Category talk:The New Yorker, Volume 001, Issue 01
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Untitled
[edit]@Koavf: To the rename request: Your move request is not consistent with the name of the subcategory (you created) and with the linked wiksource page which prefer the volume number to the year number. To use both together is a reasonable compromise which makes the category name compatible with both systems. --ŠJů (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: I don't understand what you are suggesting or what my actions are supposed to be. If you can just say, "X should be called '[foo]', Y should be called '[bar]', etc." then I can figure out what the solution is. I'm happy to follow whatever is consistent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Koavf: It is related to your rename proposal at the parent category. You proposed to rename Category:The New Yorker, Volume 001 (1925) to Category:The New Yorker, 1925 with the reason "Consistency with other similar categories". I.e. you proposed to ommiting the volume number and keep the year number only. However, this subcategory uses only the volume number without the year number. In the current state, the category names indicate that it is the same volume, but after your change, it would no longer be obvious, so you would create an inconsistency. Also consistency with Wikisource:The New Yorker/Volume 1/Number 1 should be considered. You proposed to rename the category from better name to worse one. --ŠJů (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: How is the proposed name worse? Also, how would we make the naming consistent here with Wikisource? You're still not explaining what you want. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Koavf: If one name specifies the volume using only the volume number and another name only using the year number, then it is not possible to recognize that it is the same volume, without seeking it in archives. If you use both numbers in the category name parallelly, then the name is compatible with both methods. Consistency mainly means compatibility, not necessarily uniformity. --ŠJů (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: I've solicited to you several times now that I don't know what your proposal is and you refuse to answer me. What do you think the name of c:Category:The New Yorker, Volume 001, Issue 01 should be? What should the name of c:Category:The New Yorker, Volume 001 (1925) be? What should the name of s:en:The New Yorker/Volume 1/Issue 1 be? I can't help you or understand you if you don't answer these questions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Koavf: I wrote perhaps quite clearly that the names should be such that it is clear that the same volume is the same volume. What may be unclear about this? --ŠJů (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: And I asked you: "What do you think the name of c:Category:The New Yorker, Volume 001, Issue 01 should be? What should the name of c:Category:The New Yorker, Volume 001 (1925) be? What should the name of s:en:The New Yorker/Volume 1/Issue 1 be?" And you still refuse to answer me. If you don't tell me answers to these questions, I cannot help you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Try to engage in thinking. Is it possible to know without further investigation that the volume 001 is the same as the volume 1925? Is it possible to know without further investigation that the volume 001 is the same as the volume 001? Is it possible to know without further investigation that the year 1925 is the same as the year 1925? Try to figure it out yourself, without help. After all, the explanation has so far failed. --ŠJů (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: Don't ping me if you're not going to answer my questions. You're wasting my time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Try to engage in thinking. Is it possible to know without further investigation that the volume 001 is the same as the volume 1925? Is it possible to know without further investigation that the volume 001 is the same as the volume 001? Is it possible to know without further investigation that the year 1925 is the same as the year 1925? Try to figure it out yourself, without help. After all, the explanation has so far failed. --ŠJů (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: And I asked you: "What do you think the name of c:Category:The New Yorker, Volume 001, Issue 01 should be? What should the name of c:Category:The New Yorker, Volume 001 (1925) be? What should the name of s:en:The New Yorker/Volume 1/Issue 1 be?" And you still refuse to answer me. If you don't tell me answers to these questions, I cannot help you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Koavf: I wrote perhaps quite clearly that the names should be such that it is clear that the same volume is the same volume. What may be unclear about this? --ŠJů (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: I've solicited to you several times now that I don't know what your proposal is and you refuse to answer me. What do you think the name of c:Category:The New Yorker, Volume 001, Issue 01 should be? What should the name of c:Category:The New Yorker, Volume 001 (1925) be? What should the name of s:en:The New Yorker/Volume 1/Issue 1 be? I can't help you or understand you if you don't answer these questions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Koavf: If one name specifies the volume using only the volume number and another name only using the year number, then it is not possible to recognize that it is the same volume, without seeking it in archives. If you use both numbers in the category name parallelly, then the name is compatible with both methods. Consistency mainly means compatibility, not necessarily uniformity. --ŠJů (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: How is the proposed name worse? Also, how would we make the naming consistent here with Wikisource? You're still not explaining what you want. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Koavf: It is related to your rename proposal at the parent category. You proposed to rename Category:The New Yorker, Volume 001 (1925) to Category:The New Yorker, 1925 with the reason "Consistency with other similar categories". I.e. you proposed to ommiting the volume number and keep the year number only. However, this subcategory uses only the volume number without the year number. In the current state, the category names indicate that it is the same volume, but after your change, it would no longer be obvious, so you would create an inconsistency. Also consistency with Wikisource:The New Yorker/Volume 1/Number 1 should be considered. You proposed to rename the category from better name to worse one. --ŠJů (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)