Category talk:Navigation consoles of watercraft

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Driving cabs of watercraft

Boats have cockpits, not driving cabs. This is a whole pile of Just Plain Wrong renames today by user:ŠJů with repeated edit warring to back it up.

See Category talk:Train cockpits for the presumed origin of this mess. Note that boats aren't trains and that there is no reason (other than regular Commons stupidity) to rename one to use the same name as the other. They are different, different terms are applied. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion moved from User talk:ŠJů#Edit warring over Category:Boat cockpits

Please stop. First of all it's BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss - not Bold, Revert, Edit war over it.

Secondly, boats don't have driving cabs, they have cockpits. Locomotives have driving cabs and not cockpits (as it took an incredible amount of time to get straight). Now here's the surprising part: boats and locomotives are different. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we should discuss instead of headlong reverting and breaking of categorization structure. Cockpits are a type of driving cabs, aren't they? Driving cab is more universal term than cockpits (all cockpits are driving cabs but not all driving cabs are cockpits, thus the universal name should be preferred in the parent categories. I'm not sure all types of boats have really "cockpits" but all boats have any driving stand, either a cockpit or another one. --ŠJů (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So anything that is a sub-type of <foo> must also have a name based on <foo>? Nonsense. Also will you please stop edit-warring over this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not, they must not. The question whether all types of boats have really "cockpits" is open to a discuss. --ŠJů (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

End of moved discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If a boat has a cockpit that we have photographed, then it is appropriate to categorize it as a cockpit. If it has a bridge instead, then call it a bridge. What is inappropriate is for it to have either a cockpit, bridge or a poop deck and to call this a "driving cab" instead, because diesel locomotives have driving cabs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Try to answer questions asked in the discussion. You may be right that the driving cabs of boats are mostly named "cockpits". The question is whether ALL driving stands of boats are cockpits. If yes, we can have one category of boats cockpits. If not, we should resolve whether we will have a category of boat driving stands and its subcategory of boat cockpits or only the most universal category for both of them. The next question is whether driving cabs and driving stands of other watercraft (including big ships) can be called "cockpits". The fact the diesel locomotives have driving cabs doesn't implies that buses, excavators or ships haven't driving cabs. --ŠJů (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So your logic is that not all boats have cockpits, therefore no boats may be categorized as having cockpits?

Not all boats have masts or propellers either. Are you asking that we delete those too? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Try to read and answer the discussion questions and arguments above if you want to contribute to the discussion. Your last questions were answered just in my previous contrubittion already: "The question is whether ALL driving stands of boats are cockpits. If yes, we can have one category of boats cockpits. If not, we should resolve whether we will have a category of boat driving stands and its subcategory of boat cockpits or only the most universal category for both of them." Did you not understand, or you forgot to answer? "My logic" is that the "Cockpits" category tree contained mixed content and the word "cocpits" was misused generally as a term for all driver's stands. Most of the subcategories contained no real "cockpits". The subcategories which contain cocpits only should be named "... cockpits", no doubt about it. However, the subcategories which contain various types of driving stands mixed should use more general name to express the whole scope of the category. If you would like to have more specialized subcategories, you can bring your distinguish criteria and classify and separate the content. Set to this work if you want! Anyway, the more general categories are more needfull than the more specialized ones. --ŠJů (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• It is not our role to introduce neologisms -- solely because they make sense to some of us personally. I agree with those respondents above who have challenged whether there has ever been a single nautical expert who ever used the term "Driving cabs of watercraft", or "Driving cabs of sailboats", "Driving cabs of motorboats".

In some discussions I have argued for using a less frequently used term, because the more frequently used term was ambiguous. But the proper order should be DCA -- Discussion, Consensus, then Action -- not the Bold, Revert, Discuss some have claimed we should use here.

We already have the perfectly acceptable Category:Bridges (nautical), which has the great advantage that it is consistent with the usage of actual nautical experts.

