Template talk:CatDiffuse/en

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


Cwbm, you said "it says large in the english template", but you don't acknowledge that en:Template:CatDiffuse is intended for categories requiring „frequent maintenance“, i. e. it conforms to {{Categorise}} template at Commons, not to this template. --ŠJů (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry "too large" is apperantly the correct expression. It has nothing to do with "frequent". But anyway. I removed the replace hint. There is no need to point people towards that template. Also the link is annoying, because all the pages show up under "what links here". --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the "replace" link. I think it is a good idea. Some categories may need the permanent categorization notice. So this points people to it if they think it is needed. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Links for finding better categories[edit]

I added some helpful links for finding better categories. From Template:Categorise.

Some images may not belong in the category at all, and may need to be moved to other categories. These links help in finding the correct categories. Otherwise the images may not get moved out of the category. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


What is this for?

"Search for more categories here and here."

--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See the preceding talk section. I will clarify the template text.
Many editors give up on the Commons because they can't figure out how to categorize the images they upload. They can't find existing categories, because they don't know how to get to Special:Search in order to search category names.
So many images get dumped in the wrong category, because that is all they can find. So the template sentence has links to help people move images out of the category if they don't belong in the category or its subcategories. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Template text[edit]

Here is a possibility:

Further clarification is good, if necessary. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Cut the text by half. No unnecessary links. No links to other templates. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't take orders. We discuss. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


  • first link: misleading people know what cats are; won't click on link
  • requires maintenance: non saying phrase
  • People know how to create categories. People how don't know should get experience first. no need to give them a tutorial in a template
  • files elsewhere: you start to explain how categorizing works; if somebody does not understand he is not meant to maintain the cat
  • search: hidden link
  • Main Page: no reason to link to main page
  • Categories-link: wrong page plus, no need in situation where person is when he finds the template. He needs a specific cat.
  • replace: nerving if you get pages by links here, plus no expl. when to rep..

Answer please. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. You increase the text although told not to waste the space. You start to explain how categories work, though this has it's own page. You hide links. You link to pages of no need. You encourage people to create new categories and to change the template, both no good ideas as I already explained.
  2. This template is not to explain things to people. It is to list categories in a maintenance category. Thus there is no need for lengthy explanations. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
See my reply in the next section. It explains more about the sentence I added. You are the first person to complain about that sentence as far as I can remember. It has been in Template:Categorise/en for a long time until your recent removal without discussion or consensus.
The link to COM:CAT has been in Template:Categorise/en for a long time also. Links don't increase the length of a template.
About your statement: "People know how to create categories. People who don't know should get experience first." It is not logical. People can't both know, and not know, how to create categories. Links don't increase the length of a template.
The following sentence was added to the template:
"Some files need to be moved elsewhere."
The Main Page is the easiest place to find categories in order to move files elsewhere. Category:Categories shows people in more detail where to move files that don't belong in the category. Both links have been in Template:Categorise/en for a long time without problems until you removed them recently.
I agree with you that "and requires maintenance" is unnecessary. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


@ Timeshifter and SJu

You consider this template to be your personal playing field where you have the chance to say everything you always wanted to say about categorizing. I'm sorry it is not. This template is only there to say: "Hello, I have a problem. Please help me." That's it. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is also important to show people how they can help. All the links except one were already in Template:Categorise/en for a long time. You are the first person I can remember in a long time to complain about the links in either template.
Also, please continue the discussion at Template talk:CatDiffuse/layout. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


To make it crystal clear: I still consider the explanations to be at best superfluous at worst harmful. But we could agree that you put these on the documentation of the template. Leaving the template with only the core message and only one link to the documentation page.

