Category talk:Škoda 742

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello.

As some of you may have noticed recently I have expanded and improved the Škoda 742 category tree so that the vehicles could be categorized based on when they were produced.

Now I have based this category tree on information from cs:Škoda 742 article which is very well done, has a lot of reliable references and explains its subject in a great detail. According to that article Škoda 742 cars in 1979 received a black plastic spoiler hence vehicles produced between 1976 and 1979 are recognizable by the lack of the said spoiler. In 1981 Škoda 105 L and Škoda 120 L both received new oval-shaped headlights (NOTE: Škoda 105 S and Škoda 120 as well as Škoda 120 LS and Škoda 120 GLS retained their original headlights which were circle-shaped in case of the former two and quad circle-shaped for the latter two). Hence Škoda 105 L and Škoda 120 L produced between 1979 and 1981 are recognizable by the old circular-shaped headlights (coupled with the black spoiler of course). In 1982 the thus far chrome rear-view mirror was replaced by a plastic one. Hence the vehicles produced between 1981 and 1982 (in case of Škoda 105 L and Škoda 120 L) or 1979 and 1982 in case of all other Škoda 742 models were recognizable by features of the previous models plus the plastic mirror. in 1983 Škoda 742 the most extensive modernization in its history (it included a new front, rear lights as well as many other small changes). It should mentioned that at that point all Škoda 742 models had the same type of headlights, very similar to the oval-shaped ones from Škoda 105 L and Škoda 120 L. In 1984 new safety regulations were introduced and thus all Škoda 742 models produced between 1984 and 1985 had safety belts and small indicators on the front fenders. In 1985 all Škoda 742 models (except Škoda 105 S, Škoda 105 SP and Škoda 105 L) received a new type of headlights that "filled" their slots. Thus Škoda 105 S, Škoda 105 SP and Škoda 105 L produced between 1985 and 1986 look exactly the same as the ones produced between 1984 and 1985 while all other Škoda 742 models have the new type of headlights. In 1986 all Škoda 742 models received a second rear-view mirror on the side opposite the driver (the actual side depended on whether a particular example was a right-hand drive or left-hand drive version). In 1987 all Škoda 742 models received headrests on the front seats (NOTE: This feature was already present before that in Škoda 120 LS, GLS, GL and LX thus it can nor be used to tell that the particular vehicle was produced in 1987). In 1988 all Škoda 742 models received a new one-piece asymmetrical front grill and it was in that form that it was produced until 1990 when production stopped in favor of Škoda Favorit.

I hope this will help people to understand the logic behind the new category tree.

Now I know most of the subcategories are empty right now and I know that some of you want to delete them but have a lot of pictures of various Škoda 742 models that I have yet to upload (most because I did not have time) that will help fill most of the blank categories.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

