User talk:Stunteltje/archive 2009

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Ships by IMO number[edit]

Hello,

Thank you for your work in categorising ship-related images. Do you know the tool "Hot Cats" ? It helps adding / removing / altering categories much more quickly. You can activate it in your preferences, thumb "Gadgets"... give it a try !

However, I do not understand your categories "Ships by IMO number". As far as I know, IMo umbers are unique, so why not using a ship's name instead ? For instance you have put Image:Salica Frigo.jpg into an IMO category, but why not use a category Category:Salica Frigo instead, which is much more understable ? This is what is done usually when there are many pictures of a ship (for instance Category:Ivory Tirupati, Category:La Paimpolaise). It is a bit confusing if we have both categories with IMO numbers and categories with names, and I think names are easier to understand.

le Korrigan bla 17:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A ship may change ownership, name and radio callsign but the IMO number remains the same. Sv1xv (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly the reason why I added this category. Not to replace the categories by name, just adding there the IMO number. Each sea-going vessel of any importance gets an IMO number and the number doesn't change during the lifetime of that ship. I'll add a few ships with even 5 or 6 names, the ship remains the same, with the same IMO number. Besides:Thanks for the tip. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. May I just suggest that you do not replace existing "name" categories with IMO ones? Just in case this was your intentions :-) Thanks, le Korrigan bla 22:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

mogelijks copyvio[edit]

Beste. Gelieve geen tekst letterlijk ([1] over te nemen van websites om geen last te krijgen met copyright. Lycaon (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO Number[edit]

Hi Stunteltje - I removed the IMO numbers because all those pictures are already in the "Sapphire Princess" category which you in turn put into the appropriate IMO number category. It makes little sense (and is against Commons sorting policy) to have a file be sorted both ways. All you end up is X files in the IMO number category, and when you click on the subcat, you get all exactly the same files again.

So I suggest that NONE of the individual files should be categorised with the IMO number IF there already is a ship name category for this number. Solely make the ship cat a subcat of the number cat.

This way also helps in case the ship name changes, as two subcats could then cover the same ship at different stages of its life. Of course that only applies if a ship keeps the same IMO number during its life - no idea there. Still, the above way should be best even then. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right. The only reason why sometimes I add the IMO category to a single file is that if you click om the IMO category, you start with a single picture and the rest is in the category above the picture. You picked up the reason for the category yourself: During the lifetime of a ship in most cases she changes several times her name, the hull with machinery never changes the IMO number. See e.g. Image:Star Libra in Keelung Harbor.jpg The reason is that the regulations for ships from the flag nation become stricter and strickter during the lifetime. Ships are sold to nations where they can stay in service because the law is less strict. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I also added Image:GTSSummit.jpg. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice picture. Why didn't you add the IMO number? --Stunteltje (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I added it. Sv1xv (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What is an IMO number?[edit]

Don't know what an IMO number even is. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a look here: w:en:IMO ship identification number. Sv1xv (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO number (again)[edit]

Hello Stunteltje,

Thanks again for your huge work of categorising shipping images ("parts of ships" really needed some work). I am a bit surprised with Category:Emma Mærsk : you have put individual images in the Category:IMO 9321483 category, but not Category:Emma Mærsk itself. I would have done the inverse : Category:Emma Mærsk would be a subcategory of Category:IMO 9321483 in order to avoid duplicating categories on a single image. I don't understand why you did the inverse. Can you tell me why ?

Thanks, le Korrigan bla 17:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. There isn't a reason for not putting the category in the IMO category. Plain overseen or forgotten. I work on the edge of Wikipedia "rules" as I try to give at least 1 file in de IMO category and the rest in the subcategories. I assume that it is for information a good thing to see a picture of a ship in this IMO category also, as all pictures can be found in existing subcategories. Hope that an overawakened super super user will refrain of skipping these. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I took some of the text of Category:IMO 7211074 and dropped it in IMO 7211074. This is a nice example why the IMO category scheme is extremely useful. --Foroa (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why. My problem is that it is very, very time consuming to make separate artikels for each ship in IMO numbers. I don't intend to search for all information for all ships. User:Mtsmallwood is creating a separate schema for Category:Motor ships by name. I don't see the advantage for Motorships and suggested him to use Category:Ships by name or Category:Ships by individual name. In that case we can work together to bring the complete Commons fleet under Name and IMO number. Perhaps you can support that suggestion on his page. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ferry Image[edit]