For {{categorise}} accordingly. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Some files need to be moved elsewhere. Search for more categories here and here.
About the extra sentence I added (Search for more categories here and here), you are the first person to complain as far as I can remember about that sentence. It has been in {{categorize}} for a long time until you recently removed it. Your recent reversions of Template:Categorise/en without discussion is not very helpful. See other discussion:
Template talk:Categorise
Template talk:Categorise/en
Template talk:CatDiffuse/layout
About this sentence:
Please remove or replace this tag afterwards.
ŠJů added the "replace" link, and I agree with its addition. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"Search for more categories here and here" can be helpful for categorization of some quite uncategorized file, but it's worthless and misleading for assortment of one crowded category. In such case, a research of relative categories (subcategories, upcategories, neighbour-categories) is needed, not some general category list. --ŠJů (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There are oftentimes images in the category that don't belong in that category or any of its subcategories. The search link and overall general category links help categorize those images.
Those links also help while looking for and comparing what you call "neighbour-categories", other category names, and category naming systems that might possibly be adapted to this category's subcategories. I have used all those links to help me create better subcategory names.
Others may use other tools. But we need to help people get started, or less gets done. Many users do not know where to start in order to find categories, and where to start browsing down the category tree in order to find what they are looking for. Search and the general categories are the place to start. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


Cwbm keeps reverting back to his preferred version without discussion or consensus. 2 people disagree with him.

Cwbm, many of your suggestions are being incorporated into the template. But then you keep reverting back to your preferred version. You only want the template your way.

The Commons and Wikipedia does not work this way. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that I raised eight points and you changed the least important of these. Plus you told me that the main page is good for finding categories which is not relevant for the template. -- You want to make the template some kind of tutorial for categrization. It is clear that this does not make sense. I told that I could live with you doing so on the documentation page. You did not even reply to that. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
See my new reply in the previous talk section, too. I replied about the documentation page on a different talk page, I believe. But I can answer again if I am mistaken. Users need help right now to get started. So linking to search and the general categories is a good start. Few users want to wade through documentation pages to find what they want. Anyway, there is already a link (before you removed it) to the overall page, COM:CAT. It is a big, complicated categorization help page, that few users will read.
I did not make the template into a tutorial. That is an exaggeration. I added links to search and general categories. Same as have been at Template:Categorise/en for a long time.
I believe I answered all your other points. Which one did I not reply to? --Timeshifter (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The points:

  1. first link to COM:CAT: hidden link; misleading people know what cats are; won't use the link
  2. People know how to create categories. People who don't know should get experience first on a topic they know. no need to give them a tutorial in a template
  3. files elsewhere: you start to explain how categorizing works; if somebody does not understand he is not meant to maintain the cat
  4. search: hidden link
  5. Main Page: no reason to link to main page
  6. Categories-link: wrong page plus, no need in situation where person is when he finds the template. He needs a specific cat.
  7. replace: nerving if you get pages by links here, plus no expl. when to rep..

The main point is that the template is not meant to be a tutorial. You could add exactly the same text to {{Check categories}} or {{Uncategorized}} which basically means that the text does not belong there.

--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I already answered all your points. Here is the difference between the two template versions:

The version just above is more helpful. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have not answered them. And your version of the template is not helpful. Example:

How does your version help you to categorize this image?

Answer: It does not. None of the links is helpful. What you need to know is, what kind of cats are relevant for such an image. Next thing is what categories are there? You are not going to find any of these via the main page or at Category:Categories. You need to know the structure of the cat system in general and within the specific area. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

How is your preferred template version helpful? You suggested adding the line "For further information please look at the documentation." See one of your template versions just below. Commons:Categories is a better link than Template:CatDiffuse/doc for further info.

I suggest this revision below. It condenses the text, and provides both specific and general help links. I changed from the overall search link to category search.

