Category talk:Cleuson-Dixence Complex

Scope

Generally I try to split dam and lake/reservoir into separate categories. If there are additional structures further away, it can be worth creating categories for these too and put them into a new parent category. This makes it possible to get images of dams without those of people picknicking next to the lake.

How the parent category is named may vary. In this case, I think "Grande Dixence" could do.

This is somewhat different from Wikipedia where one article would generally attempt to describe the entire scheme. At Commons, generally, there is a series of images of different parts taken at places far away and not necessarily ideal to illustrate the Wikipedia article.  Docu  at 10:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Grande Dixence

(Moved from: User talk:Docu)

Hi Docu. With regard to this edit, the current Category:Grande Dixence Dam covers the entire Grande Dixence complex (with subcats). As the dam is the key subject of the whole complex, the entire complex if often referred to as "Grande Dixence Dam". For example, a quick Google on Grande Dixence shows nearly all results with "Grande Dixence Dam". Numerous websites also refer to the main dam, with subtopics for its power and pumping stations. Please let me know if you are ok with me reverting that edit. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What a coincidence: have at look at Category talk:Grande Dixence, posted 1 minute earlier.  Docu  at 10:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh :). But sadly, I dont fully understand. So if we do keep Category:Grande Dixence, what would be the difference between Grande Dixence and Grande Dixence Dam based on the above context? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything that is not specifically about the dam, but the scheme in general, would be in "Grande Dixence".  Docu  at 10:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But that contradicts what I said above , since Category:Grande Dixence Dam covers the entire scheme... Based on what I said above, would you agree to delete Category:Grande Dixence? If not, why? (Btw, thanks for moving those files so quickly). Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How would you name a subcategory that just covers the dam?  Docu  at 11:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Grande Dixence Dam is the main subject of the whole complex, we add its power stations, pumping stations, and its reservoir, as subcats of Grande Dixence Dam... Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Still, if we decide to subcategorize the dam part, how will we name the subcategory for the dam? "Dam of Grande Dixence Dam"?  Docu  at 11:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed a point. Only files relating to the physical dam itself will be directly categorized into the Category:Grande Dixence Dam. The rest; its individual power stations, individual pumping stations, and its reservoir, will be subcats of Category:Grande Dixence Dam... Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

When did we decide on that?  Docu  at 11:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh man :). I really dont have any problem keeping both categories. This discussion is just to know your opinions on that move; (Quote from first comment: Please let me know if you are ok with me reverting that edit). If you don't like it, thats perfectly ok. No offence, seriously. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Personally (obviously?) I prefer keeping both categories, but wouldn't mind renaming "Grande Dixence" to, e.g. "Grande Dixence scheme", if you'd rather not see "Grande Dixence".  Docu  at 12:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The current state seems ok to me . Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Fionnay Hydroelectric Power Station: dam or scheme?

(Moved from: Category talk:Fionnay Hydroelectric Power Station)

If we have two categories, one for the dam, one for the scheme, we will have to decide where to place this. BTW, I came a across Mauvoisin which seems to relate to this.  Docu  at 05:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at this file for example, you will see that the main subject of the whole scheme is the Category:Grande Dixence Dam, absolutely everything falls under it. Based on the above discussion, I have no problem if you want to keep Category:Grande Dixence, but whatever happens, it is quite obvious that Category:Fionnay Hydroelectric Power Station should be a subcat of Category:Grande Dixence Dam. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The file you mention isn't in Category:Fionnay Hydroelectric Power Station where I started this discussion.

In any case, in the previous discussion we seemed to agree to have two categories: one for the scheme, one for the dam. I don't see why you insist on mixing the two again.

In any case, Mauvoisin suggests that Category:Lac de Mauvoisin might be the better parent category altogether, at least until we got one for that scheme.  Docu  at 05:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The file I referred to you is just to show you the full structure of the Dam's functions, nothing to do with its categories. And Lac de Mauvoisin has absolutely nothing to do with the Dixence Dam. Lac de Mauvoisin is the reservoir of the Mauvoisin Dam, a completely separate dam with maybe its own power stations. The site you are referring to are either describing all power stations in the region in general, or the power stations maintained by that particular company. Lets keep that out, and not make this more complicated. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that I had its parts about "Fionnay power station" in mind.

