Category talk:Trams

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

Merging[edit]

Should be merged with Category:Tram -- Infrogmation 16:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! -- Reptil 02:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment regarding localisation of terms[edit]

Following discussions regarding the streetcar network of New Orleans, a possibly problematic inconsistent has risen. The issue arises from what term is used, Streetcar, Tram, or another manner of naming. In the case of Category:Streetcars in New Orleans a mixture of streetcar and tram is used, this is far from ideal, discussion was started regarding the New Orleans tree, but due to input from a low number of editors, and a variety of other systems using the same prefix, it was decided to start a larger discussion encompassing all children in the Trams category. The question being asked is: Is it okay for systems to choose a localised nomenclature for the category tree pertaining to that area?

There are only a few systems that this question currently effects, which are listed below, although it must be noted that there may be inconsistencies within the tree, and what ever choice is made here may have wider ramifications.

I did, but no longer, have strong feelings on either term, be it tram or streetcar, my main problem is that we have an inconsistency within trees, and feel this should be dealt with. Having said that, it would make sense to pull these outliers into the fold, and give them the trams prefix throughout their trees. I have left the Category:Trams in the United Kingdom‎ tree out of this discussion, as that seems to be categorised by company/operating body, and it would simply serve to complicate the discussion here, I feel a separate discussion would be required to alter the naming contained within that tree. I have placed a message pointing to this discussion on all pages highlighted here and the Village Pump in the hope of generating a large enough discussion to for some level of consensus. Liamdavies (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only one out of those that I already noticed is Category:Straßenbahn Gmunden, and given that other Austrian tram networks use English (Category:Trams in Vienna, Category:Trams in Graz, Category:Trams in Linz, Category:Trams in Innsbruck), I don't see a reason to have this one in German. darkweasel94 08:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I generally favor localized naming of the most-specific categories, reflecting the common names in use, at least with respect to English names, as it lets a naive user find the material quickly. Someone looking more generally is probably working down the category tree and will note the differences in the list.Dankarl (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I love that Dankarl is concerned with helping "naive users".  :) Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think using some localized terms is fine, but I think there should be some clear guidance. First, category names should be in English. Second, we should maintain tram-named redirects for all categories not using the word tram, so that users using hotcat aren't required to guess at what term is being used for a particular location. Third, ideally we'd use the same term for each country. It would be great if we were not using multiple terms for the same thing in one country. Not sure if that last item is reasonable/possible or not. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, whatever is decided will get put into words in a short category scheme document (perhaps as the first element of a transport-related category scheme), just so that everyone is clear on a go forward basis. And thanks to Liam for initiating this discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Skeezix1000 that local terms should be permitted. Most media are likely to be submitted by locals or people familiar with the local terminology; category redirects can take care of the exceptions. Desire for uniformity should not get in the way of basic usefulness. I believe this has long been recognized in practice on Commons, eg various categories where UK English and US English differ allowing local subcategories to use the local version, such as "Gas stations in the United States", "Lifts in the United Kingdom". -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on - the desire for uniformity is, in fact, a desire for basic usefulness. I have never encountered anyone on Commons seeking to ensure consistent category naming who is motivated solely by some fixation with uniformity. I may have misunderstood the comment, or read too much into it (and, if so, I apologize), but uniformity and usefulness are not mutually exclusive. The key is to finding the right approach for each issue, which we are trying to do here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Commons:Categories category names should generally be in English, so I prefer English Trams in XX pattern. Having subcategories of Category:Trams in China localized would be very confusing for non-locals. There should be category redirects and category descriptions in localized form, but keep category names in English. --Jklamo (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. While it is not good that MediaWiki doesn't allow for localized category names, as long as it doesn't, we should use English because that's what most people here understand - when categorizing some Brno tram photos I took, I would have had problems if the categories had been in Czech because I don't understand Czech. darkweasel94 16:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing subcategory tree of electrically-powered trams[edit]

Moved from: User talk:Liamdavies#Trams. --ŠJů (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Electric trams have not their own tree of subcategories because the main category tree of trams considers trams as electric by default (and non-electric subcategories as exceptions from the most common propulsion). However, this is not reason for total absence of electric trams in the category of electric rolling stock. Thus we need to accept categories of trams as both, categories for all trams and categories for electric trams. --ŠJů (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a dicussion to back up that assertion? Trams, like trains, are powered by a mulitude of sources not just electricity. Liamdavies (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a hard reality that electric trams have not their own subcategory tree because trams are considered as electric by default. There is clearly minor error when the category tree of electric rolling stock contains also some inappropriate subcategories than when lacks such an important content as electric trams. --ŠJů (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