Hey, Thanks for the added description on my ferry image. Are you part of the team that constructed it? Muhammad 17:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Gathered the information from the Internet. (Mainly the Schottel info.) Still looking for an IMO number, if given. The harbour master didn't react on my related question via e-mail. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother again. I used the ferry image in the english wikipedia article about ferry, but some users said the image did not have encyclopedic value. You being an expert with ships as far as I can tell, do you think you could have a look at the page here and place the image in a suitable location in the article with a matching caption? Thanks for the help, Muhammad 15:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Did my best. Hope sufficiently. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Muhammad 03:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Schoolbuildings[edit]

Hoi Stunteltje,

Ik wil je werklust niet om zeep helpen, maar school en schoolgebouw zijn toch eigenlijk hetzelfde ding? Maak je het zo misschien niet onnodig ingewikkeld? Ik hoor graag je mening hierover. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ik merkte dat er twee routes bestonden, schools en schoolbuildings, waarbij de ene keer naar education en de andere keer naar buildings in cities werd verwezen. Dus je hebt volkomen gelijk, maar als ik een bestand school voor het schoolgebeuren laat bestaan en het gebouw bij de gebouwen onderbreng heb je het probleem niet meer dat iemand zoekt naar iets dat met leerlingen en lesgeven te maken heeft en dan bij gebouwen uitkomt. Vandaar dat ik nu probeer de splitsing te maken. Ik zal het eerst afmaken, dan is het beter zichtbaar wat de opzet is, hoop ik. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
De meeste scholen bestaan uit meer dan een gebouw. In eerste instantie komen de foto's van gebouwen eraan, maar dan kan er van alles bijkomen: feesten en events, parking, sportfaciliteiten, professors, oud-leerlingen, verwezenlijkingen, uitstapjes, bosklas, ... Niet altijd eenvoudig om een structuur uit te bouwen die die "groei" aankan. --Foroa (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Dat had ik me ook al gerealiseerd, dus de keuze was of de ene kant op of de andere. Ik zit er niet mee om alles terug te draaien, maar dan zou alles uit de Category:School buildings overgeheveld moeten worden om in het vervolg die splitsing te voorkomen. Ik zie ook nog Category:Education buildings. Ik wacht nu even --Stunteltje (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Algemeen kun je dan zeggen dat dit ook voor museums, bibliotheken, universiteiten, enz., zou kunnen gelden en volgens mij gaat dat net iets te ver. Maar om op scholen terug te komen, een categorie als Category:Amsterdams Lyceum kun je nu zowel onder Category:School buildings in Amsterdam als onder Category:Schools in Amsterdam sorteren. Dus linksom of rechtsom kom je dan toch altijd bij hetzelfde uit? Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Zou ik geen enkele moeite mee hebben, maar er zijn nu eenmaal heeeeel strakke informele regeltjes die ervoor zorgen dat je geen dubbele verwijzingen mag hebben. Ik zou zelf de school gebruiken voor de Amsterdamse school en dan zit je bij de schilders en/of architecten. Even praktisch: hoe gaan we verder. Wie hakt de knoop door? Ik doe er nu even niets aan, ben met de vloot van Commons bezig. --Stunteltje (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Het eenvoudigste lijkt mij de "school buildings" category eenvoudig weg te laten en schools zowel onder buildings als onder education te klasseren. Dat werkt trouwens ook voor museums, bibliotheken, universiteiten, enz., --Foroa (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Prima, dat lost het inderdaad op. Had ik eerder moeten zien. Maar ja, --Stunteltje (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
ok, bedankt. Ja, ik heb ook moeite met het Engelse begrip school. Misschien maakt Category:Schools by type het iets duidelijker. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ik heb er nu stevig de bijl in gezet en alleen de losse bestanden staan nog in Category:School buildings. Misschien kan dat met een bot overgezet worden naar Category:Schools. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Link categories[edit]

I am not familiar with the Swedish ships, whatever categories you think best please make. Motorships by name I thought useful to distinguish from steamships by name. Ships by name seems too large to be useful without greater specificity.Mtsmallwood (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the Village pump. I made a wider suggestion there, you are right. Without IMO number you don't find ships or have to specify with long descriptions. I picked one of your files to show what I mean. --Stunteltje (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/12[edit]

Somethink went wrong there. Could you fix that please? --32X (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix the problem. I nominated a file for deletion. Asked a question about the reason at the Village pump and received an answer that caused reverting the deletion. I deleted the file from the page. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


Category:Barges by ENI number[edit]

Hallo Stunteltje, what is a ENI number? --Botaurus (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

