Category talk:Citybus Route 10

Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses

redundant category N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 04:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with what? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@N509FZ: redundant to parent Category:Citybus Route 10? I support

Delete.--Roy17 (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17, Themightyquill, and N509FZ: Actually, this is not actually redundant. Per the parent Category:Citybus Route 10, this is sub-divided into four categories, one for the buses on the route, one for interior images of those buses, one for signs related to the route, and finally images showing views from along the route. The second, Category:Citybus Route 10 - Interiors should be a sub-cat of Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses. The category should be renamed Category:Buses on Citybus Route 10 (with subcat renamed Category:Interior views of buses on Citybus Route 10). Category:Citybus Route 10 - Signs should be renamed Category:Signs on Citybus Route 10 as well. Josh (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@N509FZ, Roy17, and Themightyquill: Closed (move Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses to Category:Buses on Citybus Route 10; move Category:Citybus Route 10 - Interiors to Category:Interior views of buses on Citybus Route 10; move Category:Citybus Route 10 - Signs to Category:Signs on Citybus Route 10) Josh (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I beg to differ. Buses look the same from inside, so Category:Citybus Route 10 - Interiors is useless. Have you checked the categories before even proposing any changes or closing a request? Category:Citybus Route 10 - Signs contains nothing on Citybus Route 10. In fact, everything is signposts at bus stops. I doubt bus stops would be categorised per each line that serves it. A buses cat under a bus route cat is overcategorisation IMO. So my thought is, merge everything into one cat for a single bus route. Recat all the bus stop signposts into for example Bus stops in Mong Kok and Information boards at bus stations in Hong Kong.

Please exercise good judgement. No hurry to close discussions prematurely.--Roy17 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: You were pinged on this one on 10 June and had no further comment. That was much more than the 2 week waiting period. If you feel it is warranted, you are always welcome to start new CfD if there are further issues to resolve (you can reference this one in that new discussion if relevant). Josh (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I dont reply to obviously wrong proposals which I believe most users would object. CfD are known to last for a long period of time, so I dont reply immediately either, in order to let other potential uninvolved users voice their opinions first.

Typically, only users experienced in category discussions should close a discussion. However, if the discussion has led to a very clear consensus, other users should feel free to do so. Unfortunately your closure was ill-informed. There was not a clear consensus either. The original author has not even replied while only three other users had two different views.--Roy17 (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I did respond to this discussion, but at another venue: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/06#Category_names_that_use_a_hyphen. Just no one cared. I'd say this could be a sign that CfD in general should be left open for longer when there is no clear consensus. Good judgement from the closing users is also essential.

These cats are results of a long-term contributor's habits and have been brought up for discussion, in case @Joshbaumgartner: you dont know yet: special:permalink/358462826#Accounts_seems_like_owned_by_the_same_person.--Roy17 (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

And the same should be performed for all other similarly named categories related to Hong Kong or China (largely that long-term user's creation or cats inspired by him).--Roy17 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, 2 users said the category was redundant and 2 users suggested renaming.--Roy17 (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill, Roy17, and N509FZ: Reopened Josh (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing CfD's in a reasonable time frame is important. If CfDs become permanent they block the ability of editors to make necessary improvements and can dissuade some users from participation both in the CfD process and category maintenance in general. This is bad for the project. That said, it is also important for discussion to not be rashly cut short, in order to allow as many participants as possible (including those who may not always be on the project every day or two). CfD's are not a strict vote or popularity contest, and those making a proposal have the burden of demonstrating why such a proposal is worth doing. If questions or objections are raised, they should be answered or addressed adequately before proceeding with implementing the proposal. Likewise, objections should state their reasoning and if appropriate, propose alternative solutions for the nominated category. The whole point of the CfD process is to ensure that changes made to the project's category system are either non-controversial (in the case of no objections) or there is a reasonable consensus to move forward with them, even if some users may still object to the changes. In boderline cases, it is good to err on the side of caution and lean away from destructive or disruptive changes (such as deletions) unless it is clear there is solid oonsensus to make this change.

