User talk:Adamant1

Please, stop vandalizing.

Adamant, there is an ongoing discussion, what you are doing is vandalizing. Stop imposing your viewpoint before a decision was agreed. How old are you? If your point is that "music is not an event", there is no problem in changing my, say, "1799 music in Milan" to "Opera performances in Milan", which has as categories "Music in Milan" and "events in Milan. If you agree, I agree too. Deal? User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@G.dallorto: No, what your doing is vandalism. I told you "music" isn't an event or categorized that way. Your the one who keeps reverting me to restore something that's clearly miscategorization. Also, there's obviously a consensus in the CfD to delete the categories. So they will be deleted either way. It's my prerogative if I want to delete the more problematic ones that don't make sense in the meantime. That's just how this works. But the categories are going to be deleted anyway. So it's totally pointless on your end to keep restoring them regardless. I don't have a problem with you creating "Opera performances in Milan" categories. It shouldn't be done "by year" though since it would just lead to the same exact issue of there not being enough operas for any given year to justify the categories. At the end of the day, this should either done by decade, century, or some other way. Creating hundreds of "operas in Milan by year" categories just recreates the problem though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@G.dallorto: Seriously, don't waste my time asking for my opinion if your just going to ignore it and create the "operas in by year in Milan" categories anyway. Your seriously missing the point of why this whole thing is an issue. Now I'm going to have to start a CfD for "operas in by year in Milan" and we'll just be right at the same point. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is a CfD? Anyway, the person who did not care about the ongoing discussion and carried on to do as he wanted was you, not me. I am still waiting to know how categorizing operas by year harms WikiCommons in any way. All you said is: "I don't like it". So what? This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not Instagram. Any wider discussion broader than your obsession is welcome, of course. User:G.dallorto (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@G.dallorto: "CfD" means "category for discussion." Also, this isn't an encyclopedia. It's a media repository. For the umpteenth time, categories exist to organize images, not be stores of facts that don't matter or help people find files. I left a comment on your talk page about why categorizing operas by year is an issue. The files aren't even for operas to begin with. But it still causes the exact problem of being to granular and causing obtuse, nested categories when done "by year by city" that exists with the other categories anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant, if you stopped deciding that categories should be vandalized BEFORE the discussion reached any conclusion, we wouldn't be at this point. Of course WikiMedia IS an encyclopedia. I can't even understand how you reached a different conclusion. And WikiCommons is not a dump, it is not Instagram, it is not Flickr, it is not Tumblr, it is not your hard drive, and I do not see why you assume you have the right to decide, by yourself or with the friends you called in the discussion via @, a policy that involves the whole of Wikipedia.

"Facts that don't matter or help people find files" is just your opinion: categorization, especially with files that have never been categorized before, is essential to find files.

"The files aren't even for operas to begin with." The files we just discussed a few minutes ago are for opera librettos indeed, it is patent that you did not even bother to click on any of them.

This discussion mist become general, because it is evident that you want to force on others a very peculiar vision of Wikipedia-as-instagram that, who knows, might even become the prevalent one some day, but if so, then let it be said openly, because we "old guard" enrolled in the project of an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not in an Instagram-for-the-poor. User:G.dallorto (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STOP vandalizing categories of the Archaeological Museum of Naples !

Adamant, please stop to vandalizing categories of the Archaeological Museum of Naples! Why do you cancel important informations on the top of categories? DenghiùComm (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DenghiùComm: I don't have a link to it right now but there was a discussion a few months ago on the Village Pump about descriptions or other text in categories and the consensus was that it's totally pointless and just gets in the way since there's infoboxes. It's obviously not vandalism to do something that there was a discussion about and consensus to do. Anyway, with Category:Museo archeologico nazionale (Naples) it's particularly obnoxious because of the length of the text and the fact there's the box at the top, which just needlessly duplicates the infobox. This isn't Wikipedia. People aren't here to read 15 line multiple paragraph mini-essays about the history of the museum or whatever. They can go to Wikipedia for that. Get over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this discussion? We can reduce the text. But it is not true that all the informations in the text are now in the infobox. I have given information that explains to those who open this category why in the MANN there are artifacts found in Rome, why today there are no longer paintings that you can see in historical photos, etc.DenghiùComm (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a while and I'll find the discussions, there's actually been a couple of them. I don't have a problem with a short summary myself but it seemed like from the discussions that other people didn't even want that much. The duplicate infobox is pointless regardless. But if you want to add one or two sentences at the top of the category I don't really care either way. Although I do think you should follow the consensus about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DenghiùComm: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/08#Category_descriptions is the main and most recent discussion. There's also Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/02#Category_pages_that_look_like_quasi-Wikipedia_articles from a few years ago. Anyway, the first one had a formal vote with a clear consensus. So I'd say it's authoritative. At least more so then you just accusing me of vandalism for no reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DenghiùComm: I assume you are familiar with COM:AGF (if not, please do read it). There was absolutely no reason for you to start this discussion with an accusation of vandalism. It is always unlikely that a longstanding participant in Commons has suddenly turned into a vandal. "Removing content" or "removing information" would have said the same thing without being unnecessarily hostile and provocative. Even when you think someone is probably wrong, it is a good idea to start with a reasonably neutrally worded question to see what they at least thought they were doing. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the substance of the matter: for Category:Museo archeologico nazionale (Naples), some of that information might be worth restoring (e.g. that the "Farnese" collection is specific to Rome, etc., though that would probably be more useful in Category:Museo archeologico nazionale (Naples) - Collections), but Adamant1 is right that it was excessive. - 16:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Mr. Adamant is known for his undemocratic ways of proceeding like a bulldozer without respecting the previous work of others. When there are radical changes to be made, we discuss first and then decide on a common line or a shared solution. This does not exist for Adamant. Whether we discuss first or discuss after, nothing changes: he imposes his point of view and his line. In this sense, there is no point in arguing with him. And I believe that I am not the only one who has problems with his behaviour, we are now a significant number of users. DenghiùComm (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DenghiùComm: as a response to what I wrote, does that paraphrase as "I have no responsibility to assume good faith"? Because that is how I read it. - Jmabel ! talk 03:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]