File talk:Pope-Hartford.jpg

@Chief tin cloud: Hi CTC we need to talk through these edits. Can we do it here? regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course we can.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You made the edit summary "transferred from Category:Pope-Hartford vehicles to Category:Pope-Hartford Model W, therefore Category:1911 automobiles became unnecessary and was deleted". I think its great that the car gets identified.

Now, say I find another photo of a similar vehicle and I want to put it where it belongs. The very nice image is marked no more than Pope. Pease tell me exactly what I should do to find images of similar Pope vehicles?

I spend a lot of time trying to identify the cars in photos just dumped in Commons and your explanation of how you would go about the work is important to me. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I very much appreciate what you do here with the unidentified cars (really!), and I am still learning how to do categorize correctly. If I destroyed or harmed your work I really regret that.

I have just seen that the picture had a typo in the catlink. Fixed yet, but sorry for that, too.

What I did: I only removed cats like Category:1911 automobiles when the new category itself was already categorized there. My point is, that thus any picture is still in the category, but only once, not twice. My system therefore only works, and is used only, with cats that either cover a specific car, or a model line that was built for one model year only. But you are right: I had the eye on the category, not the picture. So, if I understand you correctly, you want (in this example) that all pictures also remain in Category:1911 automobiles?--Chief tin cloud (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And I, CTC, appreciate being able to work in with another editor who can be every bit as fussy as Eddaido. When I see on an image a category like 1911 automobiles (I never add these cats) I leave it be on the principle that it is doing no harm to me and it is probably important to the editor that put it there. However I do indeed change it if it is on an image of (e.g.) a 1911 Packard. I'd insert Packard so it read 1911 Packard automobiles because that category goes into 1911 automobiles by brand then 1911 automobiles so, I hope, I please the unknown editor as well as me. I do admit there have been cases where my edits have been reverted but less so in recent times.

Please understand I am not telling someone active in Commons since 2011 how to categorise. I write the foregoing to tell you what I believe I'm doing - and now you can tell me if I have it wrong.

I am also relaxed about a separate category for Pope-Hartford Model W

What does distress me is that when I go to 1911 automobiles I find, as expected,

1. a heap of images of cars believed to date to 1911.
2. I also find a large bunch of cars by brand of the same year. I find this a nuisance. I daydream. Let's say we pass through Istanbul and take a few days to look around there and I am dragged to view a splendid collection of Ottoman textiles in a vast museum inside a positively Byzantine underground water tank. But there is compensation and with my new iPhone, handy tripod and remote shutter release I take (though I say so myself) excellent shots of two old cars that have no labels of any kind but they are in a gallery marked 1911, I can read Turkish. One car's radiator has a Cyrillic? inscription on the radiator header tank, Cyrillic is all Greek to me, and the other carries in the same place the four letters Pope. Would it be Italian? That evening I upload the images to Commons and try to work out what the cars might be by looking at the Commons collection for 1911. 1911 Pope no problem, someone else has got there before me and it looks very like a Model W. So far so good but the other car? I can look through the images in 1911 automobiles all on one "page". I can look through the images in 1911 automobiles by brand, slower but I restrict myself to Eastern European brands and use a blown-up image of the symbols on the radiator.
3. but I also find there as independent categories a Delaunay-Belleville Landaulette, a Fiat S76 and two kinds of Pope-Hartford. Maybe right now that is a manageable number of extra places to look (when its 1911 on your mind) but those cats are bucking the system. Either Delaunay-Belleville, Fiat and Pope-Hartford go in with 1911 automobiles and receive the quick glance they deserve (none of this wasteful and sometimes tricky clicking please) or they have their own brand categories.

You don't agree. Why?

Talk to you later, Eddaido (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my first edits in commons date back to 2011, but I only do frequent work here, and I am not really experienced. I usually categorize unidentified automobiles, and I try to improve car and truck make and model categories when I'm sure enough with the make's history (the ladder often in conjunction with my work in the German WP.)

So, let's see if I got the idea. I understand that in this example I should remove the Pope-Hartford Model W from 1911 automobiles, and install instead Category:Pope-Hartford automobiles by decade, and Category:1911 Pope-Hartford automobiles? The make was extant from 1904 until 1914, so, there are only two decades to cover.

I agree that the racing and record car Fiat S76 is wrong here, and Delaunay-Belleville Landaulette is even completely wrong. It should read Category:Delaunay-Belleville HB6 Rothschild Landaulette, and become part of a new Delaunay-Belleville HB6.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

But you don't say why you disagree.

Now about your thoughts expressed above. . . . remove the Pope-Hartford Model W from 1911 automobiles, and install instead Category:Pope-Hartford automobiles by decade, and Category:1911 Pope-Hartford automobiles? The make was extant from 1904 until 1914, so, there are only two decades to cover. .