Note: Many, perhaps most of the images that User:ŠJů took out of existing categories to shoehorn into one of his or her new "driving cabs" categories were OPEN cockpits -- they weren't enclosed cabs at all. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• 
  If I am not mistaken, when a boat has a single cabin, that holds, the pilot or coxswain, other equipment, other crew, and passengers, it is known simply as the "cabin" -- not the "driving cab".
• 
  If I am not mistaken, when a boat is large enough to have separate compartments that serve as an engine room, and a passenger compartment, like this 47 foot lifeboat, they are considered large enough for the compartment where the pilot or coxswain controls the vessel to be known as its "bridge" -- not its "driving cab".
• 
  Consider this artist's impression of a USCG high speed pursuit boat -- the artist's impression shows a pair of bucket seats, for the pilot and another crew member. But, as constructed, the pilot sits on a kind of saddle, with shock absorbers, because the craft slams into waves at high speed. This is not a "driving cab".
• 
  The Coxswain of this boat is sitting on a kind of saddle, with shock absorbers, because the craft slams into waves at high speed. This is not a "driving cab".

Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:ŠJů#Could you please explain.... --ŠJů (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Rather than trying to defend taking the elements from existing categories, and placing them in your new categories, could you instead address the concerns other respondents have voiced over the categorization you advocate?

Specifically, no nautical expert uses the term "driving cab" for any kind of watercraft. I accept, at face value, the term is used for buses and trains, but it is not used, by experts, for watercraft.

I acknowledge there are times when we should consider using terms not used by experts -- but those are all instances were experts in various nations use different terms. The engine that lifts or lowers vessels floating in caissons of water are called "boat lifts" in the UK, "ship lifts" in some other nations, and are called "lift locks" in Canada. I personally think the WMF projects should use the term "lift lock", even though no one uses the term outside of Canada, because both "boat lift" and "ship lift" are ambiguous, and can refer to a crane that lifts a vessel out of the water, for maintenance or winter storage.

You have introduced a non-standard term -- one used no-where in the real world, and, near as I can tell, you have offered zero meaningful justification for using this non-standard term.

No, that other contributors incorrectly referred to trains and buses having "cockpits" is not a meaningful justification to rename watercraft's cockpits "driving cabs" -- particularly since most watercraft's cockpits are open, not enclosed. Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Everybody can participate in the discussion and everybody can invite other user to the discussion. Please, don't shatter and duplicate the discussion and discuss at appropriate disussion pages, not at my personal user page. My arguments and questions answer in the discussions where they were asked. I'm waiting for your constructive proposals and arguments there. Thank you. --ŠJů (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

End of moved contribution.

It is really not our role to "introduce neologisms". Thats why we should prefer descriptive names in common words if the special terms are not compatible and universal enough. Wikimedia Commons should be structured primarily not by specificity and anomalies and of English terminology but primarily by essence of the content. That's why I'm awaiting your constructive participation in the discussion.

Thank you for the link Category:Bridges (nautical). This is a good example of a category which is maybe correctly named but was quite deficiently categorized. The category had no appropriate relations to essentialy and functionally analogous devices/places of other watercraft and vehicles, even with bridges of non-maritime ships! Thats also a cause why some categories of captain's bridges were also lost in the categorization tree and not categorized under this category. It was really a good example of bad categorization and we should reflects its causes. Thank you for finding of this lost and almost orphan category. Let you reflect the distinction between systematical structural categorization and pure tagging.

Btw., the adjective dissambiguation in brackets is not just the preferred form – wouldn't be "Nautical bridges" better name, as well as their examples as "navigation bridges" or "admiral's bridges" or "compass platforms" use the adjective normally? Consider also whether the category name is specific enough (towards boarding bridges, observation bridges for passengers etc.) As regards appropriateness of the name "Bridges (nautical)", the English article about it is poorly referenced and verified and contains no link to any source which uses the term "Bridge (nautical)" or compares the term with related terms.

As regards your objections, I can share most of them with you and we should search for their solution together. However, the situation that category of "cockpits" contained all images of driving stands (even though most of them are not really "cockpits" and many of them are not even "cabs"). We should accept the need for such a category but search for any more appropriate name for it and check and thínk out naming and structure of its subcategories and sort the content.

As you mentioned, the stand/post of the person driving any vehicle (generally) can be in a cab or cabin (the distinction and use of the words and their equivalents can vary by language and by type of vehicle). The cab or cabin can be designated exclusively for the driving person or shared with other persons or purposes (even a driving cab of railway motorcar can be shared with a conductor but it is still a driving cab). You are right that boat or truck cab are mostly called simply "a cab", as far as such vehicle have not more different cabs. However such cabs fall under driving cabs even though this purpose is not emphasized usually. However, you are right that many stands of driving persons are neither cockpits nor cabs and we should search for more appropriate name for all driving stands.