End of the moved part of the discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this category shouldn't be under "electrically-powered rolling stock". If Y is a subcategory of X, that should mean that all files that show Y also necessarily show X. But not all files that show trams show electrically-powered rolling stock. Such a subcategory relation wouldn't make more sense than putting all locomotives into the electrically-powered category. Electric trams are a subset of all trams. If you want to make a subcategory for electric trams in Category:Trams by motive power, go ahead. darkweasel94 20:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, I second what darkweasel said. Liamdavies (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have special subcategories for electric trams at none level and for none country (Category:Historical images of electric trams in Prague is an isolated exception which have none appropriate parent category of electric trams). For the future, we can split "Electric trams" (or "Electrically powered trams"), maybe also "Electrically powered tram transport" to special subcategories and separate all content for all cities and countries. However, such step would require to analyse and rename thousands of categories and such change cannot be made immediately and all at once. Until such change, the current categories of trams need to be handled and categorized simultaneously as categories of electric trams (although some of them can contain rare subcategories of horse, steam or exprerimental propulsions).--ŠJů (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main purpose of categorization is not to assert something about the content of categories but to enable to find the appropriate content. If there is a category of electrically-powered rolling stock, electric trams must not absent there. Please read again the dilemmas, arguments and explanations above, I want not to repeat them redundantly. --ŠJů (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@darkweasel94: If the category of locomotives would have not subcategories for the most common propulsion because such propulsion would be worldwide considered as the default one, then we would need to apply similar solution, not to ignore such propulsion generally. Some other examples can be a clue: Category:Maps is a subcategory of Category:Geographical illustrations although contains subcategories like Category:Astronomical maps. The category Category:Trains can contain subcategories like Category:Toy trains (although some of such toys have not rails really) or even Category:Trackless trains because such trains are really derrived from rail trains – the Category:Trains is categorized according to the default attributes, although some its subcategories can deviate from them. We all know that most pure solution would be to create thousands of new specific subcategories of electric trams and electrically-powered tram transport. However, such solution is not achievable in short time. That's why we need to be conscious that the name "trams" is standardly used for the main categories of electric trams now. --ŠJů (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toy trains and trackless trains are modelled after trains that do use rails, and that's the basis for that categorization - just like a statue of a person is reasonably categorized under that person (ultimately a subcategory of Category:Homo sapiens which goes further to least concern species and all kinds of things where you wouldn't look for the statue). Horse and steam trams are not modelled after electric trams, quite the opposite, electric trams are more recent than these other motive powers, and while they are today the most common motive power, they logically stand equal to the others. The map categorization you mention really does seem suboptimal to me, not an example we should follow. darkweasel94 20:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need not to advocate the categorization of trackless trains, I didn't challenge it. I tried to document and illustrate the fact that categories are categorized by the default and common attributes of their theme, even though some special subcategories can deviate from them (for various reasons). I'm pleased you understand that your X-Y scheme above cannot be applied absolutely but should be adjusted, limited or supressed in some special cases. If you admit an exception for subcategories of subjects "modelled after" the main type, why you not accept other types of similar useful exceptions?
Nobody asserts that horse trams or steam trams are electrically-powered. However, you and me can see that electrically-powered trams have not their specific subcategories. For none country, for none city! My explanation of such situation is that the word "trams" is worldwide considered primarily as a synonyme of "electric trams" and other types of trams are considered as marginal exceptions from today's point of view in relation to the prevalent number of uplodaded images or videos. Do you have some different explanation? That's not my personal preference but the current real categorization structure! We both can wish to have separate subcategories for electric trams but the real situation is that they don't exist and that is not easy to create them immediatelly. The question is: should rather electric trams be missing in the category of electrically-powered rolling stock, or rather should the category contain some marginal exceptional subcategories with non-electric trams? Answer this question with regards to purpose of categorization: which of these two inaccuracies (the accurate variant is unattainable for now) can more harm an user which is looking for some content using the category tree? --ŠJů (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that someone looking for photos of trams in Prague should be confronted by a tree of categories almost the same size as the images they contains, because of the requirements to have specific categorisation; but also think that someone looking in a category named "Electrically-powered rolling stock" should find pictures of steam trams. I do not, and will not, understand how your thought process works, but will not agree that a category containing trams in general should be tagged with "Electrically-powered rolling stock", it is simply wrong. Liamdavies (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When somebody find in the category of electrically-powered rolling stock also some exceptional sub-subcategories as steam trams, such fact doesn't impedes him to find electric trams (and he can not be confused because such subcategory is clearly named). However, if the category "electrically-powered rolling stock" doesn't contain electric trams at all, that is a fatal and big error and fail of the category. That's the problem what you should consider, as mentioned several times above.
Thank you for your reminder that you are the man who tried to shatter systematic precise categorization of Prague trams and to contaminate them with some strange overcategorization. I remember that you had difficultes to understand even basic principles of categorization. If you are able of some "thought processes", please try read the arguments above. --ŠJů (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand overcat, scope, and principles of categorisation. I am more convinced by your barely coherent ramblings on my talk page that the issue lies in your very poor and substandard understanding of English. Liamdavies (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category names with Trams in (City)[edit]

A Lisbon tram in Lisbon.
A Lisbon tram not in Lisbon.

