Category talk:Sydney K-class ferries
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Specific to Sydney?
[edit]Seems a poor choice of category name if this is specific to Sydney. Surely there are other ferries in the world called "K-class". - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia there are a few in North America - i think 6, of which four are still operational. IN Sydney there were dozens that carried millions, especially before the Harbour Bridge. If it is on numbers, then Sydney's would be the primary use. --Merbabu (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- One day (hopefully soon) I will get around to creating an article on the K-class ferries. In the meantime, there is List of Sydney Harbour ferries (look under the "class" field). --Merbabu (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- It just feels wrong to me to have File:MV Kameruka, Sydney, 1964.jpg no longer be in Category:Ferries in Sydney on the theory that the type of ferry means that it was in Sydney. - Jmabel ! talk 10:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- So, what do you think is a solution? Category should be named "Sydney K-class ferry"? Should it go into both categories? The type was unique to Sydney - there were/are no other boats similar. --Merbabu (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Category:K-class ferries in Sydney, as a child of the present category. The present category, with this name, should not include the geography. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agree that it should be a child of Ferries in Sydney. However, I'd suggest Cateogry:Sydney K-class ferries would be better: the type was unique to Sydney and the name K-class simply comes from Sydney Ferries Limited's early 20th century use of Australian Aboriginal words starting with K (again, refer List of Sydney Harbour ferries). The only similarity with "K-class" ferries in other places (for example), would be an ability to float. --Merbabu (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- I would have no problem with Category:Sydney K-class ferries. OK if I just move it? Given that name, I wouldn't see a need for doing two levels. - Jmabel ! talk 04:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, please move. And, I need to decide whether it deserves it's own article. THere's a few individual exceptions that have their own articles, but most of the K-class probably don't deserve their own article. Thus a combined type/class article might work. --Merbabu (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- I would have no problem with Category:Sydney K-class ferries. OK if I just move it? Given that name, I wouldn't see a need for doing two levels. - Jmabel ! talk 04:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Agree that it should be a child of Ferries in Sydney. However, I'd suggest Cateogry:Sydney K-class ferries would be better: the type was unique to Sydney and the name K-class simply comes from Sydney Ferries Limited's early 20th century use of Australian Aboriginal words starting with K (again, refer List of Sydney Harbour ferries). The only similarity with "K-class" ferries in other places (for example), would be an ability to float. --Merbabu (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Category:K-class ferries in Sydney, as a child of the present category. The present category, with this name, should not include the geography. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- So, what do you think is a solution? Category should be named "Sydney K-class ferry"? Should it go into both categories? The type was unique to Sydney - there were/are no other boats similar. --Merbabu (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- It just feels wrong to me to have File:MV Kameruka, Sydney, 1964.jpg no longer be in Category:Ferries in Sydney on the theory that the type of ferry means that it was in Sydney. - Jmabel ! talk 10:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
