Category talk:Trams of Hong Kong Tramways Limited

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

Category:Trams of Hong Kong Tramways Limited

The subcats of this category need to be reexamined. In August this year all trams (well, some/most were), this however is probably not a great idea, and should be undone. I suggest this for two reasons: the first is that I think it makes images harder to find having to search through dozens of catgories, each with only one or two files in it. And the other is that numbers get reused in Hong Kong, so we will end up with mutlitple different trams in the same category, a category meant for one specific vehcile, on that front this system fails. It would be be better to categorise them by type, not number. Liamdavies (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, I didn't know that tram numbers were reused. I assumed they were constant and could be used as an identifier, as per aircraft (e.g. see the subcategories of Category:Concorde (Air France)). Given that, it probably does make sense to move towards categorising different types of trams, unless there's another way of uniquely identifying individual trams. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't like the cat by unique number concept with trams; it becomes really hard to find pictures for articles, as one must trove through large amounts of categories to find images. Remember that this project is to support the other projects as a media repository, it doesn't do that job if people can't find images for articles. Aircraft are far more mobile (not just in flight, but by operators) so require a unique identifier for many reasons, and in that context is does make sense to categorise them by number. This also comes in handy in the event of an emergency or crash, where images of a specific aircraft is needed for a specific article. Trams, trains, buses, taxies, cars, etc on the other hand do not. They are linked to the operator, city, and manufacturer, but their numbers are far more fluid, just like number plates; a tram can be renumbered through it's life, or assume the number of another tram (in Melbourne we have had over a six trams numbered 7, three with one operator). Additionally, when a tram moves city it will often change number, whereas a plane or ship won't, it becomes almost impossible to track vehicles by unique identifier if they keep changing (an example of this is the Mulhouse trams). For all these reasons, I oppose all cat by number of trams, and advocate cat by class - it is not a battle I am winning, holding ground, but not winning, and finding content is just becoming harder and harder.

Contrast finding article images with the two systems Category:Trams in Melbourne by class, Category:Trams in Amsterdam, Category:Trams in Saint Petersburg by model (pretty much all of Category:Trams in Russia which I categorised by model, linked to larger manufacturer cats) vs. Category:Tatra T3 in Prague, Category:Škoda 14T in Prague. The easier option for content users is clear. Liamdavies (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Liam, you’re not winning this battle because you’re wrong, wanting to go against the categorization principles of Commons (and of common sense). The problem you express is genuine, but the way you want to solve it is problematic. While it is about not creating fleet number categories for individual cars it can be accepted, but when you suggest (as you did for Prague and you’re now doing here in Hongkong) to delete the categorization work already done by other people, you’re going to find desperate opposition. The issue you raise can be solved in a number of ways that don’t include the removal of individual fleet number categories. I suggest you explore them. If you do so, you’ll find yourself fighting a winning battle instead, and we all gain. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how I can be 'wrong', surely it is your subjective opinion that I am wrong, but hardly an empirical fact. The problems I have raised with this level of useless categorisation relate to COM:SCOPE; the scope of this project is to present and catalog images for the Wikipedias to use, if reusers (such as myself) tell you this level of categorisation makes finding images useful to articles harder, and simpler categorisation would make it much easier for reusers that should be taken on board. The point of this project is to support other projects, if it fails to do that it is inherently problematic. Do you have other suggestions as to how these trams could be usefully categorised in a way where reusers could find relevant images? I stand by my opinions that a) this categorisation is not only unhelpful but open to being very wrong in the future, and that b) categorisation the way I have done in Category:Trams in Russia offers all images sorted by city and class, offering simple acessible categorisation for people wanting images either to use in articles, or after being sent here from Wikipedia articles through comcats. The arguement that someone has spent time and therefore it shouldn't be changed is stupid, that time may have been unwisely wasted; my contention. Can you please demonstrate how this overly precise level of categorisation aids lay users who click a comscat link, or article creators looking for images? Liamdavies (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy, did you just called me stupid, really? Is this how you want to deal with this matter? Fine, then. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not, I did not mean that you personally are stupid, nor do I think you are. I apologise if you thought I did, it was not my intention, and I'm sorry I was misunderstood. I think the argument that something took much effort and that means it shouldn't be changed is ill thought out. Liamdavies (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I somewhat disagree. I like categories for specific objects where that is appropriate, as for me that actually makes it easier to find images of that object. Personally, I would love to see all trams, trains, buses and cars categorised individually (and for the category links to be thumbnails rather than just plain text!). But perhaps that is best done in the long run by Wikidata rather Commons categories. I don't view Commons' purpose to be supporting the other Wikimedia projects - rather, I view it as a project in itself that curates freely-licensed multimedia content. That means that I prefer to see category structures set up that can handle a couple of orders of magnitude of growth, and categorising by object helps to do that. On the other hand, categorising by type could easily lead to very large categories that won't be so easily navigable any more.