This revision is clearer about the tools and help it provides to find categories for the image you discussed. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. Your version conatins six links which is clearly too much.
  2. The whole business of extra categories should be dropped. In 95 % of the cases you don't need these links or rather they just confuse. Sentences like "Find categories .." are not helpful. If I don't know how to find cats I just would ask myself why should I find new ones? If I know I don't need the links. Plus the links to the main page and Search are already on the left. So you basically explain the basic features of the user interface which should _not_ be explained in the template.
  3. I also already said that it is a bad idea to encourage people to create new categories. This is not the business of new users. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
For what an opinion is worth, I'm agreeing with Cwbm. But I don't see how a "Read the help on categories" at the end of the message (or something equivalent) could hurt. Putting a short link to (localizable) official guidelines and help pages where it's likely that they'd be needed is a good thing IMHO. We do need users to be aware on how categories are supposed to work. The link to the template documentation should be avoided, IMHO, because that's not localizable (it would be ignored by anyone finding English hard to read). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Cwbm. This is an argument that goes back to the beginning of Wikipedia. Do we only want edits done by experienced editors, or do we allow anyone to edit. That question was already decided long ago. We allow anybody to edit. If that was not true at the commons, then only logged-in users would be allowed to edit pages, categories, and files. So, Cwbm, you are wrong. We encourage new editors and readers to add categories to images, create subcategories, etc..

Your version of the template, Cwbm, just encourages editors to guess at where to categorize images. It provides no real help. Your statement, "If I don't know how to find cats I just would ask myself why should I find new ones?", that is just your way of dealing with things. Many other editors and readers actually want to help find categories, or create new ones. Uploaders often want to know. The search link in the sidebar does not search categories alone, and so it is not very helpful at all. A category-only search is immediately useful. But then according to your statement you don't seem to be interested in finding categories, or helping others find categories. If you want to start a different Commons only run by experienced editors, then feel free.

This version below incorporates ideas from the discussion:

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would stop to “improve” the template or to insinuate me any intentions but rather address my points on this discussion page. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nupedia and Wikipedia. Helping new editors versus helping experienced editors only[edit]

(unindent) I see that part of the problem is that you are not a native speaker of English. Sometimes I answer some of your questions several times, but you don't seem to acknowledge or understand some of my replies. So then you seem to get frustrated and revert. I suggest you discuss more, and revert less.

As to new editors and readers being allowed to categorize, and create categories right away, ... that is why Wikipedia and the Commons works so well.

See: w:History of Wikipedia#Formulation of the concept - Wikipedia (unlike Nupedia) allowed anybody to edit. Quote (emphasis added):

"Nupedia was founded upon the use of highly qualified volunteer contributors and an elaborate multi-step peer review process. Despite its mailing-list of interested editors, and the presence of a full-time editor-in-chief, Larry Sanger, a graduate philosophy student hired by Wales, the writing of content was extremely slow with only 12 articles written during the first year. Wales and Sanger discussed various ways to create content more rapidly. The idea of a wiki-based complement ... The first edits ever made on Wikipedia are believed to be test edits by Wales. However, the oldest article still preserved is the article UuU, created on 16 January 2001, at 21:08 UTC. The project passed 1,000 articles around 12 February 2001, and 10,000 articles around 7 September." --Timeshifter (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Timeshifter, in the very core, we just have different opinions about the template. You think it should say what to do and contain "helpful" links. I think it should just say what to do. My arguments are: The links are random, not helpful, harmful, and it is not systematic to add these links to the template, because you could, with the same argument, add these links to more or less every image and category on commons. I'm still waiting for your rebutle. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The links are not "random" or "harmful". They are very helpful and specific. It is not necessary to add these links to every image and category on commons. You have ignored almost everything I have written. For example; my last info with the Nupedia/Wikipedia history. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have ignored what you wrote about nupedia because I don't see the relevance. But you could explain to me why it is not necessary to add these links to every image and category on commons. Wouldn't these links be helpful? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a different topic. If you want to add links such as category search to the sidebar you can make a request at the sidebar talk page: MediaWiki talk:Sidebar.
Also, not every category needs the {{CatDiffuse}} or {{Categorize}} template. So they have less need for the additional links to help get them categorized.
Please stop ignoring much of what I am writing. We work by consensus and cooperation. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
If you do the math (just consider the total number of possibly to be categorized files) you will end up with a lot of "help" if every category had the template. Much more help than by only having the links in the template. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Only a small percentage of categories need the categorization templates. You seem to have a very low opinion of new editors. Just like you ignore much of what ŠJů and I write here, you ignore the specific needs of new editors. New editors do most of the work on the Commons. They upload most of the images. They make many mistakes when initially categorizing images. Sidebar links are not the solution. There are so many links in the sidebar.

