Category talk:Numbers on trams

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

Splitting these subcats[edit]

When we split this category from Category:Numbers on vehicles it was populated with the concommitant split of things like Category:Number 44 on trams from Category:Number 44 on vehicles (44 e.g., et c., m.m.). Soon enough some of these become crowded, and each was further split into (ditto) these two:

(A very few cases of none-of-the-above remain in the parent cat, which, for most numbers, is empty of anything but these two subcats.) This is very good, but in some cases, typically for larger numbers, a category for fleet number was created where there was no need to create a corresponding category for the route with the same number. (This was done mostly by User:Bahnfrend, also some by User:Uwca, User:Groupsixty, and User:Jmabel.)

I think this is unnecessary and adds a categorization nexus that serves no goal, and I propose we delete these pairless cats and move their contents back to the parent cat named Category:Number 44 on vehicles (44 e.g., et c., m.m.). This would affect all cats listed at Category:Trams by fleet number‎ except for numbers 0-101, 104, 225, 516, and 517. Of course, these and any other such cats can be (re)created upon need.

Opinions? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I propose that things like Category:Trams with fleet number 555 (e.g., et c., m.m.), in the absence of Category:Trams on route 555 (both the absence of this category and of material for it), to be deleted and its contents moved to Category:Number 555 on trams. Please note that there’s relatively few of these (no to mention that most are undepopulated, this example of 555 to wit), and that most numbers on trams are indeed fleet numbers, not routes, and are merely categorized as such — cp. Category:Number 554 on trams, Category:Number 553 on trams, Category:Number 552 on trams, et c. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What’s being proposed is that this splitting by fleet v.s route should be kept for 44 — indeed for 0-101, 104, 225, 516, and 517. For the other numbers, for which there’s not (as of now) a route, it is proposed the deletion of the fleet number category and the recategorization of its contents to the parent category. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’d like to insist on this: If frivolous categorization is a thing, these cases are an example of it; nothing of use is accomplished with this kind of detail, for now, and things like navigating “sideways” are hindered. Whenever a given number exists for both route and fleet item, then the splitting should be retained (or recreated, or created anew) — that’s the case of numbers under 100 and a just a few above it. Pinging @Bahnfrend: , @Uwca: , @Groupsixty: , @Jvillafruela: , @Steve Morgan: , and @An Errant Knight: . -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My feeling about this is the same as the opinion stated above by Jmabel (in January). To me, all of these categories seem pretty trivial, but this is Commons, not Wikipedia, so trivial cats are not necessarily bad. Steve Morgan (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not see a real need for the two separate subcategories, but do not object to distinguishing route numbers from fleet numbers either. However, would suggest that the fleet number subcategory be entirely eliminated, as it should be included in the numbers on trams. (This would maintain a standard for all of more than 1150 [and increasing] numbers-on-trams categories. Otherwise some fleet numbers will be included in a subcategory and some will not.) If a distinction is desired for route numbers, then such should be included as a subcategory of the respective numbers on trams category. This issue is similar to numbers on buses, but in that situation, there does not yet appear to be any attempt to distinguish between fleet numbers and route numbers, and there are probably a lot more bus route numbers than tram route numbers. (Additional note, although it appears that this may have already been corrected, numbers on trams should always be a subcategory of numbers on rail vehicles rather than numbers on vehicles.) An Errant Knight (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@An Errant Knight: , allow me to disagree: The level of detail in categorization across equivalent categories doesn’t need to be the same: I’m advocating the elimination of, say Category:Trams with fleet number 5678, not of, say, Category:Trams with fleet number 15. The latter has more stuff in it, even though it is generically the same as the former. The proliferation of what you call trivial categories in Commons does have disadvantages; among others it makes “lateral browsing” (clicking from 5678 to 5679) harder, as most “next” and “previous” cats will be absent. I’m not convinced, and I am insisting on the changes suggested above. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leading zeroes[edit]

For the record, I just filed this speedy deletion of Category:Number 01 on trams:

Empty cat. (Also, the matter of leading zeroes should be discussed: So far the relavively few cases have been handled by ignoring it, with things like "0442" painted on a tram being joined to those with "442", at Category:Number 442 on trams. Maybe leading zeroes should be categozired as such, maybe by wholy separating its categories from the equivalent number, maybe someway else — but treating for now "01" as special and ignore the rest separately is not the way to go.)

I put this here because the above will get chopped off in the deletion reason when it goes red, if visible at all. Probably not the most urgent matter to discuss concerning tram cats, too. But some day. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • While a distinction between 1 and 01 is probably appropriate in many situations, numbers on trams probably is not one of them. However, in such instances where it is appropriate, the 01 should be a subcategory of the 1 rather than treated as a separate number. An Errant Knight (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all points made. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Numbers_on_trams&oldid=245268534"