My short response is that because there were so few cars of this brand it is not worth spending time setting up the full categorisation system for Pope cars, maybe one day it will seem to be the right thing to do but I think not yet. Setting up just a part of the categorisation system would I think be a mistake. Someone had a go at doing some Maserati images like that a few months ago and I have just been completing it properly so Maseratis (so far as the images have been categorised to a year of manufacture, most have not been) will be synchronised with Ford and the other big brands.

What I think should be done is to leave each image in the year of the subject's manufacture, in this particular case 1911 automobiles. You have done this but not by individual image. Instead you have created a small hiding place just for those few vehicles / images. TheSuperMat has done the same with the Delaunay-Belleville. I find this very frustrating when I am trying to identify a vehicle.

Do you see? If I have all 1911 cars on one page (I can't, I have to go through each brand as well but I'll put up with that because that arrangement gives other advantages) it makes the i.d. chase so much less difficult. You choose to have me clicking in and out of lots more little categories and that is what I am complaining about. Why do you want to force me to do that?

Fiat, of course, should have their own complete categorisation system like Ford or Buick or Chrysler. No one seems to be enthusiastic about getting that done.

• We cannot order each other to categorise images in a particular system or manner. We are all volunteers. However it is true we are asked to try to establish agreement so far as possible.

  Cars in Commons remains chaotic in many of its parts. If we provide a clear and logical system, the one set up for us by the experts in the field, we are more likely to find contributors happy to categorise their images properly.

  The experts ask us to file our images in the lowest possible sub-category. They assume that I need to categorise an image and I will know all there is to know and worth knowing about the subject of the image. If I know these things I can readily see I should put my new image under Pope-Hartford Model W. But if I have to categorise an image like this one without any clues about the subject at all (though I can see it is a car) I am reduced to trolling through images of vehicles probably starting with images of cars made about that time (whatever I think that is and lets hope I get it near right). This is bad enough but some editors like to squirrel away their photos so that only an extremely determined would-be-categoriser will find them.

"==Quick guide==

1. How to find the appropriate categories
   • Find categories with the search engine (see #Categorization tips)
   • or check how similar files are categorized (some may not be categorized though)
   • or start from the main topical category (Category:Topics)
   • Starting from these categories, check their parent or sub-categories to find an appropriate category. Avoid picking too general categories."

Imagine trying to categorise a portion of a bone from a dinosaur. How do the archivists help a scientist do that? This is not a rhetorical question, we need to know the answer. Eddaido (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Eddaido, I did not disagree, I just hadn't completely understood, and I'm ready to try it your way. Alas, a problem I frequently see is when a specific car was photographed and titled by two or more users, or a user preferred very different titles. The effect is that these pictures are spread over the category. You surely know that from Category:Unidentied..., where it can become quite tricky. I tended to give such cars their own category. What is your solution?

Your way surely works quite easy with our examples here, but how to do it when it comes to a large amount of pictures of similar cars? I recently started the same with the Packard Caribbean, and had already done model years 1953 and 1954. There are quite a few of the 1953s... I stopped when our discussion started, so 1955 and 1956 are the grilles with other Packards of the same year. All (1953-56) lack hood mascots, and have fake air inlets in the hood instead. You even can identify 1955 and 1956 Caribbeans from the side when you know where to look.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this CTC. Suffering from an excess of domestic (non WP) issues right now and its past my bedtime. This just to acknowledge and say I'll be back soon. Eddaido (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I sometimes add to a categorisation "|1944" or even "|1944ARK51375". In the second case it is the model year and the registration marks on the licence plate. The second one brings the images of the same car together though I have found collectors using one number plate for different cars in their collection - not sure of the reason for that, obfuscation to confuse the spies for other collectors? I don't know. Hard to believe they want to avoid taxes but maybe they didn't get a big collection by paying all their taxes? That's meant to be a joke.

I think Caribbeans are worth their own category, I agree entirely with what you have done. But I would very much prefer that their individual images were also included in (e.g. 1953) Packard automobiles in the usual way. I have to pause for a while here. Eddaido (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I was going to suggest looking at the classic Bentley pages like thisCategory:Bentley 4½ Litre 1930 but I feel sure you know what I mean.

@Chief tin cloud: Anyway have I made myself clearer? Please tell me if I am still confusing. Its important to me. Eddaido (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eddaido: , thank you for your explanations. I think I got the idea now and will continue the way you showed me. You were not confusing at all.

Depending on where you live in Switzerland, you can use a single number plate for up to 99 collector cars. As I do not have 99 such cars I don't know how it works exactly, but it is not easy to get collector car status for an old car. I know that as I found out the hard way...--Chief tin cloud (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great. Please tell me if make an edit that puzzles you.

Now I understand. I wonder if I have made any mistakes by assuming that I have a picture of the same car because of the licence plate. You have a collection? I have a single fairly basic Golf aging a bit now but bearing up surprisingly well! Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

We have the special arrangement that plates are related to the owner - person or company - rather than the vehicle. Some people have the same plates for their whole life. It works, and you always can register two cars on the same plates, but you can only legally move the one that has fitted the plates. A collection... well, when two old cars, one partially restored and the other waiting for one, qualify, then I have one.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)