Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/12/Category:Ship types with two masts

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


This category should be merged with Category:Two-masted ships. Badzil (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? --  Docu  at 19:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Because they contain the same thing: ships with two masts. The separation that you just made has for a consequence that all ships in Category:Brigantines are not listed anymore under Category:Two-masted ships. This is undesired as it makes the discovery of images through category-browsing more difficult. Badzil (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Apparently it doesn't as your edits just added Category:Godspeed (ship, 2006) to two-masted ships. --  Docu  at 19:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
This is because this ship is not strictly-speaking a brigantine, as it doesn't have two masts. A brigantine is a ship that has two masts, and therefore it should be categorized under Category:Two-masted ships. Badzil (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
A brigantine is not a ship, but a type of ship. Godspeed is a ship. Thus Godspeed should be in either Category:Two-masted ships or Category:Three-masted ships and Category:Brigantines in Category:Ship types with two masts.
If we amalgamate individual ships with type categories, we make the discovery of images through-category browsing more difficult. We wouldn't by able to rely anymore on Category:Ships by number of masts indicating the number of masts in subcategories. --  Docu  at 20:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
So what do you do with Category:Irving Johnson (ship, 2002)? Should we recategorize all the ships in Category:Ketches in Category:Two-masted ships? Badzil (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I added Category:Irving Johnson (ship, 2002) to Category:Two-masted ships. This way Category:Ships by number of masts can remain as reliable as it was. --  Docu  at 20:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
OK. What about Category:Asgard II (ship, 1981)? You probably see where I'm going from here... Badzil (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
It takes just a couple of minutes to add them and sort out the exceptions. The main reason I skipped Category:Two-masted ships when building Category:Ships by number of masts is that it does take a bit more effort to build than the others with much less benefit. --  Docu  at 20:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Although I do appreciate the effort you put into the classification of ships, copying all ships in Category:Ketches to Category:Two-masted ships seems unnecessary. Why create a monster-category when it can be divided into subcategories? Where is the advantage? Badzil (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Category:Godspeed (ship, 2006) shouldn't appear when searching for two-masted ships. --  Docu  at 20:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Because it is miscategorized in Category:Brigantines. This ship has three masts, therefore it is not a brigantine. See Merriam-Webster. I corrected the error. Badzil (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Now that the categories of Category:Godspeed (ship, 2006) have been fixed, can we go back to the main question? Should we recategorize all the ships in Category:Ketches, Category:Brigantines and Category:Brigs (ship) in Category:Two-masted ships? Badzil (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much use in finding other exceptions if you don't want the ships to be sorted into Category:Two-masted ships. Maybe we should delete Category:Two-masted ships entirely as it doesn't fit into Category:Ships by number of masts. --  Docu  at 22:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you suggesting to delete also the categories Category:Three-masted ships and related? Badzil (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
No, the other subcategories of Category:Ships by number of masts are more straightforward.
Obviously, there is an advantage in having 1 to 7 at Category:Ships by number of masts as it would allow to systematically sort all sailing ships by mast and make this easily available. --  Docu  at 22:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I have some trouble understanding you. I don't quite get why only Category:Two-masted ships should be deleted. And why doesn't it "fit into Category:Ships by number of masts"? I also don't quite get why Category:Three-masted ships is more straightforward than Category:Two-masted ships. Badzil (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
3-7 only include categories of about specific ships that do have the defined number of masts. Two-masted ships, given what you insist on including is a mixture leading to other things, including ships with three masts and tends to contaminate what used to be a clear structure. --  Docu  at 23:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I've checked Category:Brigantines, Category:Brigs (ship), Category:Ketches and Category:Yawls, corrected some errors of categorization and, unless I missed an error, they only contain ships with two masts (as they should).
I don't mind if both categories Category:Ship types with two masts and Category:Two-masted ships stay, but the current categorization of the four sub-categories needs to stay as it is. Badzil (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Your main concern seems to be that some subcategories of (e.g.) Category:Ketches couldn't be found through Category:Two-masted ships. If I make sure that this is possible, would you mind if I remove Category:Ketches from Category:Two-masted ships and just leave it in Category:Ship types with two masts? --  Docu  at 07:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I do mind as it is a basic a case of subcat/overcat. All the ships in these subcategories are ships with two masts. So somehow all the ships in these subcategories must have Category:Two-masted ships as a parent. A cat see also is not sufficient. Badzil (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should just add Category:Two-masted ships into Category:Ship types with two masts. --  Docu  at 22:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe we should make a single category named Category:Two-masted ships. Badzil (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there any downside with adding Category:Two-masted ships into Category:Ship types with two masts? It would nicely allow to differenciate between ships with 2 masts and other categories like the one for Godspeed and Category:Toronto Brigantine Society. --  Docu  at 12:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you please make it clear how Category:Godspeed (ship, 2006) and Category:Toronto Brigantine Inc. fit in Category:Ship types with two masts and/or Category:Two-masted ships? Badzil (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be:

