Category talk:Abolitionism in Canada

Abolitionism in Canada

Hello. You're right that the underground railroad was a cross-border effort, so that's why Category:Underground Railroad is in both the U.S. and Canadian abolitionism categories. Other subcats and files should be addressed the same way where necessary, not through see also tags on the parent category (because, frankly, not all canadidates for inclusion in the Canadian category have any relevance to the U.S., or vice versa). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"See also" links are for related categories that aren't child or parent categories. Discuss first before reverting. I have been doing this a long time on the Commons. I consolidated the discussion here. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to the substantive issues before reverting. And saying things like "I have been doing this a long time on the Commons" is not helpful - esp. since others have as much experience as you do. The entire "abolitionism in Canada" category is not relevant to the U.S. experience -- if there are specific subcats or files that are relevant to both countries, then categorize those items in both categories. Yes, see also links (the see also template is what should actually be used) are for related categories that aren't child or parent categories, but that's not what is at issue here.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I already responded to the substantive issues. A subcat is not what should be linked in see also links. This is a ridiculous, near-xenophobic, statement:

The entire "abolitionism in Canada" category is not relevant to the U.S. experience

The see also template is not what most people use. I have years of experience. If experience is not helpful, then what is? --Timeshifter (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I am not sure why you believe the comment is xenophobic. Not everything in the Canadian category is relevant to the U.S. category. Why is that xenophobic?

"A subcat is not what should be linked in see also links." I didn't suggest that see also links be used at all. I suggested that if there were any subcats or files that were relevant to the abolitionist movements in both countries, then those items should be categorized in both abolitionist categories. This is a much better approach than tagging the Canadian category, given that not all of its contents are relevant to the American one. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. The phrase "entire 'abolitionism in Canada' category" could be interpreted in more than one way. I withdraw the xenophobic comment. Not everything in related categories has to be relevant to each other. Same as in "see also" links at the bottom of Wikipedia pages. They are for people looking for more info not found in child or parent categories. It takes them directly there rather than going up one category tree and then going down several other category trees until they get lucky and find the right category tree with related info. See also links take them directly there. They are aids. That's all. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. You are absolutely right - that sentence can be read two ways, and I hadn't realized it. Good point. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Nobody is suggesting that people should have to go up and down category trees. What I am saying is that the best way to deal with commonalities is to properly categorize the subcats and files - it is far more effective and helpful than see also tags in the parent category. And the overriding issue is that we can't simply start listing "see also" categories at the top of every category each time someone thinks there is something else that bears some relevance -- for this category alone, categories pertaining to abolitionism in the United Kingdom (from a legal perspective, that has more relevance to the Cdn cat that the U.S. one), immigration in Canada, other emancipation movements in Canada, etc. can all be said to also be relevant and deserving of a tag. And then we get into disputes over relevance -- this isn't Wikipedia, but rather a category based repository.

Having said all that, I regret that this discussion got off on the wrong foot. I have no doubt that two people who obviously both have the best interests of the Commons in mind have better things to do than get heated over a minor issue like this one. I don't agree with you on this one, but since you feel strongly about this, I have no objection if you want to (re)add the see also tag (although I do suggest that you use {{See also}}, but that's up to you. Sorry if I was not as helpful as I should have been. I look forward to working with you again sometime under better circumstances. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there something else? I thought this discussion had reached a natural endpoint as concerns this particular category. As for the rest we can agree to disagree. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's unhelpful. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what else to say. I asked you to consider a change, which you didn't seem to consider merited a response. I decided to be conciliatory - you also decided that didn't even merit an acknowledgement. All there is left to do is sigh. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You did not acknowledge my points about "See also" links, and repeated your earlier assertions. It seemed that the discussion was going nowhere, and since the original problem was solved, I felt there was no need for further repetition. The honorable thing to do is to agree to disagree. Without sighing or condescension. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I did respond to your points, and then simply tried to better explain my position. That's how discussions work. The problem was solved because I decided to defer to you and be conciliatory. You didn't seem to feel any need to acknowledge the attempt at compromise, nor my further suggestion about using the proper template. I'm sorry you see all this as condescension - it's simply disappointment that best efforts at good faith resolution seem to generate the same level of hostility from you. And that merits a sigh. It's a shame. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no hostility on my part. And you still don't acknowledge my larger points. You did not compromise concerning the overall points concerning "see also" links in other categories. You let the "see also" links stay in this particular category. For that I thank you. In the future please don't take offense when you don't get acknowledgment for some things. I don't take offense at your lack of acknowledgment of my larger points. Can we move on? --Timeshifter (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, a compromise does not require the other editor to acknowledge you were right and they were wrong. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I do use "see also" templates at times. Depends on the situation. I happened to be working on this page today: Commons:Chart and graph resources. I noticed that I had combined both vertical and horizontal "see also" links - {{Cat see also}}. I did this awhile back. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)