For me, the key argument here is if it is the case that these trams don't have unique identifiers, as that means that the category structure I set up is meaningless. Can you confirm that is definitely the case here, please, with a solid reference? If so then I'm happy to rework the category structure to by type rather than number (or for you to rework it if you want. ;-) ). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Then you are sadly mistaken on the COM:SCOPE of Commons "The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation." The primary purpose of Commons is to hold images for use in Wikipedias and other projects, at the moment categorising things into the most minute of categories hinders greatly the ability to find images for articles, it is highly conceivable that one would want a photo of a Honk Kong Tram for an article, what purpose within a Wiki article would one wish to find a photo of a particular trams? How does it help? You also support categorising all cars by registration plate? How would that help article writers?

The best source I have at the moment is en:Hong Kong Tramways#Fleet, have a look at all the fleet numbers in the table, numbers have been reused and rebuilds using the same numbers, but the vehicles are clearly not the same. Category:Hong Kong Tramways No. 27 and Category:Hong Kong Tramways No. 28 are clearly different vehicle types. Liamdavies (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have missed out the other half of Commons' scope, according to that page: "that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all"... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I read that as a subordinating clause, but it doesn't change the fact that the major duty of Commons is to support the other projects. Can you please elaborate on my questions? Liamdavies (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting; I actually read it as the main aim, with the second point being more of a means than an aim. With your questions: I could envisage it being important for an author of a Wikipedia article to quickly find an image of a specific tram were it to be involved in some sort of notable accident (as is sometimes the case with plane accidents, although as there are a lot more trams and fewer major accidents with them than planes this would be somewhat less likely to happen), or wanting to be easily able to find an image of the tram if it otherwise becomes notable (e.g. if it ends up as a museum exhibit, or is used for important activities that are worth describing in an article, or if it's refurbished/maintained in an old style e.g. as #70 and #120 are); the same could in principle apply to cars (but that's getting off-topic, and thinking about this I expect Wikidata will do this much better than Commons categories can).

The enwp article is in need of much better referencing. :-( However, it is reasonably probable that it is mostly correct in what it is saying. How would you suggest that rebuilds are dealt with here, though, since trams could end up in multiple generation/type categories here? Also, what about the different versions within a generation? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"I could envisage it being important for an author of a Wikipedia article to quickly find an image of a specific tram were it to be involved in some sort of notable accident", can you provide an example of that? And how many articles require general fleet pictures, not individual trams? Planes are very very different, they are built in small batches and move airlines, it is also the case that - due to their nature - almost all aircraft crashes are notable per en:WP:GNG (loss of life, significant coverage, and so on). This is sometimes the case with trains (although most incidents with trains would not be notable), but is almost entirely not the case with trams, there may be rare specific cases, but they should be dealt with as the exception, not the rule. Editors will most likely (and in almost all circumstances) require a picture of a model of tram, or a tram in a livery, or on a specific route for an article, and in that case having to trove through multitudes of largely empty categories is a massive waste of time (I've done it, it's horrible). When I argue against this level of categorisation, I do so as an editor of tram articles, someone who actively searche(s/d) Commons categories for images for articles - it makes it much harder for no gain to have them categorised by fleet number (not to mention the problems raised here). Then there are problems with maintenance, look at Category:Cable cars in San Francisco. Without active maintenance it turns into a complete mess of overcat and incomplete subcats - how is that useful to anyone? I see what you are proposing as no different to categorising Category:Cars by registration plate number, in fact, that would make more sense, cars are individually optioned (meaning a build run with not be basically identical), come in different colours, are owned by different people, operate across multiple cities, etc etc. Trams for the most do not and when they do that can be dealt with by categorisation like Category:Citadis 302 trams of Mulhouse on hire, in that case as the trams have different numbers in the various cities they operate in a cat by number technique would actually break the continuity you are advocating.