742 ist eine Gruppe wie Category:Volkswagen Golf. Nur daß es vom Golf sehr viele Baureihen gibt, I bis VI und Unterkategorien. Der 742 war ein einziges Fahrzeug mit Karosserievarianten (uninteressant) und verschiedenen Motoren. Gibt es einen Category:Volkswagen Golf II 1600? Nein! 105 und 120 sind weitgehend identisch, da steckt nur ein anderer Motor drin! Hinzu kommt, daß die Tschechen unzählige Modelle produziert haben, die in keine Schublade passen. GLS, GL und LX sind nur Ausstattungsversionen, das ist vollkommen irrelevant. Da Skodamotoren viel häufiger als die anderer Automarken gewechselt wurden, ist eine sinnvolle Kategorisierung sowieso fast sinnlos. Was da hinten drinsteckt, kann man aus optischen Gründen niemals sagen. Ein 120er kann ein 105er sein, genausogut ein 136er. Er kann sogar ein MB 1000 oder ein S 100 sein, niemand weiß es. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
742 is a category such as Category:Volkswagen Golf. Except that there have been several different generations of the Golf, I through VI including subcategories. The 742 was a single car with different bodystyles (equipment levels?) (of no interest) and different engines. Is there a Category:Volkswagen Golf II 1600? No! The 105 and 120 are largely identical, there's just a different engine inside! Add to this the fact that the Czechs built any number of versions which won't fit in any slot. GLS, GL, and LX are only equipment levels and thus completely irrelevant. Since Skoda engines are changed around more often than for most car brands, sensible categorization becomes nearly meaningless. What may lurk within can never be told by the naked eye. A 120 could be a 105, or just as easily a 136. It could even be a MB 1000 or a S100, one cannot tell. (Translated by Mr.choppers, hopefully not too badly)
You have a point but not a very good one. While it is true that most Škoda 742 models used the same body (except that the changes that were introduced in 1983 were so large that it could qualify as a new body) but the names of the vehicles given by manufacturer mentioned the engine size and equipment version (for example a lux version of Škoda 742 with a 1.2 l engine had the name Škoda 120 L on it) thus comparing this to Volkwagen Golf isn't a very good comparison.
You do have a point that we can't be 100% sure but if we would that kind of altitude we should just put all Škoda automobiles in one big category but that wouldn't be very helpful now would it?
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translator translation:
Sie haben einen Punkt, aber nicht sehr gut. Es ist zwar richtig, dass die meisten Škoda 742 Modelle der gleichen Stelle verwendet (außer, dass die Änderungen, die im Jahr 1983 eingeführt wurden so groß, dass es als eine neue Stelle zu qualifizieren waren), aber die Namen der Fahrzeuge vom Hersteller angegeben erwähnt den Motor Größe und Ausstattung Version (zum Beispiel ein Lux-Version von Škoda 742 mit einem 1,2 l-Motor hatte den Namen Škoda 120 L auf sie) damit vergleicht dies Volkswagen Golf ist kein sehr guter Vergleich.
Sie sind an einem Punkt, dass wir nicht 100% sicher sein, aber wenn wir uns diese Art von Höhe wir haben gerade sollten alle Škoda Auto in einer großen Gruppe, aber das wäre nicht sehr hilfreich, jetzt wäre es?
Grüße. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SuperTank seems to be missing the point a bit. There is no real need to have a picture of every single version of every single engine of every single equipment level of the 742, as much as we love it. Divide the 742 family into two at the 1983 facelift, and we have enough detail. Also, naturally it is impossible to tell what is what since most cars have been modified in one way or another by now - losing and gaining mirrors and headrests. I am aware that all of this took a lot of work, and I don't know what the layout was before, but please, I implore you to reverse the madness! Mr.choppers (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I expanded the category tree there were not categories for vehicles produced in specific timeframes. The categories were created based on the names them-selfs, so for example all Škoda 120 L cars were in a single category. I think that we an all agree that model was good so if this one was to be abandoned the previous one is the next best thing.
P.S. I would make a "This is Sparta!" joke but I won't instead I will quote Spock and say that you not understanding the new category tree is "most illogical".
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very often there are used backs of 120's for 105/130... and so on. many people (my father also) put different parts from different 742 and put them on the one car. Also there were many versions for export as example estelle, garde (not the coupe) and target which were sold in the whole world. they have special equ. for the weather conditions. it is bad to categorize the equipment of the cars. I speak for a categorization into 105/120/125/130/135/136 and the eventual export versions and special versions. But without any equipment shurtcuts.
DEUTSCH: Heute findet man sehr oft Hinterteile von 120ern auf 105/130ern usw. viele leute (auch mein vater) haben versch. teile von versch. 742 zu einem auto zusammengeschustert. auch wurden viele exportversionen hergestellt wie z. b. estelle, garde (nicht das coupe) und target. sie hatten versch. ausst. für die jew. klimatischen bedingungen. es ist einfach schlecht, die kat. nach ausstattung anzulegen. Ich bin für eine kategor. in 105/120/125/130/135/136 und die jew. exportversionen und sonderfälle. Jedoch ohne Ausstattungskürzeln. Das mal kurz hingekleckst. ☼alofok☼ 22:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So basically what you are proposing is that we put pictures of all Škoda 742 models in one big category. It may leave no room for error but would it be practical? (I will give you a hint: no).
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(past edit. conf.) Consider that "Škoda 742" was unly an uknown internal mark. No car was really labelled as "Škoda 742", most of Czech people never heard such type number (although Škoda 105 and 120 were for many yerars the prevalent car types here). Basic categorization should keep to the real trademark of types (i. e. the type number signed on the vehicle). Škoda 742 should by only at most an auxiliary category for grouuping them (and eventually for cars of unidentified types from this type range). --ŠJů (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I am suggesting that if the current category tree is to abandoned than we should return to the previous one where pictures were put in categories like Category:Škoda 105 S or Category:Škoda 120 L. I believe that to be the next best thing and the one that most people can accept.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