Unfortunately, you focused primarily to negation of the words "driving cab" instead to constructive classification of driving stands and precision of the distinguishing criteria. You even didn't comment which of the 4 examples depicts cockpits, in your view. I could similarly give examples of boat driving stands which are probably not "cockpits". If you want to be helpful, propose a name of the root category for all types of driving stands of all types of watercraft, select images from "cockpits" categories which don't depict cockpits, add a clear category description what should be consider as cockpits and waht shouldn't, classify the images and subcategories and create appropriate sister and parent categories to the "cockpits" categories. If the content is not classified by type of driving stands, the names of the categories should be correspondingly general. --ŠJů (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Before you bring some more systematic classification with clear criteria and definitions, try to discuss and classify these examples:

• 
  Is this a motorboat cockpit?
• 
  Is this a motorboat cockpit?
• 
  Is this a motorboat cockpit?
• 
  Is this a motorboat cockpit?
• 
  Is this a motorboat cockpit?
• 
  Is this a motorboat cockpit?

I say nothing about it, I'm awaiting your opinions. If you both will assert "that all are cockpits", I have no problem to accept it. However I peronally have problem to distunguish "cockpits", "bridges" and possibly something else and I await your knowledge and help. --ŠJů (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No reaction yet? --ŠJů (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No answer here? No objection, no opinion, no propsal? --ŠJů (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverting premature category emptying

User:ŠJů moved elements from Category:Cockpits (sailing) to the new Category:Driving cabs of watercraft. This has the very unfortunate, and IMO disruptive effect of leaving the earlier category empty. Since empty categories are routinely deleted this is absolutely the wrong order.

Sorry User:ŠJů, but if you thought those images really belonged in a category called "Driving cabs of watercraft" then you should have left the images where they were, and initiated a discussion here where you made the case for the new category replacing the earlier category. If and only if your proposal gained a consensus here should the elements have been moved.

Categories suck as an organizing tool. There is no easy way to see which elements a category has held in the past. There is no easy way to see why elements were added, or why they were removed. Until the exisiting category feature is superceded by a superior organizing feature it falls to all of us to be polite, cooperative, and disciplined about how we use categories, and, no offense, this absolutely precludes what some feel is a disrespectful hijacking of the existing elements of earlier categories, making those earlier categories vulnerable to deletion because they have become empty... Geo Swan (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

When I moved any content to another category, I always treated properly with the previous category (as well as in this case). Nothing from the category content disappeared. However, as I can see, Geo Swan is who emptied some category and caused such "disruptive effect of leaving the earlier category empty", without any link to the new category. Such a method is really imperfect and premature.

The previous situation was that all categories of driving cabs and driver's stands of all types of vehicles (including trains, trams, buses, funiculars etc.) was called "cocpits". Even though some of vehicles (small airplanes, racing automobiles or small boats) have really cocpits, the term was really discussed and criticized as inappropriate as a general term for all types of vehicles. And, even though languages and branches use various special names for special types of driving stands, there is no reason to shatter the categorization structure and to suppose that cockpits have nothing to do with other types of driver's cabs and stands.

The discussion is in motion and you are invited to participate in it, if you didn't noticed the previous discussions and didn't contributed to them and if you want to react to the questions and arguments from the discussions. If you will have any constructive proposals how to distinguish different types of driving stands of watercraft reliably and how to name the root category for all such special categories, your proposals are welcomed.

For a start of your participation in the discussion, try to express your opinion toward the questions and problems mentioned above. Unfortunately, I cannot found your opinion to them. Half-baked reverts ar not sufficient for any solution. --ŠJů (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did you start edit-warring to revert me, even after I asked you to stop, when I started correcting these undiscussed and incorrect changes? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy Dingley If your edits (even thought reverts) would be perfect, without disruption of categorization structure, I need not to correct them. However, your reverted categories fell out of the categorization structure, categories emptied by you were not treated by any appropriate link or template etc. Btw., you have permanently the opportunity to join the constructive discussions and I´m awaiting your opinions and answers. --ŠJů (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• User:ŠJů, I accept at face value that you simply don't understand why your emptying of Category:Cockpits (sailing) was premature, and a problem. I accept at face value that you don't understand why my reversion of your unilateral emptying of that category, and restoring the status quo ante, was not disruptive.