I hope this gets undone, but an coming to the view that many Commonsers are much more concerned with finding the smallest pocket to place an item of media, rather than presenting them in a simple, open, usable way for reusers and Wikipedians to find. This I feel is not only a huge waste of everyones time for zero gain, but also hindering the usefulness of Commons - if I can't easily find an image I won't bother, hence why this image is still here, finding a replacement image is just too hard, and I refuse to upload an image I have taken of a T3 as someone will hide it away in a deep pocket never to be seen again. This is one user who is quickly becoming disillusioned - if I continue to upload images to Commons I will redact all identifying numbers to prevent my images from being hidden so deeply (this is not something I want to do, and the reality is I will probably just cease contributing). Liamdavies (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you didn’t learn one thing anyone else told you, as you’re blurting out the same newbie nonsense you did over 1 yr ago, with the additional error that now you threaten to vandalize images before you even upload them (see COM:POINT) and/or to depart in a tantrum. You keep refusing to consider that tools can/should be developed by the foundation to enable automatic galleries of images under a given cat down to a given depth (try join forces to demand this from people who are paid to make WM work, instead of whining at and bullying fellow editors), and that multiple category trees can (and in some cases do) cover the whole of any given set of photos. You should be able to implement your own preferred criteria-based tree over whatever others did. Don’t like having HK or Brno or SF tram series split by fleet number? Cool. Leave that alone (i.e. don’t terrorize other users about having their preferred tree deleted) and create your own: Create just two disjunct subcats for each series — "So-and-so trams’s interiors" vs. "Views of So-and-so trams" (*) — and there you go. That is not overcat, as the distincion "whole views / interiors" is a valid one (and it is perfectly okay to leave the interiors’ category empty for some lesser series) and has its own big tree (branches remotely at Category:Views of rolling stock and Category:Train interiors), and it neatly solves your (indeed our) problem of lacking galleries with lotsa pics to pick from (whoever needs a specimen photo wont want an interior, anyway) and solves everybody else’s problem of not having you lobbying for deletion of fleet number categries. Go ahead and do this, and get other ppl to join forces in adding these categories, instead of removing other categories. Or don’t, and let me think that you just cannot be reasoned with. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(Unindent) I'm not sure this is really the place for a general discussion. Could we focus back on this category tree, please? I'm happy for it to be rebuilt differently, but I'd like to see a concrete suggestion on how to rebuild it. I asked above "How would you suggest that [tram] rebuilds are dealt with here, though, since trams could end up in multiple generation/type categories here? Also, what about the different versions within a generation?" - any thoughts? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

All trams of the same build/rebuild should be categorised together, and then nested into the previous build, much like Category:Light Rail trams (MTR) (specifically Category:Phase I LRV (rebuilt) (MTR)‎ into Category:Phase I LRV (MTR)‎ for the rebuild).

User:Tuvalkin: thanks for calling me a disruptive, no nothing, 'noob', terrorist, it really makes me feel welcome and like sticking around; I suggested building parallel trees, but people (including you) said that I didn't understand even the most basic principle of categorisation and that that would be COM:OVERCAT. So I guess I just loose either way yeah? Liamdavies (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I said you should be build parallel trees, yes, and suggested how that would not be overcat and indeed useful for people looking for images more generic than those of individual vehicles. I hope the insults are completely unbased, and I suggest that you ignore them and just do your thing. Will you? -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Tuvalkin: Yes, the insults are baseless - I forgot I am also a vandal - but your the one throwing them, not I, so it is for you decide if you insulted me needlessly or not. Read through the discussion again, I suggested renaming the current tree and building the current names as another I was told in no uncertain terms: "such change would be a next flagrant violation of categorization principles and a nonsensical break of category structure", and words to that effect a number of times. I am sick of being told what a stupid, dullard bastard I am by people so obtuse they do not even bother to try to understand what I am saying. Liamdavies (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, «renaming the current tree and building the current names as another» is exactly what you been asking not to do. See the little yellow box of Ca-a-Lot? It has "move" and "add" for each category. Never click on move, unless there’s consensus. Use "add" — insults will be proved baseless if you do it. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Note - Lisbon

(*) See Category:Trams in Lisbon for a more complete “poor man’s” full categorization: facing left / facing right / head views / side views / details / interiors; with minimal overlap. It works, too. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

---

@Tuvalkin, Mike Peel, and Liamdavies: Stale discussion, no consensus to delete existing categorization, but new subcategories can be created as needed in the future, so closing this discussion for now. Josh (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)