The templates are tightly focused on fixing crowded categories. That is where new editors need the most help. The templates help them (and many experienced editors, too) solve the problem of categories with many images needing to be subcategorized. The templates are very specific in the help they provide. Help that is needed, and that you ignore. Ignorance is not the solution. Knowledge, help, and cooperation are the solution. For new editors. Do you dislike new editors? Do you only want to help more experienced editors?

I clarified the template text some more. Here is the latest version:

--Timeshifter (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That is another thing. How come _you_ know exactly what new editors need and I don't? Have you any prove? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I have incorporated most of your complaints and suggestions into improving the template text in order to help new (and old) editors fix crowded categories. The template is much clearer now. If you have some more ideas, then please make more suggestions. But please don't just complain. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


This template is in English. ŠJů and Cwbm, neither of you speak English as a native language. You both are making many mistakes in your versions of the template text. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

End of the discussion[edit]

Since Timeshifter is not willing to discuss any issues anymore, I decided to put forward a suggestion:

Rational: 1) The template should be as short as possible. 2) Should be in simple English. 3) Should contain a link to a help page.


  1. I included a sentence concerning sub categories as a compromise.
  2. I linked the help page for cats which is already localized.
  3. The remove remark is meant to clarify that the template is not supposed to be permanent. The replace remark is unnecessary since one can replace the template any time.
  4. The documentation of a template can be localized but that suggestion is obsolete.

Please feel free to improve the text. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. I did not say I was "not willing to discuss any issues anymore." I already addressed all your points already except the one about simple English. I believe the English has become simpler and clearer since our discussions began here. So your suggestions have been helpful in that regard.
I was the one who originally added the link to the main help page for categories. See this October 15, 2009 diff. Sju and I both want the replace link. One can replace the template at anytime, but not if people do not know of {{categorize}}.
Thanks for including "or elsewhere" in the sentence "Files should be moved to subcategories or elsewhere where appropriate." --Timeshifter (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I should clarify the replace issue. It is not logical to say when finished sorting “replace” since if replacing is appropriate it should be done right away. This means you would need to add at least one extra sentence to explain that which is not appropriate. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are you using a small font size for your last comment? --Timeshifter (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Sju wanted the "replace" link. I don't think it is essential, but I think it is a good idea. People may not have used {{categorize}} right away because they did not know of it. The documentation has not been clear at times, and the documentation is still not translated much. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg  Support I like this version: it's unobtrusive, and provides a link to Commons:Categories for more information. I do believe that the bit about replacing with {{categorize}} really belongs to Commons:Categories, where a longer rationale could be given. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Ianezz. Who has time to read all of Commons:Categories? This version of the template below is much more helpful, and very short. It also links to Commons:Categories.

It provides help to the many people who do not have time to read Commons:Categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that people wanting to help in sorting out categories should have at least skimmed Commons:Categories once. The template could also point to a specific section within Commons:Categories describing what should be done about crowded categories. Note that Commons:Categories, as strange as it may seem, is not (yet) an official guideline, there's room for improvement. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Most new editors and uploaders will not read COM:CAT. In many cases it is not in their language anyway, or poorly written in their language. So they need simpler info, and direct links to category search. See also, higher up, this section: #Nupedia and Wikipedia. Helping new editors versus helping experienced editors only. We could put a more direct link to to the appropriate section of COM:CAT, in addition to the link to the simple info on creating subcategories. See this link: Commons:Categories#Creating a new category. It can be put here:
See also: Category help.
Many of the guideline and essay pages on the Commons need improvement. It has been that way for years. As to linking to a specific section please see Commons talk:How to create new subcategories#Linking to Commons:Categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
My point was: should Commons really ask for help in sorting out crowded categories to people who'd find COM:CAT (or one of its localized version) too long or hard to understand? I believe there's no elitist attitude in answering "no" to that question, because categories on Commons are inherently hard to get right (to the point that there are people willing to replace Mediawiki as the underlying software for no other reasons than having tags instead of hierarchical categories): the less qualified help Commons asks for, the less qualified help it gets, thus requiring even more help overall. I believe that the things an editor should know in order to help sorting out crowded categories (instead of just moving the crowd elsewhere under the rug) can't be squeezed (if you concede the term) in the three or four lines of text of a template (what about using CommonSense for finding out appropriate categories, or Cat-a-lot to ease the task?), so it's better if no attempt at all is made and all information is given on a separate page (that needs to be read by as much people as we can). That's why I still think that the version by Cwbm at the start of this section is an overall better choice over yours, except for the second link to the template documentation about removing the tag afterwards: since the template documentation is localizable, contrarily to what I believed, I have no objection in putting a link to it (still, I feel that COM:CAT should have a section about {{Categorise}} and {{CatDiffuse}}). Please, don't hate me for suggesting to make COM:CAT even longer). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Your method does not work, and hasn't worked. Let's try making things simpler, and see what happens. The link to COM:CAT remains for those who want to read it. Feel free to edit COM:CAT. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk page section titles[edit]

