Category talk:Rendered name of Albania

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

Symbols of Albania[edit]

@Tuvalkin: Please explain how this set of random vertical texts belongs in the Symbols of Albania category? Kj1595 (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, if you cannot understand how Category:Rendered name of Albania must have a parent cat directly or indirectly under Category:Albania, then maybe you should learn how categorization in Commons works. Meanwhile, stop vandalizing this category. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you were serious about this stuff (meaning both well meaning in your own work and respectful of your fellow editors), instead of reinstating your own vandalism once reverted, you’d first check how all other sixty other cats under Category:Rendered names of countries are categorized and, if you then still don’t agree that Category:Rendered name of (Country) should be a subcat of Category:Symbols of (Country), you’d start a discussion concerning the matter at the appropriate talk page. (Hints: This is not a matter specific to Albania, and "symbols" here might be more than "official symbols".) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent a long time restructuring and organizing the Symbols of Albania category. And some random vertical text of the country's name does not constitute a "symbol" of the said country. What constitutes as a symbol? Domains, heraldry images, calligraphic works, stamps, seals and any visual image which reflects the country's history. Those other categories which are nested in the "Symbol of" categories of other countries, obviously shouldn't be categorized as such. Kj1595 (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you are not here to cooperate in curating a free media repository, you don’t respect other users’ work, and you refuse to pay attention when you’re explained things. One last attempt to reason with you before this gets out of my hands:
Guy, Commons includes these sets of what you repeatedly and disrespectully have called «some random vertical text of the country's name». How do you think these categories should be categorized in relation to the country whose name these images depict?
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A vertical text with the name of the country that someone just made up does not constitute a symbol of that country. Such images can be categorized as miscellaneous. A new category perhaps of miscellaneous text images.
The symbols category is not suitable or appropriate for such images. Kj1595 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As suspected, you are not here to cooperate in curating a free media repository: You admit that images you don’t like should not be categorized for you see categories (and the whole of Commons) as a sandbox for your personal interests, not as tools for categorization of media files actually hosted (in this case for use in WMF sister projects, the historically primary role of Commons). I will reinstate the prior categorization of this category and I sternly advice you to leave it at that, or else you will have to justify your untenable views in a higher forum, facing disciplinary penalties. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to provide a reasonable argument as to why such images should be categorized under the Symbols of Albania category. Instead, you have resorted into personal attacks, making strange unfounded claims about my contribution here. Until a broader consensus is reached, the images cannot be placed under said category. Kj1595 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj1595: Tuválkin is correct that this is consistent with how we handle this for other countries. Categorization on Commons is a "folksonomy", not something with a strict ontology. It might be subject to improvement, but handling one country differently from the consensus approach to a large number of other countries is not an improvement. The idea of categories is to help people find things. For what it's worth, words are certainly symbols, though I agree that may not be the clearest term. If you've got a suggestion for doing it better (in general, across countries) feel more than free to raise that (probably in Commons:Village pump/Proposals), but so far the ideas you've suggested strike me as less useful than the status quo. - Jmabel ! talk 23:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the whole "rendered names of X country" thing is needlessly obtuse since most images on here are "rendered" in or one way or another. Same goes for putting such categories in anything related to symbols of the said countries. Sure, names are symbols, but only in such an abstract why that it's essentially meaningless. Especially when your talking about country names. There's a huge difference between the name "The United Kingdom" and the United Kingdom's flag. To the point that they aren't even comparable. In the meantime, there's Category:Simple text logos. My suggestion would be to create a sub category of that called Simple text logos of countries and leave it at that. The term "rendered" is completely pointless though. That said, I do agree this is probably better discussed higher up the category tree, but I'd have the same opinion about it regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you propose to change "cat:Rendered name of ___" to "cat:Simple text logos of ___" (and good luck convincing anyone how’s that a good idea), «and leave it at that»… Leave at what? No parent cats? You’re agreeing that an image file depicting text that reads "Albania" (in this case) should not have a parent cat link to Category:Albania? Well, that’s totally wrong, in terms of categorization. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should look up what the phrase "rendered texts" means. And check what`s in the whole Category:Rendered texts, while at it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Thanks, as always, for your input. The kind of generic discussion you suggest is already at Commons:Village pump#Categorization of media representing country names. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tuválkin: While you may be technically correct about categorisation, ad hominem abuse such as "if you cannot understand", "If you were serious about this stuff" and "you are not here to cooperate in curating a free media repository" is not helpful. You need to stop making such comments, lest it be you who is "facing disciplinary penalties". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: We’re in a project where admins are free to «express their frustration» and that gets excused because the poor dears have all that workload (although the most hardworking admins are not the ones doing it) and all the while regular users, who lack tools to enforce anti-vandalism must be models of restraint?