I had closed the original discussion two months after it was opened, and one month after the last comment had been made. While there was no consensus to delete the nominated category (a matter on which Roy17 appears to agree), the more mild action of simply renaming them to readable English received support and no objections. Thus I closed the discussion concluding no consensus to delete, but that a rename was not in controversy.

After closing the discussion, Roy17 took exception to the action and despite not responding after being pinged a month ago, immediately began adding comments once it was closed. I advised them that this CfD had been closed and that it would be better to create a new CfD with the new proposal (expanding the deletion to other categories beyond the nominated one).

Note that closing a CfD is not a final say on the state of a category, or even the issue discussed. If someone has a new proposal or comment, or merely beleives the category needs another look, a new CfD can always be created. This is preferred because it focuses on the new ideas being raised, and it puts the CfD on the current month's list (as opposed to being buried in the archives) giving the best chance for more participation. I highly recommend linking relevant earlier discussions for reference.

The comments made and actions taken by Roy17 in response to my closure of the this CfD were borderline abusive and indicated to me a lack of willingness to consider the comments and suggestions of other users in good faith. However, in my opinion, this should not invalidate their proposal prima facie, so I have re-opened this CfD so that we can hear the merits and opposition to their new proposal above. Josh (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

there was no consensus to delete the nominated category (a matter on which Roy17 appears to agree). No never have I agreed! N509FZ said Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses was redundant. User:Themightyquill asked why. I made it clear this was redundant to its parent cat and should be deleted. Reason would be rather obvious and so I never mentioned. Why do we need a Buses cat under a bus route cat? What else would a bus route cat contain other than buses?
I have mentioned two reasons I did not reply after the ping: (1) I dont reply to obviously wrong (or right) comments, that is, I dont reply if my words would not add a new point of view. In this case, I found this cat a straightforward case of over-cat. (2) I prefer waiting for others to have a say first. I came to this CfD by chance a month after Themightyquill's question. The same might happen for other editors. In addition to these two, I simply forgot this. I do periodically go through old threads in my watchlist, but for this, I started a VP thread on 20 June and forgot to come back. It's in my watchlist though. Even if I was not pinged on the closure I would still see this immediately. I watch every single CfD, DR etc. just in case my effort might be wasted. This CfD came close.
Joshbaumgartner might have not been aware that this cat is just one typical instance of that long-term HK contributor's habits of over-cat. But after I immediately responded to his closure and pointed out the fact that many editors agree the HK user's cats are not useful, he forced closure by undoing my edits and manually archiving it: 1 2. There is nothing against reopening a discussion. There is no merit either to force other users waste time repeating the same arguments in a new CfD. What good does it do to the backlog, if the closure of one leads to a new one, especially so when both deal with the same problem? Tell me about borderline abusive and... a lack of willingness, when I merely objected with evidence to an ill-informed closure immediately.
A final note on Joshbaumgartner's judgement: not quite capable of closing CfD. Within my limited participation on CfD, I have on multiple occasions had to take extra effort to ensure implementation of the proper changes. Examples: leaving wrong redirects, blindly following translation to suggest an over-cat, wrong closure. I regret to say these, and I avoided directly criticising, but seriously @Joshbaumgartner: you make too many mistakes, yet calls others abusive and lack of willingness.--Roy17 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this cat itself. This HK user's cats are often redundant and wrongly named. You can take a look at User:N509FZ's (ctrl+F Categories for discussion). All were related to this HK user and resulted in deletion. Joshbaumgartner had participated in a few too.

Two more examples on Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2018/03 alone: jump to sections TKL Station - Posters and Train station platforms at Tiu Keng Leng Station, which I am pretty sure are the HK user's creation too.

Any user who sees these useless cats can recat them rightaway. I dont do it simply because I dont like to leave a bad redirect behind (which shows up in Hotcat) but I am not a sysop who can delete. I dont like to put up speedy deletion either because I am too lazy to watch and make sure my SD tag would go through.

Buses of bus route XYZ, redundant.

