Of course, I had to make choices according to practibility, or when there were different incompatible practices
I am not happy about that, as “period” is an very disambigous term: we have that in arts, where some perods are common historic eras (like “Medieval”), some are stylistic periods (“Gothics”, which nearly completly belongs to Middle Ages (in Europe) an could be sorted into “Medieval”, but “Renaissance” is both Medieval and Modern Period – in fact “Contemporary” is an arts period, that does not mean Year 2007, but a stylisic period to be assumed actual), and kalendaric entities (“12th century”), which will fit to chinese arts as well (“Chinese Middle Ages” are not simultaneous to “European Middle Ages”) – so we will have to precice them, sorting art by any period wont make sense.. I think problems like that will occur at any topic entity vs criterion: creterions are chosen specific by subject of the topic, not “for anything” –W!B: , (UTC)
Commons talk:Naming categories
Because the commons are some sort of support for other Wikipedias, I am very much confused by reading “categories are payday loansin Pennsylvania for Commons Wikimedia what articles are for any Wikipedia”.
I would expect to find in the commons a similar category scheme as in the English wikipedia in order to avoid the repeating of debates as stated in the article.
Could there be a clear statement if the interwiki’s in the categories are to refer to categories in other wikipedias or to other articles (and what mapping). –Foroa , (UTC)
The Tchaikovsky case Edit
- is incorrectly named (Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky)
- is heavily linked to Wikipedia articles, not to Wikipedia categories
- has no subcategory (there is no gallery about the same subject: links, only the duplicate category Category:Peter Tchaikovsky), but no doubt that subcategories will be needed (Swan LakeFile:Swan Lake VRDV.jpg)
That’s new to me. –Polarlys , (UTC) It’s maybe due to the poor wording. What do you thing of: “In coherence with the language policy rule, the English Wikipedia will be the reference for any encyclopedic issue.” –Juiced lemon , (UTC) I just can’t find the matching rule. –Polarlys , (UTC) You didn’t read the beginning of the page. This is the link: Commons:Language policy. –Juiced lemon , (UTC) “At present, this page is a summary of existing practice rather than a formal policy” ? –Polarlys , (UTC) Yes, it is a summary and a synthesis of existing practices. These choices ple: The Universality principle: some users think that we can use the term “transport” in some areas, and “transportation” in other ones (like the United States) for the same subject. If the Community agree with this principle, that will be prohibited. The word “transportation” would be still used (alone, or in an expression), but only to refer to another subject than “transport”. Grounds to the large amount of documents about naming in the English Wikipedia, this Commons page can be seen as insignificant. Though, there will be significant consequences to the database organization. –Juiced lemon , (UTC) Ok, since this choice unsettles users from other projects (there was a debate going on on de.wp about “According to the language policy rule, the English Wikipedia will be the reference for any encyclopedic issue.”) I simply removed the whole paragraph. No one will miss this summary of existing practice in its absolutness. –Polarlys , (UTC) Sorry, but this is a Commons page, and its contents have to be discussed here in this Commons talk page. You cannot remove a section arguing obscure reasons as a pretext. –Juiced lemon , (UTC) Simply prove that “English Wikipedia will be the reference for any encyclopedic issue” is more than your private opinion. –Polarlys , (UTC) This is a ridiculous request: I don’t read in people’s mind. This document is a draft, and I did my best to work out worthwhile proposals. If you disagree, explain what and why, and preferably make alternative proposals. The Community will make her choice. –Juiced lemon , (UTC)