So the two wouldn't fit into Category:Two-masted ships, but Category:Ship types with two masts only (through Category:Brigantines). --  Docu  at 18:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

At least, that was before you edited Category:Toronto Brigantine Society. --  Docu  at 19:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you please explain your thinking behind this organization? Why is Category:Godspeed (ship, 2006) in Category:Brigantines? Did you list Category:Asgard II (ship, 1981) as a general example for all ships in Category:Brigantines or is it special? Badzil (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Both can arguably be added into Category:Brigantines (according to what other users added/en WP state). Asgard is a general sample. --  Docu  at 19:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you plan to add Category:Two-masted ships to all subcategories of Category:Brigantines ("a vessel with two masts" en:Brigantine), Category:Brigs (ship) ("a sailing vessel with two square-rigged masts" en:Brig), Category:Ketches ("a sailing craft with two masts" en:Ketch) and Category:Yawls ("a two-masted sailing craft" en:Yawl)? Badzil (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
See my comment at 20:46, 14 December 2011 above. --  Docu  at 06:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
If I understand well, your answer to my question is "yes" and you want to add the category Category:Two-masted ships to all brigantines, brigs, ketches and yawls. In my opinion, this is unnecessary and unwanted. Also there are no exceptions anymore as what you consider exceptions were miscategorizations that I corrected. Badzil (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear to me why you removed Category:Toronto Brigantine Society (or the name it was renamed to) from Category:Brigantines. Can you explain? --  Docu  at 19:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
A charity is not a ship therefore should not be categorized in Category:Brigantines. If pictures of people of the charity are added to this category, then they shouldn't be categorized as ships. Badzil (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be an organization dedicated to brigantines. As such it can be included in Category:Brigantines (the ship type). Obviously it wouldn't be added into Category:Two-masted ships. --  Docu  at 20:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
It's nor a ship, not a ship type and is already categorized as Category:Sailing organizations. This seems sufficient to me. Badzil (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's not a ship type, but it seems to be a sailing organization specific to a ship type. Thus it's logical to include it in Category:Brigantines. --  Docu  at 20:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure you want to contaminate Category:Brigantines with something that is not a two-masted ship, do you? Smile Badzil (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the structure above [my comment from 18:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)], you will notice that this wont happen. --  Docu  at 07:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

To make it easier to visualize, I implemented it. If it's problematic, we can obviously still undo it easily.
I will also try to add the remaining ships from Category:Tall ships into Category:Ships by number of masts. --  Docu  at 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Most ships in Category:Sailing ships and Category:Tall ships are now sorted in Category:Ships by number of masts.
A conclusion one may draw for this category is that few ships are actually in subcategories of Category:Ship types with two masts other than Category:Two-masted ships. So adding the few missing ones into Category:Two-masted ships hardly increases the number of ships there.
I also noticed that Wikipedia in some languages systematically notes the number of masts in articles or even the infobox, while, e.g. the English language version rarely notes it or categorizes ships accordingly. --  Docu  at 05:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What about ship types that may have two masts, like most schooner types? If these ship type categories are not divided, then there should be a {{cat see also}} or similar for them. --LPfi (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is of course worse with Category:Ship types with three masts. I know no western 19th century ship type with three masts that cannot have four or five masts. Should it be "three or more masts"? --LPfi (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Probably yes. --  Docu  at 20:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. I rename it accordingly. --  Docu  at 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
According to what? There is currently no consensus on this issue. Your renaming created over-categorization. Please wait for a consensus before renaming. Badzil (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
You hadn't commented on the issue raised by LPfi. Can you explain why this should create over-categorization? --  Docu  at 23:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
A lack of answer does not give you a consensus and therefore the right to make such significant modifications. I will answer your interrogations tomorrow when I will have more time to express my thoughts. Badzil (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a proposal LPfi made and there was a consensus for it.
Removing Category:Brigantines from the equivalent of Category:Toronto Brigantine Society is a proposal of yours. --  Docu  at 23:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the vessels known as "brigs" are distinct from "brigantines".

Don't some junks and dhows also have two masts?

I have no problem calling schooners, brigs, ketches "ships". I have seen all of these vessels called "tall ships". My understanding however is that in the days of sail only "ship-rigged" vessels were called ships. The famous US Navy Enterprise of the war with Tripoli was re-rigged from a schooner to a brig. I believe that during her period as a brig she was "US Brig Enterprise". Geo Swan (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Closed, done as proposed, I suppose. --rimshottalk 22:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)