Category talk:Ocarina of Time Files

Image Categorizing
Is anyone else besides me utterly terrified by the idea of images being categorized? Allow me to explain; the wiki currently has over 6000 images. That's a lot. As far as I'm aware, none have ever been categorized (I've never seen one which was, and there are no pre-existing image categories). Therefore categorizing images = a  LOT  of work. Personally, I don't see what is to be gained. Sure, it's a nice idea to have all images browsable by category. But then there'd be hundreds of image categories clogging the place up. Surely a more productive task would be to attack the unused images, making sure that these are either deleted of incorporated into articles if appropriate? Then there'd be no need for image categories, as all images would be visible alongside the topic to which they pertain. Is it just me, or does the thought of a partially-categorized, never to be completed database of images make anyone else feel sad and depressed? :( —Adam (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2008 (EST)


 * Upon first seeing what he was doing with this, my thought was "Oh, that's an interesting idea", but the more I think about it, the more I'm not so sure. While, as Adam stated, it'd be kind of neat to have every image in all of these categories, it would take forever to be a finished project (if ever, given that images are being added all the time). Not to mention that anyone that wants pictures of Barinade would have a much easier time finding them by just going to the Barinade article as opposed to pulling up the Pictures in OoT category and searching through them. So, while a nice idea, it seems like a fruitless use of energy. --Ando (Talk) 13:46, 1 March 2008 (EST)


 * WTF people!?! You don't have to do anything, I'll do it! I have been doing it and I will finish it. Do you know how difficult it is to find pictures that have not been used when they're all bunched up like that. Do you know how many doubled up pictures you people have in there? That's just two reasons why I'm categorizing them. Stop getting in my way just because you guys feel lazy about something that you don't have to get involved in at all. --Knil 18:53, 1 March 2008 (EST)


 * "Do you know how difficult it is to find pictures that have not been used when they're all bunched up like that. Do you know how many doubled up pictures you people have in there?" No, that whole list that Adam linked to (this one) is all unused images, so you don't have to sift through there to find the unused ones. --Ando (Talk) 19:24, 1 March 2008 (EST)


 * And the doubled and poor quality images? Knil 19:50, 1 March 2008 (EST)


 * They don't really matter because they're unused. Everything in the Unused Images page has one of two fates: It's going to be integrated into an article, or deleted. So everything that's not in an article within a reasonable amount of time is deleted. That goes for the doubled images that aren't in articles either. And if you ever see a double image that needs deleting, your friendly neighbourhood   tag is always there to help you out. ;) --Ando (Talk) 20:02, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Frankly, I think there are much more productive things that can be done instead of catagorizing images. --Captain Cornflake 21:17, 1 March 2008 (EST)
 * Special:WantedPages
 * Special:DeadendPages
 * Special:BrokenRedirects
 * Special:LonelyPages
 * Special:ShortPages
 * Special:UncategorizedPages


 * I've tried to be reasonable but now it's simple. We're all in agreement, and this is the end of the discussion. You WILL stop this. This is everyone's wiki, NOT yours. Do you realise that I have to manually mark every edit you make as patrolled? If you think I'm doing that 6000 times you can think again. I'm reverting all the changes, and if you persist I'll have no alternative but to block you. Sorry if this seems harsh, but I've yet to see anyone here agree with you (about this, or anything else for that matter). —Adam (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)