Interior views of ..., redundant. Are many photographs of this particular bus route expected? Or if there is anything special about this route that warrants a separate cat? Is a bus as good as a building that should have an exterior cat (Buses of...) and an interior cat? When answers are no, action is put them in Category:Bus interiors of CityBus, Hong Kong.

Views of XX from bus route YY. The city looks the same regardless which bus you are taking, so it seems only necessary to have Views of XX from buses, but this is still redundant, because whether you see the city from a bus, a car or standing in the street, it makes virtually no difference. However, if someone wants to do a virtual bus tour, they can go through these cats as if they are sitting in a Citybus 10 going from North Point via Causeway Bay to Central... They are merely useful for this reason I can think of.--Roy17 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Are many photographs of this particular bus route expected?" Irrelevant, we don't make categories based on what media we expect to have, category structure is to manage what we already have. We already have these images, so a category for them is appropriate. "The city looks the same regardless which bus you are taking" Really? I've taken a few buses around Hong Kong and I can say for sure that the city looks pretty different depending on which route you take. Maybe to you they all look the same, but the fact is they are not identical. "They are merely useful for this reason I can think of." So you agree there is at least one use for these categories. Since I am sure others will find other uses, seems there is no reason to delete them.

This CfD just wastes everybody's time. This cat is no different to other over-cat by that HK user. All the long passages above are redundant if Joshbaumgartner had exercised more caution while closing CfD without a consensus, or if he would just let go when I supplemented the full story of that HK user. Unfortunately that wasnt the case.--Roy17 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This CfD just wastes everybody's time." And yet you are the one insistent that it remain open. And what exactly do you mean by "let go"? Josh (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner:

Sign your comments in between mine.
we don't make categories based on what media we expect to have, category structure is to manage what we already have. We already have these images, so a category for them is appropriate. for Category:Interior views of buses on Citybus Route 10. Do you know buses can be swapped between different routes by simply changing the display signs? What's the purpose of the cat of interior views, when buses on Citybus Route 10 are not unique and could at the same time be serving other routes? What's the need for a single category when there are only two photos? And if there are 200 photos in this cat, how are they probably in scope?

So what if the buses are changed? That doesn't mean there isn't value to being able to compare between different routes, perhaps to illustrate if different standards were being applied to different parts of a network. If there are only 2 files in a category, that might be a good reason to consider if a merge makes sense, but it is not an automatic reason to delete a category. If photos are out of scope, then propose the files for deletion, that is a much better process for that. Josh (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can say for sure that the city looks pretty different depending on which route you take. Citybus 10 and 5B run roughly the exact same route. (They have different codes for different operating hours.) Does the city look different in different buses? Or if I drive a convertible following a Citybus 10's route and take photos, would there be a cat Views of XX from Brand A convertible? And a cat for Brand B when I drive another? The streets will dramatically change when I sit in a different vehicle?

This is a specious and irrelevant argument. A route is a physical location, a car is a mobile vehicle that could be anywhere, so that is a poor analogy. I am actually not a fan of the 'view from route X' categories, I think if the bus is on Main Street and someone takes a pic from it, that should just be catted under Main Street. I mean, take two buildings, one at the start and one at the end of the route, the only thing they have in common is that they are on the same bus route...so what? Why do we need to group images of them together? Josh (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You insist closing it when the goal is not fulfilled. Two users have said this cat is redundant. Do I need to ping everyone who often work on this HK user's cats to come and tell you in the face that his habitual over-cats are not useful, so you wouldnt try closing this CfD and archiving it in a sneaky way? You are not letting it go right now.