In any case, now that we agree to have a category for the scheme and one for the (physical) dam, why should this category (Fionnay Hydroelectric Power Station) be in the one for the dam in addition to the one for the scheme?  Docu  at 05:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Because Fionnay is fuelled by the Dam, and is of absolutely no use if the dam don't exist. If you look at every other dam article, on Commons or Wikipedia, you will notice that every dam and its power stations is always treated as one facility. In this case, the dam and its four power stations. Only vague sites describe the Dam and its power stations as Grand Dixence Scheme or ...Complex or etc, when clearly, the dam is the whole scheme. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 06:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we discussed all this in the previous thread, including the difference between Wikipedia and Commons. I don't understand why you changed your mind about this, after all the time we took to discuss this.  Docu  at 06:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"I think we discussed all this in the previous thread": Yes we did. "...including the difference between Wikipedia and Commons": All I said was "Commons or Wikipedia". "...why you changed your mind...": Trust me I didn't, and I think you did.¹² I did agree that both categories can be kept, even though I have no clue what you plan to put in Category:Grande Dixence. But you cannot simply alter the reality and remove Fionnay from being a subcat of its Dam, that doesn't make sense. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 06:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Initially you tried to delete "Grande Dixence", but then decided to keep it. It has a category description as has its subcategory Grande Dixence Dam. The only thing we need to do is to make sure that the other subcategories are in the correct places. Until we can get this set, I'd rather leave Category:Lac des Dix where it used to be, i.e. in Category:Grande Dixence.  Docu  at 06:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You are deviating from the subject. Yes I did try to delete Grande Dixence, but it was kept because you objected it. The current structure (not your preference) of the Grande Dixence is how this file describes; and thats how the categorization should be done as well (all under "Grande Dixence Dam"); without an extra "Grand Dixence" before the "Grand Dixence Dam". Also, I don't know how far Commons has revert rules, but you are abusing your editing rights by reverting again before a proper consensus is reached. What you are doing now is nowhere near Neutral Point of View. I will revert your previous edit again, and if you do revert again, I will take this discussion beyond this talkpage. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 06:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Rehman, the day before your previous comment you renamed two categories without any prior discussion or consensus. Apparently you seemed to ignore Commons:Rename a category and COM:CFD. This was mostly already reverted and unless we can agree on a new structure, we need to restore the prior structure completely.

As you are saying, "the current structure [.] of the Grande Dixence is how this file describes", try to create corresponding categories: "Grande Dixence", "Barrage Grande Dixence", "Barrage de Cleuson", "Usine de Fionay".

We will then try to find English names for each and sort the (categories and) files that should go into each category.  Docu  at 10:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment above. Just to clarify, the linked file is obviously not in English, and thus may or may not need translations. I don't understand the part about me renaming some categories. I'd be glad to discuss about it further if you could provide links or diffs? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You renamed "Grande Dixence" to "Grande Dixence Dam" and "Lac des Dix" to "Lake Dix". As you didn't follow Commons:Rename a category and no consensus was reached before, we would normally just reverse this and restore the previous solution. We already did this partially. Unless we can work out a solution, we need to do this.  Docu  at 10:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You are going around in circles, again. The edit relating to renaming of the category was solved on the same day the category was created, after we clearly agreed that it was my fault (thus I reverted myself). It has, once again, nothing to do with this thread, and was, in fact, something that had occurred before this thread was even started. And who is we?

The part regarding renaming "Grande Dixence" to "Grande Dixence Dam"; as you can see, every file in Category:Grande Dixence Dam are of the physical dam itself. What is wrong with that? You really don't need consensus for obvious matters.

