Category talk:Juno, Light Vessel 72 (ship, 1903)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
It is not correct to revert the category renaming. Requestor does not respect the naming convention of ships and vessels. See category:Ships by name. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- We don't rename things that aren't ships as "ships". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Wat we not do is neglecting the naming convention. In your version the vessel isn't even found in Category:Ships by name, where all kinds of floating objects with a name or number can be found. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- We don't put unnamed ships into a category of ships by name (and certainly not those that are neither named nor ships). You do realise that "Juno" isn't its name? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Have a look here. "The lightship LV72, code named Juno for the beach it landed on, now rests on a muddy bank on the River Neath in Swansea, South Wales". And here and here. If the ship is known as Juno, the category has to be found in Category:Ships by name under that name. If not and the right name is Light Vessel 72 (very well possible and according the English Wikipedia), this category has to be renamed (and a few others) according Category:Light Vessel XX (ship, XXXX) and a remark made in the description that these vessels had a code name: Juno, Helwick, Sula. I don't think all other light vessels in Commons are different from this vessel. We don't differ in opinion about the vessel, but about category naming. I try to name all these vessels the same way, convinient for the average user, not for the specialist. --Stunteltje (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Seriously? You're quoting The Daily Mail as evidence for anything?
- I am Dutch, so I don't see it as evidence but just a quote in a newspaper. Bad info there? I don't know. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- You are also ignoring the fairly detailed rationale for the re-rename (when your first rename wasn't even mentioned or discussed at all), "Revert undiscussed and incorrect move. This is a light vessel, not a ship. As vessels incapable of independent propulsion, these are not counted as ships. It's reasonable (given the limitations of MediaWiki) to overlap the categorizations, but there is no reason to get the names wrong."
- We have to live with some overlaps for categorizations; there can be either "Lightships of the UK" or "Light vessels of the UK" as the parent cat, with both immobile vessels and the few self-propelled ships within that - I just don't care. But the naming of entities, not their category membership, is one thing we do have precise control over. We should not call things "ships" when they are not ships, they are merely vessels. We should not invent a supposed name of "Juno" for a vessel that was never named, nor is this a "code name" (I don't know why you invented that?), but was only on the Juno Beach station (and that briefly, although most famously). A handful of these vessels were named, so by all means categorize them as "ships by name" but the nearest this one got to naming was merely numbering as LV72. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- With respect, but we are discussing categorisation in Wikimedia Commons, not categorisation of the English Wikipedia. As far as I know the intention of Wikimedia Commons is to give a user the possibility to illustrate an article and for that reason the images have to be found as easy as possible for an average user. I didn't invent the "code name", I picked it up from the article in the newspaper. So you are correct in your argumentation for the vessel, but i.m.h.o. not in your argumentation regarding finding images in Commons. That has to be as easy as possible, regardless the correctness of the used description. Do you mean that Category:Lightships of the United Kingdom has to be renamed to Category:Light vessels of the United Kingdom and the vessels numbering as LVXX? For me no problem this way of categorising. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, we are not discussing categorization (largely), we are discussing the naming of entities. This is a more precise subject than category inclusion, we have more free choice. We can choose whether to call something "a ship" or not, but we are constrained whether to categorize it as one or not (and here we have to) because categorization imposes the same category name on all its members.
- There is no reason why all members of a category have to have names of the same format. To think so is to fail to understand MediaWiki categorization. They should each have the best name possible for that entity: a name that is accurate and understandable. It is nonsense to call them something that they are not, simply because other things (which are) have names of that form.
- Nor do I see why you claim this is being seen as an English Wikipedia issue, rather than Commons? Only you have mentioned Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's better to discuss it via Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/04/Category:Juno, Light Vessel 72 (ship, 1903) --Stunteltje (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- With respect, but we are discussing categorisation in Wikimedia Commons, not categorisation of the English Wikipedia. As far as I know the intention of Wikimedia Commons is to give a user the possibility to illustrate an article and for that reason the images have to be found as easy as possible for an average user. I didn't invent the "code name", I picked it up from the article in the newspaper. So you are correct in your argumentation for the vessel, but i.m.h.o. not in your argumentation regarding finding images in Commons. That has to be as easy as possible, regardless the correctness of the used description. Do you mean that Category:Lightships of the United Kingdom has to be renamed to Category:Light vessels of the United Kingdom and the vessels numbering as LVXX? For me no problem this way of categorising. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Seriously? You're quoting The Daily Mail as evidence for anything?
- Have a look here. "The lightship LV72, code named Juno for the beach it landed on, now rests on a muddy bank on the River Neath in Swansea, South Wales". And here and here. If the ship is known as Juno, the category has to be found in Category:Ships by name under that name. If not and the right name is Light Vessel 72 (very well possible and according the English Wikipedia), this category has to be renamed (and a few others) according Category:Light Vessel XX (ship, XXXX) and a remark made in the description that these vessels had a code name: Juno, Helwick, Sula. I don't think all other light vessels in Commons are different from this vessel. We don't differ in opinion about the vessel, but about category naming. I try to name all these vessels the same way, convinient for the average user, not for the specialist. --Stunteltje (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- We don't put unnamed ships into a category of ships by name (and certainly not those that are neither named nor ships). You do realise that "Juno" isn't its name? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Wat we not do is neglecting the naming convention. In your version the vessel isn't even found in Category:Ships by name, where all kinds of floating objects with a name or number can be found. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)