You are welcome to encourage greater contributions to the discussion of course, why are you asking me, or wait, did you consider that some sort of threat? I'm not insisting on closing it, in fact I re-opened it. If I was trying to close it in a sneaky way, I am pretty sure I would not have pinged everyone who had ever contributed to it (that doesn't seem very sneaky to me). Josh (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, but your common sense is deficient. I am not replying to this kind of your arguments any more.--Roy17 (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, everyone's common sense is deficient, and usually most of all those who think their's isn't. Josh (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one is expected to know every discussion on wiki. No one is expected to agree with a particular point of view either. When I objected to closure and explained immediately, discussion could simply be restored. Instead, User:Joshbaumgartner forced closure twice: 1 2. Yet I am abusive and lack of willingness to consider the comments and suggestions of other users in good faith. Four fingers might be pointing back at you.--Roy17 (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How did this comment further the proposal or work towards consensus? Did it ever occur to you that I was trying to help you by encouraging that you start a clean CfD with your new proposal? Did you even read my comments and realize I actually agree with some of your proposals, or are you just focused on trying to escalate? In my experience, CfDs like this dissuade others from contributing, except maybe a few cheerleaders for one or the other antagonist, and they remain perpetually in limbo. Maybe that was your goal to filibuster unless you got your way regardless, but I don't consider these a win for the project. I still would be willing to engage your proposal, to which I am sympathetic despite your attitude, either here or in a fresh CfD as you see fit, but it should be about the topic. If you disagree and wish to continue making it personal, it will not do anyone any good. Josh (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For one last time @Joshbaumgartner:

I kept my discussion to the cats themselves. This CfD was still clean, until you first added 3475 bytes of irrelevant stuff about your opinions of CfD in general, as well as attacking me. Now it's my fault and attitude again for the irrelevant chatter.
Feel free to keep defending your wrong cat moves. So what if the buses are changed? That doesn't mean there isn't value to being able to compare between different routes, perhaps to illustrate if different standards were being applied to different parts of a network. Jokes. The bus could well be running Route 10 in the day, another route at night, and a special line at weekends for horseracing day. Nothing would change except the info boards in front of the bus. Or ask yourself, how many bus companies in the world decorate bus interiors differently for ordinary routes? This is not a metro line, or a special bus line to a theme park.
Stop putting your words in my mouth. You tried the forced closure in a sneaky move. How often do you manually archive closed CfDs?

Stop closing CfD haphazardly. Do it only if there is clear consensus (express approval for an action, not your self-proclaimed proposals), or when you are familiar with COM:CAT etc. (At least now you are not: do not know what to do with a redundant category.) Stop closing CfD in short time. Go check out the years long backlog first.--Roy17 (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokes! Joshbaumgartner's close may have been a little premature, and there's no problem with continuing discussion, but the intensity of the personal attack on him here is totally undeserved. @Roy17: Your initial comment was rather minimal - hardly a convincing argument. You were pinged, and he waited for a week afterwards without reply, and more importantly, the category was kept rather than deleted, so if the final consensus is to delete, there's no huge amount of work to be done. Josh has done an incredible amount of work closing a great many CfDs (new and old) without problem. If this is an exception, fine, but it is hardly a crisis worthy of such antagonism. Please calm yourselves and stick to the issue. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: make no mistake, please check the page history carefully. When I objected 16 min after the initial closure, User:Joshbaumgartner closed this twice: special:diff/358466206 special:diff/358491630, the second time by undoing my comments. Despite these rude unilateral actions, I limited my response to the categories: special:diff/358491961.

Only after that Joshbaumgartner deviated from category discussion and attacked me: special:diff/358622087.--Roy17 (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: Please note that I asked you both to to calm down and stick to the issue. I think you've both already made your criticisms of each other's actions clear above. If either of you have a problem with the other that you really think is worth a formal complaint and further discussion, make it elsewhere. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: according to page history, neither of us said anything after 20 July 2019, until you stir it up today by picking a side, without actual consideration of the categories themselves: special:diff/360646511. Today is 5 Aug.--Roy17 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I guess we can close this CFD. In the meantime, the nominated category is redirected to Category:Buses on Citybus Route 10. The nominated category is populated, and its parent is Category:Citybus Route 10, which is logical. If there is any loose end, please start the new CFD and be constructive--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

And the same should be performed for all other similarly named categories related to Hong Kong or China (largely that long-term user's creation or cats inspired by him).--Roy17 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Citybus Route 10

Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses

Navigation menu

Search