Cwbm. About your creation of "Timeshifter's section". Most of the time it is against talk page rules to put a user's name in a talk page section title. And my comment was replying directly to Ianezz. So my comment needed to be in the same talk section as the Ianezz comment I was replying to. So do not create a section with my user name in the title. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Amongst other things I am fed up with you sabotaging the discussion thus the section. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Please be civil. Replying to Ianezz is not sabotaging the discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
A reply would have been the question: "Who has time to read all of Commons:Categories?" the rest is sabotage. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Because you disagree with my opinion? It seems from reading your talk page that you can be a very contrary person at times. Over the littlest things. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No because you make it impossible to follow the discussion even for yourself. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You keep blocking my reply to Ianezz. Purposely editing talk pages to misrepresent the discussion, to block replies, or to edit the comments of others can get you blocked eventually. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you want me to show you all the diff links where you changed sections on this talk page alone? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
None of the new talk sections that I started was done to block discussion or to attack users.
You named one talk section "@ Timeshifter and SJu". The one that starts "You consider this template to be your personal playing field..."
That is not allowed. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Link? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
w:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages. See the paragraphs under the part called "Keep headings neutral". The Commons follows these rules too for the most part. Most Wikipedias in most languages have similar talk page rules, I believe. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Shorter sentence with link to info on removing or replacing the template.[edit]

Here is a shorter sentence:

Please remove this tag afterwards.

It links to Template:CatDiffuse/doc. That page says:

"Use this just for tagging categories to get sorted once, and remove if category is suitably sorted. For main categories requiring permanent control because of being frequently used in situations where a subcategory would be more appropriate, use {{Categorise}}."

So, people learn more about where to use the 2 tags, and the {{CatDiffuse}} template is shorter. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd use "remove this tag" as wikilink label, since the link is about the tag itself, as in
Please remove this tag afterwards.
since it provides an easy way to learn which tag outputs the message. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) OK. See:

I revised and shortened the template text some more. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would stop editing the template while the discussion is still going on. This is a repetition of something I said before on this page. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop giving orders. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You are the one who is permanently giving orders. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I edit, and then you revert and give orders. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions and comments to some claims made on this talkpage[edit]

Some user who does not want me to write on his talk page and does not want me to address him has made lots of claims to support his version of the template:

  1. Users don't know how to create subcategories.
  2. Your version has not worked.
  3. People need these links.
  4. People don't have to know COM:CAT.