The topic we are discussing here is the purpose of keeping Category:Grande Dixence. Which I have very well expressed my views in the above comments. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I could agree to move just the files about the physical dam to a subcategory "Grande Dixence Dam", but we would have to move the subcategories back then.  Docu  at 04:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be something wrong with me, but, I really don't understand where you're heading; "I could agree to move just the files about the physical dam to a subcategory "Grande Dixence Dam"": Files of the physical dam are already in Grande Dixence Dam. And subtopics relating to the main dam is already a subcat of Grande Dixence Dam. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We didn't really agree on moving the subcategories along. This is just your unilateral move you keep insisting on. The question is now if we have to undo your entire reorganization or if we can leave the files about the physical dam in the subcategory and just move the other subcategories back.  Docu  at 14:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was my unilateral move to move all dam files to Grande Dixence Dam, and yes it was my unilateral move to subcat Fionnay and Lac des Dix to Grande Dixence Dam, because thats where they belong without doubt; dam files in the relevant dam category, and components of the main dam in the parent category, the main dam. I don't know why you keep pushing this. There is no such thing as the whole scheme to keep Grande Dixence. Your description "Grande Dixence is a hydro-electric scheme around Grande Dixence Dam" doesn't make sense. It is just a unofficial vague term used by some websites to collectively call all components; dam, powerhouses, pumping stations, reservoirs. Again, the dam is the whole scheme; the dam creates its reservoir, and the dam fuels the power stations. You may be confused with some facilities called "Something Scheme", thats just the name of the relevant facility, side-by-side with Grande Dixence Dam, and not any special "type" of "collective" term. If you ask my opinion, I would say to delete Grande Dixence straight away one and for all. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

At least we agree on something ("unilateral move"). I restored the last consensual version.

Try to formulate a better proposal if you want to re-organize it. You might want to start with finding a translation for "Installations hydroélectriques de la Grande Dixence", the title of File:Installations hydroélectriques de la Grande Dixence.svg you keep referring to.  Docu  at 08:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am really sick of your childish play. And I am sick of fighting over such an obvious issue for so long. You clearly have reverted, again, without proper consensus. I have reported you at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As announced earlier, I just restored the original version, before you did your unilateral move. During the years it existed, there wasn't really anything that was found controversial about it.

Did you make any progress in finding a translation for "Installations hydroélectriques de la Grande Dixence". --  Docu  at 15:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Why was this moved? I requested to revert the move.  Docu  at 11:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has now escalated into a clear dispute, and should be discussed at Commons:Disputes noticeboard#Docu instead, so that more opinions may be heard. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There isn't really much to add about your dispute problem than 99of9 already did on AN.

The new thing might be is that you just ignored his comments and reposted almost the exact same text in another forum. first post (11:52, 2010 August 15 on AN), second post (13:24, 2010 August 26) on Disputes_noticeboard.

You didn't even bothered to respond to 99of9 who took the time to explain it to you. If you can't discuss your POV and just walk around accusing people of "vandalist behaviour", you don't really help your proposal.

If you have an new proposal for categorization, just bring it up in one of the appropriate forums (here or CFD).  Docu  at 18:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

At least you seem to agree that there is no consensus on the dispute noticeboard (diff). Docu  at 19:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As this seems to have stalled, I guess we just have to restore the previous solution.  Docu  at 23:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Partially  Done. What a waste of time. --  Docu  at 04:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your disruptive behaviour won't help. I have already clearly told you that I will not discuss this here, and that if you wan't it changed to your personal preference, to take it to the disputes noticeboard, so that everyone may see it. I do not consider all of the 7 recent edits constructive all (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), rather more disruptive. Rehman 12:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Per you silence for a week, I have reverted these edits mentioned above. You will comment at the disputes noticeboard if you want to change it back. Rehman 14:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your proposal. Just stating you think it's disruptive doesn't advance us. I restored the last consensual version. Stop your forum shopping. --  Docu  at 02:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

For a summary, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/01/Category:Grande Dixence. --  Docu  at 02:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is really no concensus for one or another category. There is no point in moving it again and again so just leave it where ever it may be at the moment. I suggest that this is discussed in one place only. Perhaps the best place would be to take the discussion in Categories for discussion (link above). Once a conclusion has been made category will be moved with a bot if needed. --MGA73 (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)