideas and possible sollutions to increase the usability without wrecking the category structure. Thefore Im turning it back to the old situation, if you want to change something....., well, listen to your own words. Seek for consensus that the topic categories not follow topics but some not specified quality-driven and opinion based approach. --Martin H. (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to say that I disagree with you on both the substance of the issue and the characterization of the status quo. However, after taking a couple of days to mull this over, I must admit that I find it stressful to be engaged in this kind of dispute with an experienced editor. Working on the Commons should be pleasurable, not stressful. While I may take issue with how you have addressed this issue in the past, the approach I took a couple of days ago was not any more constructive. I think we both have more useful things to be doing that an edit war. I am also a big believer in consistency on the Commons, so I am sympathetic to your view on that point at least. If you want to reinstate your edits to the three categories, I have no problem with that. If I still have concerns over time, I can always raise the issue at the Village Pump, which is a more constructive approach anyway. I'm not sure how the logic applies to the image source category, but I will not fight you on that one either. This dispute has been unpleasant for me, and I apolgize for any unpleasantness it may have caused you. I hope that helps. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we can agree that we must search for ways to promote our content better. For example Im very unhappy with the representation of the Gallery Canada - to stay with this example. That gallery has a few percent more visitor than the category. From my own behaviour I can assume that much more visitors from our target audience visit only the gallery and that the traffic on the category comes from people who frequently use Commons. The gallery page not much improved in the last years. We promote our sister projects there, why dont we promote our own projects? Improving our Galleries, linking our projects, promoting our projects with their identifying marks, thats a switch to throw. --Martin H. (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Personally, I'd be happy to delete all galleries on the Commons, because they are (with rare exceptions) poorly maintained and a bad representation of the project's content. That will never happen though, and you are correct that given the circumstances, the Canada gallery does need improvement. I will add to my to-do list, and will raise the issue with other Canadian editors. On the more general issue of promoting the project, you are absolutely correct and I will also give some thought to that. Cheers. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)