- I'm a little confused as to why left me that message on my talk page, considering that I was the one who added the information about intersection categories to the department page. Anyway, obviously that means that I concur. I should also note, however, that you should consult with the rest of us before going about a major amount of work. There's bold and then there's BOLD. The whole point of the department is to coordinate efforts so as to minimize the amount of work we have to do, so implementation before consensus is a bad idea, even if the idea is justified. Girolamo Savonarola 16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a race. The point is to not have to do the work twice, or worse, undo work someone put a lot of time into, however misguided. I'm not trying to be patronizing here, but the world's information has spent centuries not being contained on Wikipedia - I fail to see how another few days matter in the scheme of things. Your intentions are in the right place, but I've seen all of the harumph that happened involving the world cinema lists, and quite frankly I think that if you aren't going to at least learn something from that, it's a bad sign. Tant pis. Girolamo Savonarola 16:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's two ways to react to criticism. One is to take it personally and decide that the other person has something against you. The other is to listen, consider that what is being said is trying to advise you towards the right direction, and try to at least analyze the arguments without regard for either yourself or the other person, with the goal of coming to some sort of agreement or compromise. But if you'd rather attack me for trying to help you work more effectively, that's your issue. What have I done? I've done nothing but make substantial edits to the department, the project, and Wikipedia at large. You can check my contributions list any day if you need evidence. That being said, I don't think that any of that is important in and of itself - that's why I don't feel the need to place userboxes on my user page. That's what this is all about - quality vs. quantity. I'm suggesting that you spend the time to work this out together with the rest of us who've started this department in the first place, in order to get it right the first time around. The current guidelines already have clear directives for several other categorization criteria; if you want to quickly start some work, I'd suggest the Films by studio category probably needs some expansion. Girolamo Savonarola 17:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've been overly concerned about the potential size of these categories. Look at Category:2002 albums or Category:2002 computer and video games - a category can easily sustain a couple of pages without there being much bother. I agree that for a few, such as American films or Drama films, there may be an excess of films, but we need to define a) how big a category needs to be to require subcategorization and b) how much cross-linking there needs to be. Linking the same article to Category:1979 drama films and Category: 1979 American films should be suficient - there is no need to create Category: 1979 American drama films - it's simply too many intersections. I highly doubt that 1979 drama films and 1979 American films will each exceed more than a couple hundred films at most - that's well within the range of acceptable size. Girolamo Savonarola 17:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But you see the other problem is that then an article can potentially have two or three categories that it belongs to which begin with 1979, then. 1979 English-language films, 1979 American drama films, 1979 Paramount films. I think that to a certain extent some of this can be left alone. For example, 1979 films is a limited set - while there may be more articles yet to be included in that category, there will be no more films which can join it in the future. On the other hand, categories by genre, language, and (usually) country or studio are open-ended by nature and can continue to expand as more films are made. So the question is how can we effectively intersection those categories without creating redundancies with films by year? As I've mentioned above, it seems that most of the other media's categories by year are simply non-subcat'd fully inclusive lists for that year. That makes sense due to the exclusive nature of delimiting by a year, as well as the fact that the cats rarely exceed 1000 articles. So this is only going to be an issue for 1000+ categories with open-endedness. In other words, countries, genres, studios, and languages, not years. So what's the best way to combine them? Girolamo Savonarola 17:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC) PS - I'm heading out for a few hours. Will try to give further thoughts when I return.[reply]
PLEASE STOP RECAT'ING. If you can't wait even a few hours in the middle of a discussion...quite frankly it shows a clear lack of respect for a consensus we're still discussing both here and in the department page. Now I'm going to have to go through the work of requesting these new cats be deleted (at least for the meantime). And reverting your edits. This is exactly what I am talking about. Please do not make major structural changes like this without getting consensus. This means discussing it in full - not just posting your thoughts and acting on them regardless of their reception. I'm very disappointed in this turn of events. Girolamo Savonarola 21:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You may have good ideas, but if you don't go at project speed and wait for things to be planned out and decided, and instead keep changing things at whim, not only you create a mess (for others to clean), but also you disregard all others concenred. Yes, you talk (a lot), but then you act as you think anyway. I have tried to help you with what I feel is useful in what you contribute. I do not like the way you take hasty initiative in categorizing. I do not see this as help, even though you may have useful ideas to propose. Please, either participate at others' pace in building up a good plan for categorizing without rushing changes, or concentrate on something else for a while, until we have time to decide properly about it. You can continue to do what you like and face reverts, deletions, etc. I will not be happy to start reverting and tagging for deletion, but I will do it if I see you keep disregarding the common effort (and yes you do). Hoverfish Talk 21:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment I am reporting all the new categories you made. Hoverfish Talk 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to pitch in here and say to Mr. Blofeld, please, no matter how good your ideas seem, think of this before you act: Before new categories are created (or new stub types or new projects, or anything), we must maintain what is already here. There are many issues of film categorization already which should be addressed, before new categories and sub-categories can be structured. There is plenty to do - let's clean up what we have before we start creating more stuff which might need cleaning up itself... (I have 2 toddlers and I preach the same thing to them...) My second point is that if you get a reputation as a guy who acts quickly with little discussion, no one will want to take you seriously in the future. So please, find some work to do while the discussion continues, and listen to the good advice others are giving you. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your idea of categories by decade, without the additional by-year and cross-categorizing, seems sufficient for the present and should be enough to work on for now, don't you think? Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]