to name just some. None of these claims is backed by any evidents. Furthermore there is no evidents that one year of the template with that links has actually helped to categorize one single picture. That version of the template bombards the new user with six links. This is clearly not helpful. It is obviously more helpful to tell the people to read a longer instruction where they can skip the parts they already know. Another point is that some of these templates are meant to stay permanently in the catgories ({{Categorise}}, {{MetaCat}}). Therefore also normal readers will see them thus the should not be instruction but information focused. Thus I removed the "helpful" links. Since irony is not going to be understood I just would like to draw the attention to Template:CatDiffuse on the English wikipedia which does not contain any helpful link or any further instructions. If it was true that these links are in the spirit of wikipedia why is that so? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Premise: I agree with you for the most part, but I think the comparison with en.wiki is wrong for the following reasons:
  • categories on Wikipedia are by far less important than categories on Commons, because articles on Wikipedia already link to related articles in their bodies, and because it's easy to search for information that's mainly textual. On Commons, categories are one of the very few ways to find related content (I'd say it's the prominent way to search for something), so it's obvious that every care should be taken in ensuring that content gets categorized;
  • en.wiki is not a multilingual site: users not at ease with English (myself included) simply go to the Wikipedia in their own language, where they can read, edit, discuss and create categories using their own language (and use en.wiki just as a last resort). Commons is a multilingual site, category names have to be in English, so no wonder there's overall less help available than on Wikipedia. People don't want to make mistakes, but that easily happens when you are not reading/writing in your native language (that happened to you too: "englisch", "evidents", and I'm not exempt from that as well), so it's obvious that on Commons people who know the subject but not the languge are hesitant in assigning categories and creating new categories.
Basically, I'm saying that Wikipedia sites don't put a wikilink to their own version of COM:CAT simply because categories are less useful there than on Commons, and because there's no real problem with users naming categories. I also believe that on Commons categories should be at the top of the file pages by default (or just below the image), where they can be seen (I put together a little javascript hack just to do that some times ago from things found on other wikis).
That being said, I agree with you that this should be just an informational template, and that four wikilinks is just a way of scaring users away saying "This is dirty work, there are more pleasant things you could do today". But I believe that having exactly one to COM:CAT telling (or pointing to) what one should know about categories would be useful. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Cwbm. Misrepresenting the viewpoint of other users is a violation of talk page guidelines. I never said not to address me here. I also did not say people do not have to know COM:CAT. I said that many people will not read it. You keep removing the COM:CAT link anyway. So your version of the template will cause fewer people to read COM:CAT.
The categorization templates have helped categorize many images in the categories that they have been placed in. I remember the categories before the templates were added to many categories. Many more images get categorized now. You and Ianezz are relatively new to the Commons. I have watched and worked on this for a long time. I have worked on many templates on the Commons, Wikipedia, and Wikia.
The Commons is different from Wikipedia. One categorizes mainly articles, and the other categorizes mainly images. On Wikipedia there are usually several editors of an article, and so there is little difficulty in categorizing an article. Images may only get categorized by the initial uploader at first. Most uploaders will not read COM:CAT.
Cwbm, I have been improving the template and revising it. You have been mainly just reverting.
Ianezz, I added links that are helpful for the people who have asked me for help. Some people want long instructions, and some people want short instructions like Commons:How to create new subcategories. Both types of people want category search. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You claim again that the template helps or has helped without prove. You have rephrased the template slightly in order to avoid blatant reverts. I reverted back to a stable version because the new version of the template, which can include a link to COM:CAT if we agree on a new version, is still under discussion. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I edit, and you revert. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Categories link was agreed to[edit]

The Commons:Categories link was agreed to by all. So, Cwbm, why do you keep removing it from the template? --Timeshifter (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because you keep adding things we did not agree on. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You agreed to the Commons:Categories link higher up in the section you started called #End of the discussion. So why do you go against your own words? --Timeshifter (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal and new users[edit]

There is no real difference in the purpose of {{CatDiffuse}} and {{Categorize}}. One is for permanent use in a category, and one is for temporary use.

But I am no longer going to edit this {{CatDiffuse}} template. Cwbm and others can edit it. Cwbm has stated that he does not want to help new users to create subcategories. So I see no point in editing this template. I prefer to help new users more. I believe Cwbm's attitude towards new users is elitist and against the spirit of Wikipedia. See #Nupedia and Wikipedia. Helping new editors versus helping experienced editors only.

So I will continue editing {{Categorize}} as I have done for a long time. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is another option. Since Sju likes the complete version of the template here, I can edit this template, and not edit {{Categorize}}. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a distribution I could agree with. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Great. I agree. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)