You offered me a link, above, as some kind of example. But it means nothing to me. Let me, in turn, offer you an example, from my contributions. In December 2012 I initiated a discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/12/Category:Gun turrets. I thought my proposed re-organization made sense. But I waited and gave other contributors a chance to weigh in. Only after other contributors had had a chance to voice their opinions did I carry out that re-organization. And I feel very strongly that this is the approach you should have followed. Geo Swan (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Geo Swan, your objection was that somebody left emptied categories without appropriate treatment. I answered that not I but Geo Swan (and Andy Dingley also) were who left some emptied categories without any link and without any explanation why the categories were emptied and where their content was moved. Thats simply a clear neglect and fault, independently on the fact which variant of categorization structure or naming you (or I) preffer. Just this fault (as well as disruption of categorization strucutre) can be a cause of troubles you described. A finished renaming/moving of any category cannot cause such troubles, even if the new name is not preferred by you (or by me). However, I'm not sure you understand it already. --ŠJů (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, if you're so insistent on presenting a pejorative version of other editors' actions:

I did not empty any categories. I did not create any empty categories. I re-enabled some valid and recently-emptied categories by removing their redirection tags and restoring their correct categories. I also redirected the freshly created and incorrectly-named categories to point back to the correct locations. I had to do this repeatedly as you kept reverting me, even after I'd asked you to stop and after I'd opened this CfD.

These correct categories were then empty. However there were also category redirects pointing to them, so that 'bots would repopulate them. This was the appropriate way to repair the recent mis-categorisations. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you (or I) make any halfway edit, it its worse than to use inappropriate name only (even if both names are inappropriate, the previous as well as the new). Well, let's focus rather to the open guestions and constructive proposals and solutions. --ŠJů (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Aircraft cockpits

It's not a good idea to rename Category:Aircraft cockpits to Category:Driving cabs of aircraft either. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, thank you for the link. If you have really systematic concern in the problem of "cockpitmania", join the whole discussion and answer the systematic questions. Some levels and branches are solved already, some are avating for proposals and discussions. For example, to work on Automobile cockpits and Truck cockpits is desirable now. I would pleased to believe that you ideas are better but it seems to be very difficult to prompt you to some constructive anwers or proposals. --ŠJů (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuing edit warring by ŠJů

Why have you now created yet another undiscussed category with an invented name? Category:Driving stands of watercraft Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned and thoroughly discussed above in the discussion, driving stands of watercraft can be distinguished to at least two types: cockpits and bridges. Unfortunately, none of the unconstructive revertators proposed objective distinguishing criteria or more precise classification and terminology, but the discussion implied unequivocally that "driving cabs" is not a correct term covering all types of driving stands. To comply with the justified objections from the discussion can be hardly considered as "continuing edit warring". Do you want to propose any better solution? I'm awaiting it always. If you did so already, I didn't notice it, I'm sorry. --ŠJů (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, you attacked also the renamed category even though the renaming was a obliging response to the objections from the discussion. What are your real objection now? Do you mean, "driving" is not appropriate for navigation and do would preffer "control" as the adjective specifying places from where watercraft is controlled? Or you would like even fight against the idea that control stands of vehicles can have an united and structured category tree? Or even you want to defend the previous status independently on the context, all arguments, problems, questions, incorrectness etc. and to impede whatever solution and improvement? --ŠJů (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

By "response" to the discussion, I think you mean, "My first invented name was rejected by others, so I'm going to invent another one, equally novel and groundless in origin". Will you please stop doing this, and will you please stop continuing to do this during the discussion, especially not by spreading it further and further into aircraft and goodness knows where else. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with Andy that the invention and use of yet another neologism is very premature.

Even if, for the sake of argument, you convinced other contributors here that we should use a neologism, in place of the long established English terms, others might conclude that a DIFFERENT neologism should be used, like Category:Driving consoles of watercraft, or Category:Navigation consoles of watercraft. Using your new neologism, before a conclusion has been reached here, is premature.

If you really think a neologism is appropriate, then I urge you to concentrate on making a convincing case for such. Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan, I´m very pleased that you come with some constructive proposal at last, though with many useless talks and in inappropriate section of the discussion. Andy Dingley said nothing to the core of the problem, thus I suppose that he has no objections to the your proposal and it can be immediately applied. The remained second problem above awaits your work still. --ŠJů (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit war, captain's cabins and sea captains

I have some doubts regarding Geo Swans edit war about Category:Captain's cabins on United States Navy ships.