Should I take this guy’s edit warring, vandalism, and rudeness with a smile and my face and give the other cheek? No, I call it how I see it and I will use stern language when appropriate. I was not offensive nor uncouth (and surely not abusive, as you accuse me of), merely expressed my judgement about this user’s actions in uncompromising language, inspired by his own uncompromising stance (this discussion was opened after repeated reversions) — and indded in all 3 quotes you picked, you can see how I was trying, even so, to guide this user.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andy about the ad hominem attacks. I understand your frustration about this, but they aren't really necessary and gives the whole thing an unneeded air of confrontation. The same goes with how you responded to me. All I did was give my opinion. People, including you, are free to ignore it. Asking me a bunch of super pedantic questions that either have obvious answers already or aren't even relevant to what I said isn't at all helpful though. Nor are super defensive comments like "good luck convincing anyone how’s that a good idea mauhhhh!!" Maybe tone it down a notch and let this play out however it's going to. There's no need to reply defensively to everyone who writes a comment that's slightly different then what you want. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that confrontation is unnecessary and counter-prductive. My excuse that this user ridiculed my editing in edit summaries and kept reverting my corrections. What’s your excuse to come to a discussion unrelated to you and use words such as "obtuse", "meaningless", "pointless", and "pedantic"?
Look, if I’m wrong, then correct me and no need to be nice about: I’m open to {{Trout}}ing. But if you are wrong then I feel free to trout back. So you don’t know what "rendered" means in this context and instead of looking it up you flount it as a smarmy chiding — «needlessly obtuse since most images on here are "rendered" in or one way or another.» Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, man!:
This about rendered texts, made from pixels (explicitly, in raster files, or from curves in vectorial files), as opposed to text typed as such — within an SVG, PDF, or any other suitable media file (in the case of our work in Commons).
(Oh and there’s also rendered images, created from code as in videogames or UI shots, as opposed to, say, photos. So even your miscorrection was wrong.)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this user ridiculed my editing in edit summaries Going by that and how you've treated me it seems like your taking this way to personally. No one is ridiculing you about anything. All Kj1595 did was ask how random vertical text is a symbol of a country, which is a perfectly valid question. In the meantime you dismissing my opinion because this has nothing to do with me is needlessly confrontational. Anyone can participate in a talk page discussion. I can guarantee you'd be fine with my participation if I agree with you.
As to the "rendered text" thing, sure. I get what your saying in general. I just don't think that the "rendered" thing in a category like this really imports anything useful. Maybe it would if this was a category for say pre-rendered graphics versus photographs or something along those lines, but there isn't any un-rendered analog to these images. In other words, there is no Category:Name of Albania. So it's pointless to have Category:Rendered name of Albania. 99% of users probably wouldn't get the distinction anyway even there was a Category:Name of Albania though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, «anyone can participate in a talk page discussion» and I never said the opposite. The context, clearly seen above, was me listing examples of your loaded language in reply of your accusation of me being rude. You have the right of being harsh, as I do too, and we both have the right of disliking it — so what? (Good grief.)
Should there be a Category:Name of Albania to be the parent of Category:Rendered name of Albania? Sure, there should. Why isn’t there such cat? Because, I guess, we don’t have (yet) any files that would go in it but not in its subcat. That would/will be items such as a map or table listing the world "Albania" in several languages, or PDF files of monographies about it, etc.
But again, if you have an issue with the whole concept of cats labelled Category:Rendered texts, then go discuss it at Category talk:Rendered texts. I didn’t create these cats anew, I didn’t come up with "rendered" — I just expanded the existing model to properly categorize images of rendered text I randomly found. That’s what I like to do in Commons, not the silly one-upmanship in comment threads.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally see "meaningless" as loaded language. It's just a way to describe the word "rendered" in the category name. Like if the category were called Category:Rendered name of Albania ducks "ducks" would be meaningless because it tells people literally nothing useful about what is in the category. Sure, maybe in this case you could argue "rendered" has some kind of meaning to what's in the category. At least more then "ducks" does. Although only slightly. I'd argue it's a meaning without a purpose though. I can guarantee no one looks at those images and thinks "Oh, those are rendered names of Albania." It's to way in the weeds, techy, whatever to be at all useful for the name of such a general category. What's the rule? something like "the name of categories should follow the most common usage" or whatever? In general I think something is being lost in the sauce if we are naming categories after random, obscure file/image properties that most people probably don't know or care about. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Rendered_name_of_Albania&action=history the category creator's edits were repeated misuse of com:rollback (use of rollback should normally be limited to combating vandalism) which warrant removal of rollbacker. RZuo (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look purely at the edit history Tuválkin is clearly the one in the wrong here. More so if you factor in the personal attacks and claims that Kj1595 was committing vandalism. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, guy, go ahead and randomly uncategorize one cat among 60 other and «leave it at that». -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's multiple discussions about this going on. No one is saying leave it at that. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you in the "Albanian rendered text is unique" compared to every other nation which follows the same structure of the rendered text category being a child of the symbol category? Why is Albanian text so unique? I don't see anything in this discussion that explains this. Still, @RZuo I think the rollback use is more appropriate for the VP discussion than here. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you responding to me or RZuo? If your responding to me, there's two ways these types of discussions can happen. 1. The discussion starts further down in the category tree where the details are fleshed out and we decide what's actually an issue or not. 2. The discussion starts at the "top" category.
Neither one of those is wrong. Albanian text isn't unique. It just happens to be were the discussion was started. Nor is this always a 100% liner A to B to C to Z process. It's perfectly fine to bring up related side points and then either create another CFD for them or don't if there's no reason to. Obviously it would be a waste of everyone's time to start a second CFD further up the chain if no one thinks the word "rendering" is an issue though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started a CFD discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Rendered names of countries. I presume people have views about every country and not just Albania but if there is a reason Albania is unique, that's appropriate at well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Rendered_name_of_Albania&oldid=731629195"