Category talk:Ships by location
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I'm processing the move of this category's content to Category:Ships by country of location to eliminate the undecypherable visual duplication with "Category:Ships by country"; a correct "by-location" category would then be this one. Regardz, Orrlingtalk 13:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Support --ŠJů (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is the same for all categories "by country" and "by location". Type "by location" in the search and you wiĺl find more than 13.000. You want to change all other categories too? --Stunteltje (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Support: I see "Ships by location" as a category for files relating to ships that are in particular places, such as a United States-registered ship photographed in Bermuda (which would be in "Ships in Bermuda"). I don't think it's really necessary to rename it "Ships by country of location", but have no objection if this is done. I'm not very clear what the purpose of "Ships by location - temp" is. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose "ships by country" seems the only name to keep it consistent with the other by country categories. --Foroa (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that "Ships by location" (now a subcategory of "Ships by country") be deleted and all the content moved to "Ships by country"? I'd oppose that because ships can be arranged by country in a number of different ways, as the subcategories of "Ships by country" already indicate – by the country in which they are located when photographed, by their country of registration, and so on. Thus, it's not a good idea just to lump all the files into the main category "Ships by country". — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- In Category:Ships by country there are only 4 categories, so you might as well delete it. Anyway, most topics have a "topic in country" category as default, in general where the topics are located, as is the case here. More specialised/deeper categories are deeper indeed, but that's the place where people will start looking. Anyway, there are already too many ships by xxx categories spread out, so it should either remain here or move to ships by country. --Foroa (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that "Ships by location" (now a subcategory of "Ships by country") be deleted and all the content moved to "Ships by country"? I'd oppose that because ships can be arranged by country in a number of different ways, as the subcategories of "Ships by country" already indicate – by the country in which they are located when photographed, by their country of registration, and so on. Thus, it's not a good idea just to lump all the files into the main category "Ships by country". — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I think it's clear what "Ships by location" means. I also agree that "Ships by country" should be deleted, given that the ship registration database has been put at "Ships by country of registration". ghouston (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- However, I'd note that Category:Ships by country by function or type is a mess, since its subcategories are a mix of registration and location. ghouston (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- For the ship type categories, I guess it's fine to have something like Category:Tugboats by country containing both "in" and "of" entries? ghouston (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Tugboats by country contains only tugboats by country of registration. "of" --Stunteltje (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Except for Category:Tugboats in Ukraine and Category:Tugboats in the United Kingdom. It seems easier to find them when they are with the "of" categories. ghouston (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Tugboats by country contains only tugboats by country of registration. "of" --Stunteltje (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Great, we have as it seems 3 supporting voices (incl. the proposer) vs 2 opposing which is not overwhelming but sufficient, and this cat thus proceeds to the move. (Last comment stamped more than a month ago, closure of discussion can be done) Orrlingtalk 04:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- My opposition isn't very strong anyway. As long as it's well-defined what belongs in the category, I don't care too much how it's named. ghouston (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- And at the moment it's not well-defined, since it contains things like Category:Ships in Madeira which is a subcategory of Category:Ships in Portugal. Or perhaps we could add Category:Ships in Asia and remove half the rest. ghouston (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, what about ships in international waters? This could never be placed under a "by country" caetegory. But do we even care about a ship's location if all you can see is the ship and some water? ghouston (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- What about Category:Ships in Antarctica? It's not a country. I'd suggest just adding a description to Ships by location explaining how it should be used. ghouston (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good enough, the point is (and it has not changed since the original move request was launched..) is that the situation now is that we have a list that appears like - let's say - 95% countries, which is a chocking anomaly as that list could just get rid of the Madeira and Antarctica etc and become a normal-title "by country" group, ---"by location" categories are only applicaple when the majority of the content is not countries!--- and since the "Ships by country" is ambiguous (as to Country of manufacture vs Country of location), the clear solution is that we materialize that sense and call this list "Ships by country of location", parallelly perceived with the already-existent Category:Ships by country of manufacture. The international or unidentified waters are not within any difficulty, such images are simply exempted from any country sorting altogether. Orrlingtalk 02:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Ships by country of location will be fine if it includes nothing but countries. Should Category:Ships by location also be retained as a parent category, for the locations that fall outside any country like Antarctica? ghouston (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes! Very correct. Orrlingtalk 06:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I only made a remark on the consequences for other "by country" categories. I am not by definition against the change. It ends the discussion and is very clear for every user. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure which consequences for other by-country categories you're discussing. The "by location" structure on Commons is a separate grade of hierarchy to the "by country" ("by location" contains "by country") and there's no crossing risk. Orrlingtalk 11:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- O.K. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure which consequences for other by-country categories you're discussing. The "by location" structure on Commons is a separate grade of hierarchy to the "by country" ("by location" contains "by country") and there's no crossing risk. Orrlingtalk 11:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I only made a remark on the consequences for other "by country" categories. I am not by definition against the change. It ends the discussion and is very clear for every user. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes! Very correct. Orrlingtalk 06:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Ships by country of location will be fine if it includes nothing but countries. Should Category:Ships by location also be retained as a parent category, for the locations that fall outside any country like Antarctica? ghouston (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good enough, the point is (and it has not changed since the original move request was launched..) is that the situation now is that we have a list that appears like - let's say - 95% countries, which is a chocking anomaly as that list could just get rid of the Madeira and Antarctica etc and become a normal-title "by country" group, ---"by location" categories are only applicaple when the majority of the content is not countries!--- and since the "Ships by country" is ambiguous (as to Country of manufacture vs Country of location), the clear solution is that we materialize that sense and call this list "Ships by country of location", parallelly perceived with the already-existent Category:Ships by country of manufacture. The international or unidentified waters are not within any difficulty, such images are simply exempted from any country sorting altogether. Orrlingtalk 02:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- What about Category:Ships in Antarctica? It's not a country. I'd suggest just adding a description to Ships by location explaining how it should be used. ghouston (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, what about ships in international waters? This could never be placed under a "by country" caetegory. But do we even care about a ship's location if all you can see is the ship and some water? ghouston (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- And at the moment it's not well-defined, since it contains things like Category:Ships in Madeira which is a subcategory of Category:Ships in Portugal. Or perhaps we could add Category:Ships in Asia and remove half the rest. ghouston (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)