File talk:Abus S333AJP.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Categories[edit]
This discussion has been moved from my talk page as it seems to be more appropriate here. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The ALX is barely in the image so therefore categorising it is pointless, By all means add an annotation but it shouldn't be categorised, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 13:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- The picture was taken to show the variety of buses operated by ABus and I believe that it should therefore categorise both buses. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well the ALX isn't fully in the image so therefore categorising it isn't appropriate here (Had you taken an image of the front of both vehicles then yes obviously it should be categorised but less than half of the vehicle is in the image), Also stop warring as I've added an annotation to the image so warring is also pointless, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 13:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Guidelines are to use categories to help people find images, so while your image note identifies the second vehicle, it doesn't help people find the picture in the first place if they are looking for an Alexander ALX400 on DAF DB250 chassis - this is a pretty rare combination and Commons only has eight other examples. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- They don't need to find it and we have better (and full images) of said vehicle, There's alot more images of the vehicle however at the moment they're currently not categorised, As I said this is simply over-categorisation, I would also recommend you self revert - File warring isn't going to help you. –Davey2010Talk 11:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Guidelines are to use categories to help people find images, so while your image note identifies the second vehicle, it doesn't help people find the picture in the first place if they are looking for an Alexander ALX400 on DAF DB250 chassis - this is a pretty rare combination and Commons only has eight other examples. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Who are you or I to say what people need? If it is categorized then they can chose whether it is an image that they need to look at; if it is not then they will never find it.
- Adding categories for a second subject is not over-categorization. That would be 'placing a file in several levels of the same branch in the category tree'. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well it's true - People will be looking for full images of a vehicle, Categories should only be used for the main subject of an image and I personally don't believe the ALX is even close to being a main subject, Unfortunately it is when the vehicle isn't the main subject, I apologise for sounding like a broken record, I don't see where we go to resolve this as we both disagree with each other and the Block board isn't exactly being of any use..... –Davey2010Talk 13:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- No, I don't know what every user is searching for and neither do you. I can't find any policy or guidance on whether "categories should only be used for the main subject" and I've seen hundreds of examples where secondary details have been categorized. If you have come across any perhaps you can let me know where it is? Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well I know people would rather see a picture of a full vehicle as opposed to roughly a quarter of it, Annoyingly neither can I, I'll post at Talk:Categories later and hopefully we can put this to rest, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- No, I don't know what every user is searching for and neither do you. I can't find any policy or guidance on whether "categories should only be used for the main subject" and I've seen hundreds of examples where secondary details have been categorized. If you have come across any perhaps you can let me know where it is? Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
