Talk:BSicon/Categorization

‎Axpde's single-tree idea: typo
← Older revision
Revision as of 01:23, 29 March 2013
Line 153:
Line 153:
 
Axpde [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Icons_for_railway_descriptions/set_blue/legende&curid=24930739&diff=93451738&oldid=91731185 wrote] this warning as an HTML comment in a BSicon category: «just *one* category!». Didn’t say why — he never does: Just says that there are many BSicons. Well, there are many more [[:Category:Trams|photos of trams]], ''e.g.'' and they seem to fare well with multiple categorization. Indeed the fact that there are many “things” makes it necessary to be able to multi-cluster separately those things along independent sets of related criteria. (''E.g.'' trams by color, size, date, manufactor, system, motive power, etc.) We all know and agree with that basic fact about Commons categorization, except apparently Axpde.
 
Axpde [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Icons_for_railway_descriptions/set_blue/legende&curid=24930739&diff=93451738&oldid=91731185 wrote] this warning as an HTML comment in a BSicon category: «just *one* category!». Didn’t say why — he never does: Just says that there are many BSicons. Well, there are many more [[:Category:Trams|photos of trams]], ''e.g.'' and they seem to fare well with multiple categorization. Indeed the fact that there are many “things” makes it necessary to be able to multi-cluster separately those things along independent sets of related criteria. (''E.g.'' trams by color, size, date, manufactor, system, motive power, etc.) We all know and agree with that basic fact about Commons categorization, except apparently Axpde.
 

 

−
But unlike his naming shanneningans, which has to do more with form than with substance and which piss off other users more through the process (ignoring everybody else and trampling consensus and debate, only explaining his ideas when everybody else is already up in arms) then by result, his categorization shanneningans are simpler to document and they violate a Commons rule simpler to configure than mere politeness and good faith.
+
But unlike his naming shanneningans, which has to do more with form than with substance and which piss off other users more through the process (ignoring everybody else and trampling consensus and debate, only explaining his ideas when everybody else is already up in arms) than by result, his categorization shanneningans are simpler to document and they violate a Commons rule simpler to configure than mere politeness and good faith.
 

 

 
He firmly believes that BSicons should be categorized within a single cladogram structure, and he goes on (and had been on for years as most of the above suggests) deleting all instances of cross categorization attempted by other users, both in categories and in individual icons. This renders category galleries useless (we never know if a missing subcat or supercat is indeed non-existent or just forced by him to show up '''only''' at a different juncture) and undoes a considerable body of work which would be, anywhere else in Commons, a valuable navigation tool.
 
He firmly believes that BSicons should be categorized within a single cladogram structure, and he goes on (and had been on for years as most of the above suggests) deleting all instances of cross categorization attempted by other users, both in categories and in individual icons. This renders category galleries useless (we never know if a missing subcat or supercat is indeed non-existent or just forced by him to show up '''only''' at a different juncture) and undoes a considerable body of work which would be, anywhere else in Commons, a valuable navigation tool.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BSicon/Categorization&diff=93490910&oldid=93488186