I say let's hold a vote. We'll give it a week, and see how it goes. If you think that the best thing to do is following SuperTank17's idea of subdividing the 742 into seventeen categories (and counting), please write *'''Multiple''' and sign it. Additional comments and suggestions are naturally welcome. If you prefer dividing the 742 family by the 1983 facelift (two subcategories), write *'''Facelift''' and sign. If you prefer reverting to the previous situation, write *'''Revert'''. Any other suggestions are also welcome.

  • Facelift - less confusing than this wilderness of subcategories, and more relevant since photos deal mainly with the visual aspects of the cars. Whether a picture is of a 120 or a 105 seems to me of less relevance than what it looks like. Mr.choppers (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a clear-cup opinion how many subcategories should exist, but I have several recommendations:

  • category name should be appropriately short and should contain the crucial criterion, not something like this
  • every category should be clearly described and the main category should contain instruction which criteria are decisive for categorization
  • every widespread type and every specific type should have its own category, but it should be used only for images which contain some specific attribute of such type or are reliably identified - car of an unidentified type should use a suitable upon-category.
  • if some expressive distinction isn't correlating with type numbers, the category name can use such attribute directly: Category:Škoda 742 with round headlamps etc. We should discuss which attributes are most relevant. --ŠJů (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing a card index. The great merit of a computer database is that you can sort it and group it in more than one way. The human mind is forever identifying patterns and categories from initially random collections of things or ideas: maybe that talent for identifying structure in seeming chaos is one of the defining features of our species. But we do not all group stuff in the same way. And human societies have changed (some still dare to say "progressed") very much less rapidly in times and places where a single dominant group has sought to impose a single structure on the way everyone thinks. I do not advocate anarchy, but nor do I expect people with different professional specialities, different mother tongues, different computer languages, all instinctively to group categories of car pictures in an identical way. What I do not understand is why a second or third view of the database should be seen to discredit the first view. Surely there is room for more than one set of categories, because Gott sei Dank there has to be room for more than one way of organising your thoughts. Or am I missing something obvious?
In the wiki context, it is precisely the diversity of thought patterns that makes the entries interesting to read. And if you impose a single structure on the way pictures of a certain succession of Skodas are categorised, you cannot be surprised if three years later someone will come along with equal certainty concerning their own way of organising data and do the thing differently. Not better: not worse. Differently. So why not allow for two (or more...) different ways of grouping the things ab initio?
Perhaps it is also worthwhile to ask why we need categories. I think the answer is that they make it easier for people to find the picture they are looking for, whether for inclusion in an entry or simply because they are interested. Precisely how you categorise these Skoda images does not greatly impact how quickly people will find what they are looking for in the context. More important in the first instance is giving the files names that the search engines will pick up on quickly. Then you can simply click on whichever of the categories at the foot of that picture page "floats your boat" (as the kids insist on saying) and see the other images in that category.
Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.choppers actions[edit]

Apparently in recent times Mr.choppers came to a conclusion that talking is for losers and decided to implement his draconian rules without consulting with anybody.

Well I've got a message for him if he ever looks here: I will not let your lack of understanding of the word "compromise" wreak havok upon this category tree (as some of you may or may not know I agreed that the "by year" category tree model wasn't the best option but what Mr.choppers tries to do here goes way, way beyond on what we agreed).

