| Revision as of 18:13, 23 March 2005 editJulien Tuerlinckx (talk | contribs)3,972 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:23, 24 March 2005 edit undoDePiep (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users294,285 edits to me its relevantNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| :This article does ''not'' show in ]. Something in subcategories inconsequent (cf other sooccer venues?). -] 14:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) | :This article does ''not'' show in ]. Something in subcategories inconsequent (cf other sooccer venues?). -] 14:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::Yeah but it appears in ] which is a subcategory of Stadiums. It is not relevant that it appears in both sub and mother categories. ] 18:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) | ::Yeah but it appears in ] which is a subcategory of Stadiums. It is not relevant that it appears in both sub and mother categories. ] 18:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) | ||
| I do not agree, I think it is relevant. 1. ''Other'' soccer-stadiums do appear in two lists. Why should the ] not be a stadium? And when I look for a Stadium, how do I know in which subcategorie I ''have'' to look? Thats what I looking ''for'': is Stadium X a football stadium? Must I know & use countryname of Stadium XYZ ''beforehand'' to find the article? No. I want to ''learn'' its country! How could I ever discover (if not by accident) that there is St James Park and St. James' Park. | |||
| That's where subcats are for. Articles can be in two, or more. When I'looking for a stadium by name, it's no use when someone says: it is in ''some'' cat, way down there. Thanks for helping me. So far about my searching. | |||
| Second thing: I must be able to categorize my article ''consequently''. When I write an new article about stadium Y, there should be one way of categorizing. As it is now, I can take Arsenal Stadium as an example, or St James Park. They have different trees of cat, showing up or not in Stadiums. Spreading over categories counter-useful. This is the goal: if two articles are that same, they should be in the same categorie(s). By invitation, by helping, by checking, by defining, etc. | |||
| I think being consequent & useful in categories is relevant. I need it! | |||
| -] 14:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:23, 24 March 2005
- This article does not show in Category:Stadiums. Something in subcategories inconsequent (cf other sooccer venues?). -DePiep 14:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah but it appears in Category:Football (soccer) venues which is a subcategory of Stadiums. It is not relevant that it appears in both sub and mother categories. Julien Tuerlinckx 18:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I do not agree, I think it is relevant. 1. Other soccer-stadiums do appear in two lists. Why should the Arsenal Stadium not be a stadium? And when I look for a Stadium, how do I know in which subcategorie I have to look? Thats what I looking for: is Stadium X a football stadium? Must I know & use countryname of Stadium XYZ beforehand to find the article? No. I want to learn its country! How could I ever discover (if not by accident) that there is St James Park and St. James' Park.
That's where subcats are for. Articles can be in two, or more. When I'looking for a stadium by name, it's no use when someone says: it is in some cat, way down there. Thanks for helping me. So far about my searching.
Second thing: I must be able to categorize my article consequently. When I write an new article about stadium Y, there should be one way of categorizing. As it is now, I can take Arsenal Stadium as an example, or St James Park. They have different trees of cat, showing up or not in Stadiums. Spreading over categories counter-useful. This is the goal: if two articles are that same, they should be in the same categorie(s). By invitation, by helping, by checking, by defining, etc.
I think being consequent & useful in categories is relevant. I need it!
-DePiep 14:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)