Category talk:Lakes of Canada

Navbar ?

As we don't know how the above list is compiled nor if it's relevant to this category, I moved it here. As long as the corresponding categories don't existing, it just makes it more complicated to use search at Commons. -- User:Docu at 16:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

List is a resorted copy of en:List of lakes in Canada. --Foroa (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How did you select the entries?

Please remove it for now and restore the previous status before this is discussed. -- User:Docu at 16:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No selection, just an alphabetic sort. Restored to previous state, no need for removal. --Foroa (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

I requested an administrator to restore the previous version. Please stop edit warring. -- User:Docu at 17:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with en:List of lakes in Canada is that it's a random list of names: we don't know how it's compiled nor if the lakes listed there will ever have articles. It can even link articles that are not about lakes or not in Canada. -- User:Docu at 17:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the list aside, I don't think it's doing any harm on the category pages for the moment. They're linked from the cfd, so people can see what Foroa was talking about.. but now it's here too, so either way, it's not something worth edit-warring over. (not protecting because I'm somewhat involved even though I'd protect the version before the list, I think you guys can be reasonable abut this) Rocket000 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As documented in the list, it is a resorted copy of en:List of lakes in Canada. This list is essential in demonstrating more interesting and constructive alternatives for Category:Lakes of Canada by name. --Foroa (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's just for demonstration purposes in another field, please move it to a subpage of your user page. -- User:Docu at 18:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This list is essential in demonstrating more interesting and constructive alternatives for Category:Lakes of Canada by name. This list is a sorted version of copy of en:List of lakes in Canada. Its interesting aspect can be best demonstrated along with the categories contained by this very category. There is no clear motiviation why this navigation bar/list should be removed from this category. --Foroa (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Category namespace is not for tests, please use the sandbox or a sub-page of your user page for this. -- User:Docu at 19:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a big deal, is it? I appreciate Foroa trying to demonstrate a more constructive alternative. That's what we need more of instead of you two finding new things to fight about. :) Rocket000 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear why this would be needed here for "demonstration purposes" in another field. Besides that, I suggested several alternatives for her tests. In general, edits for "demonstration purposes" are generally considered disruptive. -- User:Docu at 20:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the field is important here. Lakes, Rivers, Canada, Amsterdam, whatever. It's same general problem we're looking at. Anyway, it's only disruptive if you let be. Rocket000 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why discuss it then if it's the same for all fields? For the removal, I asked an admin to take care of that. -- User:Docu at 20:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, I saw the request (I'm not because I'm involved and honestly don't see the problem). Why discuss it? You can't abstract/generalize the situation to make it apply to all fields? That's the point of an example. Rocket000 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We discussed the general idea before and agreed that these categories should be named "by name". It would redundant to restart this. -- User:Docu at 20:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what they should be, but the question is if and when it's appropriate to even have such categories. IMO, that's something the previous and on-going discussions failed to resolve. This is an example showing another way to have a list of all member/submembers of a category without the extra (sometimes excessive) categorization. Rocket000 (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what that other discussion results in. In the meantime, can we remove this? -- User:Docu at 21:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If lakes of Canada should by searchable by name, such ordering should by treated by the category "by name". Just like searching by province should be treated by categories by province and serching by type should by ensured with "lakes of Canada by type" category etc. What's the reason that one search criterion should be used in list and other criteria in categories? A list has worse functionality than a category: it isn't actualized automatically, it isn't linked from all included subcategories, it's unsuitable to the media database project etc. The basic principle of Commons organization is a categorization, not lists or articles. It's unwanted to disturb the well-tried system by such inconsiderate trials. Categories "by name" are a standard, established and widely used way approved by the community and it's undesirable that one person repeatedly sabotages all rules, conventions and agreements about "by name" categories, category redirects, category deleting etc. --ŠJů (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussion on Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2010/02/Category:Rivers_by_country_by_name concerning Category:Rivers_of_the_Netherlands, no need to have the discussion on several places. --Foroa (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's always interesting to explore and discuss new alternatives, but obviously, it's not acceptable to use admin tools to impose them. -- User:Docu at 10:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the navigation bar. There is no rule that forbids such a navigation bar; there are thousands of even more complex navigation bars like this. --Foroa (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As an administrator, you should be aware that there is no consensus for your addition. Please link Wikipedia instead of pasting it indiscriminately. -- User:Docu at 11:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please point me to the commons rule that forbids such approach and to the precise discussion where this particular point is discussed and a consensus and conclusion against this approach for static categories is formulated. Please stop the endless insinuations: this has nothing to do with my use of the adminstration tools. --Foroa (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask a more experienced user for advice. -- User:Docu at 12:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is no consensus for your addition to the description, it needs to be removed. As an administrator you should know that. -- User:Docu at 12:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And there's not a consensus not for the addition to the description either. No consensus anything. It's just a couple editors squabbling . ;) Rocket000 (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL, but seriously, let's move on with this. -- User:Docu at 12:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not stopping you... Rocket000 (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Foroa reverted once more. -- User:Docu at 16:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any interest for Foroa test nor consensus to add it here. Is there any reason why it shouldn't be removed? -- User:Docu at 20:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(Indent reset). There is no consensus for removal nor any rationale for it (see questions above). --Foroa (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As an administrator, you should know it doesn't work that way. Please refrain from disrupting and use the sandbox for your personal tests. -- User:Docu at 22:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lengthy list, lengthy discussion, break

What an absurd discussion. Commons will probably have many more subcategories for lakes in Canada in a few years than it has now. There are several thousands of lakes in Canada, not only the few ones that are – rather randomly – noted on that Wikipedia list (422 atm). Did anyone consider how the category page with such a navbar included should look like in a few years then? Will I have to scroll down two meters first before seeing the actual category entries (just because I expanded the navbar manually, or – even worse in effect – because I have JavaScript disabled)? Please note that all users who have JavaScript disabled by default, always see full navbars and don't see any hint about the fact that they could hide them by enabling JS (this is a common problem for less experienced users, especially for non-regulars and the mass of reading-only visitors of Wikimedia projects).

So my primary concern here is that Category:Lakes of Canada isn't suitable at all to introduce such a large list navbar. Similar navbars might possibly work (= be considered useful) for much smaller categories, though. But definitely not in this case. --:bdk: 18:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you remove the test from the category description? -- User:Docu at 19:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would, but I guess it's best to reach sort of consensus first. Edit wars are boring. There's no hurry. --:bdk: 19:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is in favor of adding the list. Even Foroa seems to be doing it only for "demonstration purposes". As this is not an acceptable reason in a wiki, I don't see why we should leave it. People can use the sandbox for this. -- User:Docu at 20:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)