I supposed that Captain's cabins is an approximate synonyme or analogy of the more known term "Captain's bridge", i.e. that it is a post from that the captain works and manages the ship, not only his accommodation room. That's why I supposed that it is a type of driving posts on the ships. I do appologize if I was mistaken. Anyway, the creator of Category:Captain's cabins on United States Navy ships omitted to create or find appropriate parent category of "captain's cabins" and this problem needs to be solved.

However, what I'm not able to understand, why Geo Swan removed this obviously insufficiently categorized category also from the category Sea captain. Do you assert that captain's cabin have nothing to do with the captain? Or it is only your mistake from your ardour and carelessness? Or even this is a symptom of your specific way of understanding of categories generally? Are you able admit any relation between captains and their cabins? --ŠJů (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I dispute I was edit warring:

1. User:ŠJů, as discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Sea captain, your subject field knowledge of maritime matters falls short of that required to make changes without consulting other contributors first.
2. There is the principle of Status quo ante -- when there is a disagreement the simplest path is to leave the article, category, whatever, in the state it was in before the agreement, and only change it once the disagreement is resolved and only if the conclusion is that a change is in order.

Yes, Captains and Captain's cabins are related. Generally, workmen, and their tools, are related. For many fields of endeavour we capture that relationship by placing both the workmen, in the case of Astronauts and Cosmonauts, and their tools, in their case space-suits and space-capsules, we had placed them in the same parent categories, in their case space exploration.

We have no consensus that the category for workmen should be the parent category for their traditional tools. For most fields of endeavour we have placed both workmen and tools in the parent cat for the field. Nothing prevents you from trying to make the case for your preferred structure. But please don't act as if you already had a consensus lined up for your personal preference. Geo Swan (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Subjects which are specifically related to one specific function or profession should be categorized under the category of the function or profession. Especially when they are even named after it. We categorize by item here and the categorization is modular, not only a simple hyponymic hierarchy as you assume. However, the content of the category should be structured into suitable subcategories to be not mixed. Also a special sort key for rare or specific types of subcategories is used when there is a need to keep order. Deficient, incomplete and unlinked categorization is clearly not a better way. General principles of categorization are given already, we need not to waste our time with inventing of invented and established principles.

Btw: the factual section above is without your reaction for 3 days still (while you wrote many useless talks elsewhere). While your justified factual objections were accepted immediately, you seems to ignore unresolved questions and to be not willing to participate in the discussion seriously. Pure negativism and factual passivity is not the preferred principle of collaboration on Commons. If you are unwilling to help with the work, you cann't block all others wilfully. You introduced really a mess to the discussion, spreading it to many various places and disrupting its structure. Should I help you to find and resume to you the unresolved problems and unanswered factual questions from the discussion, unless you are able to make it oneself? What is "Status quo ante" in your view? To rename Rolling stock driving cabs back to Train cockpits and its parent category to Cockpits? You have achieved clearly not a consensus on such solution. We need look for the best solution, not to shove our heads into sand as proverbial ostrichs. We need to define and classify various types of driving stands, we need to distinguish essential distinctions from accidental language distinctions, wee need consider the best names for all levels of affected categories, we need to decide how detailed will be the categorization structure at affected levels etc. You got stuck in one particular problem (which was resolved already) and seem to be not able to advance. --ŠJů (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

Please do not use misleading edit summaries: [1] Particularly not when they are used in this disparaging manner to imply that you are correcting their mistake, when in fact they had just corrected yours – an error so obvious that you had even left it in place yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing "disparaging" on the fact that I corrected your an obvious mistake and i see nothing missleading on the fact that my revert is labelled as a revert. If you are convinced that captain's cabins at maritime ships have nothing to do with sea captains, you should explain such unexpected assertion. --ŠJů (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly this wasn't my edit

Secondly it's not about captains, it's about your categorisation of captain's cabins as Driving cabs.

Your edits in all this have been inaccurate and inept. Your comments in relation to others since are far from truthful. It's getting increasingly difficult to assume good faith in such conditions. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please participate in real constructive discussion instead of looking for nonsensical and irrelevant pretexts to attack me? --ŠJů (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

General discussion

Please notice the general discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Driving cabs of vehicles. --ŠJů (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

---

@ŠJů, Andy Dingley, and Geo Swan: Apparently resolved in practice as Category:Driving cabs of watercraft is now a redirect to Category:Navigation consoles of watercraft. Closing and archiving. Josh (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)