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It`s very simple: what you do here with your crazy categorys, this ist vandalism. Let it be. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+1
Today it´s noob-friendly! Juhu! alofok* 17:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I am doing is certainly not vandalism. Mr.choppers actions fit that description far better than anything I ever did. Also since you are all so happy with the way the category tree looks know answer me these questions:
1. How do you know that this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this are examples of Škoda 105 when they can clearly be examples of Škoda 120?
2. How do you know that this is a Škoda 120?
3. Why is the Category:Škoda 125 not called Category:Škoda 125 L when Škoda 125 L was the only model of Škoda 125?
4. Why were variant categories removed when they clearly weren't an issue before (the issue in case you do not remember was the by production year category tree model)?
5. Why such a delay in your actions did you really think that if waited a few months I would forget the whole issue? I am sorry if I misunderstood you but I think you people are intentionally trying to provoke me.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. The version 105 have two lights in the front or deeper frontlights with orange blinkers at the side of them. the version 120 has got from beginning four lights in the front or the flatly lights from the eightis.
2. Because the uploader it says.
3. Easier handling.
4. I don't understand. Maybe I am stupid.
5. Clear. We all are provoke you. We have all such much time. I make my work in Wikipedia not here. When I see this chaos I take my time and make order.
I love provoking people like you. :D alofok* 18:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Irrelevant to this conversation.
2. Irrelevant to this conversation.
3. Easier handling, standardization.
4. They were an issue before, consensus was not to use them. The model years was just the more pressing issue.
5. No, I just didn't have time to do anything about it earlier. Also, I had thought you had begun taking others' opinions into account, but since your editing pattern remains unchanged I see no way to resolve this other than head on. Trust me, fixing your chaos is a huge boring waste of my time. Mr.choppers (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To alofok:
1. From what I know and have proof of both Škoda 105 and Škoda 120 had the same front lights in all time periods (with the exception of the 120 LS/GLS which had four before 1983 and the 105 L/120 L which received new oval ones in 1981 and of course the fact that in 1985 Škoda 120 received new headlights while Škoda 105 retained the ones from 1983).
2. Have you considered that the uploader may be wrong?
3. Oh because we all know that this one letter would make it impossible to use this category especially if we created a redirect at Category:Škoda 125 I mean that would just be stupid.
To Mr.choppers
1. and 2. It is since its one of the changes that were carried out to make the category tree "better".
3. It's misleading.
4. Where was this decision made exactly?
5. I thought we were doing such good progress on the Polski Fiat 126p category tree. Also I DO take opinions of others into consideration, why else do you think I would be here trying to make some sense out of what you are doing by communicating with you through this very talk page. Also what you did here is pretty much what you accuse me of, not "taking others' opinions into account". To think we were doing such great progress only for all of it to end like this. It was great while it lasted though.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several users told you, that you shouldn't make such pointless categories. every communication is pointless. typical with you. you have no idea of this subject and will try here as a small child to enforce your unideal "ideal". i have asked also severel other users and they answered me, that you are making "muck". best wishes. alofok* 21:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed I have been trying to find some middle ground between me and those "several users" to find the best solution but what you are suggesting here is that I should abandon all of my ideas and opinions in face of even the slightest disagreement.
"every communication is pointless. typical with you." thank you for this "delightful" reminder that there are some members of mankind who think that just because someone doesn't agree with them makes that person wrong and not worth talking to.
On the contrary I do have knoledge about this subject and I am trying to use it to better Wikimedia Commons but I can not do that if I am blocked by people who think that "communication is pointless".
My "unideal "ideal""? What does that even mean? Also what does "making "muck". best wishes" mean?
Regards . -SuperTank17 (talk)
If about a dozen or so other users (I listed them at one point) all agree that you are wrong, then the person that will have to budge is you. I have asked you before: does the fact that you have found not one other editor who agrees with your style of categorizing mean nothing to you? Mr.choppers (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
today i have not so much free time for commons: informations about the looks of 742. The 135 and 136 has got an other type number, it was a 746. alofok* 20:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand you correctly an opinion of a single human being does not count? I mean I know Spock once siad "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of of the few" but I do not think he meant it in this context. Also as I said before if what you say was true and I did not consider the opinions of others do you think I would still be here talking to you? I mean with every response you guys make, it becomes more and more difficult for me to not just say "fuck it" and let you guys do as you please since you are apparently unable to go out of your way to find some common ground with me. Instead you refuse to consider that what I say has basis in fact and may be used to improve what we're working on here. Just because you have other people supporting you does not necessarily mean that you are 100% correct. I'll grant you that you may have some good ideas but it is very ignorant of you to ignore those who don't agree with you (which is what you did here). Before these recent events I thought I was working with decent human beings and not people who would suddenly declare that and I quote: "fixing your chaos is a huge boring waste of my time" and "every communication is pointless. typical with you." You can talk all day how apparently I am the bad guy here but I at least have enough decency to not implement changes to an article or category if said changes are being discussed in that article's or category's talk page.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: Yes, you are the bad guy - because even after any number of angry uproars/friendly chats/helpful suggestions/attempts at persuasion, you persist in continuing to make the same kind of changes to the category structures of a large number of Eastern European cars. You keep doing things that make a large number of other editors upset.