I’ve been trying to change the usual wording "Trams in (City)" in category names to "Trams of (City)", or "(City) trams", when applicable. Why? Because trams, almost as much as funicular cars and other fixed equipment, are usually costumized to their network (and the variables for this vary way more than other, wider, rail networks), and any sighting away from “home” is an unusual occurence, exactly unlike, say, airliners or ocean ships.

A couple weeks ago there was a surge of top-down, ham-fisted category renamings that changed these back — it affected mostly the categories concerning advertisement liveries, but it could happen again elsewhere. I resisted the challenge of edit warring, but the results are poor: E.g., in the now renamed Category:Pingo Doce advertisements on trams in Lisbon, 3 of 4 images show a (former) Lisbon tram in Kochi, Japan — i.e. a tram from Lisbon, or a tram of Lisbon, but surely not a tram in Lisbon. This is unsuitable and this renaming (and dozens like it, affecting the few categories already named "(City) trams") should be changed back.

So far I refrained from changing what’s already done in this area, though mostly using my preferred system for new categories I create (Lisbon, Sóller-Port, Århus, and a few others). But if a general renaming campaign is afoot, one based solely on the consideration of matching the most used naming system, regardless of its merits, then some consensus on tram category names should be attained.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Trams in Linz"? It's very clearly in the municipality of Leonding, several kilometers away from Linz.
  • "(City) trams" is definitely not going to work at least in the case of Category:Graz trams (manufacturer) vs. Category:Trams in Graz (tram network). But "Trams of (city)" seems reasonable, both because of your stated reason and because tram networks frequently span more than just the actual borders of the most important municipality, so that "Trams in (city)" isn't always accurate; see also the image of the tram of Linz to the right. darkweasel94 11:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darkweasel94, I see your point. The ambiguity you point out to can be avoided when necessary by using a less compact, more detailed wording also for manufactorers:
  • (City) trams = Trams of (City)
  • (Brand) trams = Trams by (Brand)
I’d suggest that this distinction is made at least in the main categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for trams by manufacturer subcategories, I believe those should be named trams manufactured by [manufacturer] (yes, such category names can get long, still the unambiguity imo makes it worth it).    FDMS  4    11:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC) [moved by Tuvalkin][reply]
As much as I personally agree that trams are an important part of their respective city, trams are just vehicles that may in fact have different heimats (and be re-customised) over time. I previously argued elsewhere that second-hand trams should not be in their previous owner's category tree (instead linked horizontally using {{See also cat}}), for the same reason I believe we shouldn't be using terms like Lisbon trams in second-hand tram category names in the first place. (Also, for example, if you were to create subcategories of Trams of Tosa Electric Railway (hypothetically named Kochi trams facing right etc.), wouldn't that have to exclude trams in Kochi you still consider to be Lisbon trams?)
Given that departing from the mentioned vehicles in [location] scheme leads to imo not insignificant problems with the category tree, the issues with the current scheme can (and should) imo more easily be solved by implementing a strict division by location, i.e. naming categories using trams in [location] and excluding all content not from the respective location. The location term used in category names should be broad enough to avoid cases like the Linz/Traun one.
Were we to use trams of [location], that would lead to inconsistencies with the respective main parent categories since tram transport of [location] wouldn't exactly work well.
   FDMS  4    11:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some example cases:
Are you arguing that it shouldn't be possible to find these by going down from Category:Trams in Vienna, Category:Trams in Alicante, Category:Vienna U-Bahn? I think it should be – all of them would be useful to a person, say, writing a Wikipedia article about those topics. darkweasel94 12:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tuvalkin wants the cats Trams in XXXX, changed to Trams of XXXX, under that nomenclature, one would not be able to find the images you highlight in Trams in Vienna as that cat would not exist. If my understanding of Tuvalkin's proposal is correct, I strenuously object as all trams currently operating in a city should be categorised as such (and the current system does that). Trams originally from another city should be dealt with separately (as is done in Category:Second-hand trams). ColonialGrid (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My question was to FDMS4, not Tuvalkin. It doesn't actually matter for that purpose whether the preposition is "in" or "of" – I understood that FDMS4 was also objecting to these images being found under "of" categories of the cities they were originally built for. darkweasel94 13:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your clarification, however, I still disagree with changing from Trams in XXXX to Trams of XXXX. The media should be of trams in a city (or larger metropolitan area), not of a city, and if they are from a city but now operate in another city, that should be explicitly stated (as Category:Second-hand trams does}. There is not need to change these cats, and changing them will create confusion, not give clarity. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being used in its article, this is not a DB Class 420 EMU.
@Darkweasel94: What I wrote above is the following (emphasis mine):

I previously argued elsewhere that second-hand trams should not be in their previous owner's category tree (instead linked horizontally using {{See also cat}}) […].

To see this solution in action, visit Category:DB Class 420 and Category:SL X420.    FDMS  4    17:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Trams&oldid=212575104"