Secondly: No one doubts your ability to spot and identify Eastern European cars. You may very well be #1 at this, I dunno. However, your organizational capabilities lag far behind and I (and seemingly others as well) do not want you to organize categories, which is the issue under discussion here. Mr.choppers (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After giving it some though I decided that pushing my side of this issue will not get me anywhere (mainly due to your being so unwilling to compromise) therefore I decided that if you think you are so great at creating category trees than go ahead and impose your view of how things should be done and just let me focus on creating and analyzing pictures of various vehicles etc. Let's just stick to what think we know best. However if anyone ever questions your methods of categorizing media on Wikimedia Commons know that I never fully supported them (which basically means that there some ideas of yours that I agree with and some that I don't).
I would also like to say that I most certainly am not #1 at "spotting and identifying Eastern European cars" but I do the best job I can and I do have a very big advantage of being able to examine these vehicles more closely.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, #1 here in the Commons then. Mr.choppers (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

120/125[edit]

Since all eyes are here I figured we could also accomplish something useful. Škoda themselves consider the 125 as a version of the 120, so should Category:Škoda 125 be:

1: A subcategory of Category:Škoda 120

2: It's own separate category within Category:Škoda 742? (current)

3: Merged with Category:Škoda 120 to form Category:Škoda 120/125 (my least favorite)

I am hesitant to choose myself, but I think I am leaning towards option 1. Opinions? Mr.choppers (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why did you not considered choosing both option 1 and 2? If I remember correctly it's what you did in Polski Fiat 126p category tree.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as I have told you at least a dozen times by now (I'm beginning to feel a mite frustrated), categories MUST NOT be listed in both main and sub-categories. The fact that you would still make this elementary error in categorizing only further illustrates why countless other editors are displeased with you. I include a very simple image to aid you in the future. And no, I have never suggested such a thing, as should be evident from my proposed PF 126p category tree. Mr.choppers (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know? Hmm. I seem to recall that someone not long ago was upset that the Category:FSO 125p was not linked to the Category:Polski Fiat 125p main category even though it was technically a version Polski Fiat 125p MR'82 and thus linked there. I think he also said something along the lines of "Category: Fiat 126 elx Maluch Town Happy End, which is ten steps below" which indicated he was not happy that Category:Fiat 126 elx Maluch Town Happy End was not linked to the Category:Polski Fiat 126p. What was his name? I can't remember.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was upset that you had created so many pointless categories and intermediate levels. Again, look here for my repair suggestion. I never ever suggested cross-linking as a solution, I suggested replacing your entanglement with a sane and sober organizational system. Mr.choppers (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Škoda_742&oldid=52135659"