An ENI number is an unique number, given to European barges. Like the IMO number for sea-going ships. It doesn't change during the lifetime of the ship. Ships will get many names during their technical life, but only one IMO or ENI number. The advantage of categorising by IMO and ENI number is, that files from different periods gather on the same ship, independent of her name. See e.g. ss France and ss Norway. Category:IMO 5119143 --Stunteltje (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank for the information. --Botaurus (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice example of the use of the IMO number Category:IMO 7126322 1 ship, 11 names. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Shipinfo template[edit]

Hi Stunteltje. After your contribution of shipinfo to File:Slæber.jpg i started looking for a ship information template but couldn't find any. So i began making one and for now the result can be seen on User:Hebster/Shipinfo (usage). As i have a nasty habbit of getting carried away with things i have already ended up with a lot of parameters. I would like to hear your comment on the current number and choice of parameters. I think that a lot more could be included (i.e. proupulsion, cargo pump capacity for bulkers, icebreaking capacity, armament for warships etc.) but on the other hand it would make the template rather large, and i'm already in doubt weither passengernumbers, TEU's etc. is to much? Please comment on this :) Kind regards Hebster (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I waited for that one !!! I am not familiar with templates and wasn't able to create one. Great. A few remarks:
  • Please separate the technical ship information from the use information, as MMSI numbers and callsigns change with the owners. Crew numbers with the nationality. New flag = smaller new crew. Just the information that stays with the ship itself.
  • It doen't cost much time to find a lot of order-, keel laid- , launch- and completion dates, builder and yard numbers. Can these be added, as the main engines, number of screws and speed in knots?
  • I gather the information from various sources and they all differ in tons. Can you - as a naval officer - give a small explanation as you did on metres and feets. I am just a simple pleasure skipper of a barge of 83 tons Stella Maris and for me tons are tons. (I know better, but I am a bit lazy to find all the differences.)
  • It seems to me a very useful tool on the ship information part. For a lot of ships - not all, it takes to much time - I gathered the historical information too. Makes it possible to find ships by name. Problem is, that files only seldom have a good category by ship-name, so they cannot be added to Category:Ships by alphabet. Have a look at Category:IMO 7126322
  • I am looking for a possiblity to combine these two things: a page with ship-bound info and a separate page with historical info e.g. names and owners, so the combination can be found via Category:Ships by alphabet and via Category:Ships by IMO number. I am afraid that in due time a wiki-literalist skips all the information I gathered, because categories in Commons are not to intended to contain information. I categorised more than 500 ships under IMO and I am of the impression that the Commons fleet is about 2000 to 2500 ships. Still a lot of work to do. Best regards --Stunteltje (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stunteltje. I think the idea of separating the technical information (fixed or static) with the curent identification (dynamic) is great and will split the template to two. I'm not quite sure of the details yet, but will make something in the next couple of days or next weekend.
All sorts of information can be added to the template. I'll expand it with all characteristics in can come up with, and should it be to much i'll just remove some of it.
With all the different sort of tons there should be links on the template to explanations of the different types - most of them on this page. But in short: Gross Tonnage is the total volume of the ship, meassured on the outside of the hull framing and accommodation. Net Tonnage is only the volume that can hold cargo. The Gross Register Tonnage and Net Register Tonnage is basically the same, but with some exempts. These values are mainly used in places like the Suez and Panama Cannels, where they are the basis of the price the ship has to pay. They are much more complicated to calculate and there are strict rules for how these should be done. All four of these is typically represented in m3, but is occasionally as tonnes, with seawater as convertions-factors (depending on the time of year and area these changes - also the current template is faulty in this area; i will fix it :)). The final is the Death Weight Tonnage, which is the sum of the weights or masses of cargo, fuel, fresh water, ballast water, provisions, passengers and crew. It is used as a base for the Plimsoll line.
I can see no problems in having information about ships on category pages, but thinks that the best would be to raise this on the Commons:Village pump. Kind regards Hebster (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I will add the question to the village pump, but will wait to see the result of your fine template. You have to know that also User:Ingolfson is working on a template. It looks good, because it shows a nice header in the files itself. Please contact him as I am not familiar with templates, don'n know how to implement. A combination will make the result even better. We have to find a bot after categorisation of the bulk of the ships, to transfer the texts of categories in normal files. Ingolfson showed the result, but I can't find an example. To much files in de list. Over 700 ships have an IMO number now. Very greatfull for your help. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO numbers[edit]

Hi Stunteltje - I see still busy with sorting ships. Sysiphean task if I ever heard of one - keep it up!

Can I please ask you to have a look at what I did here: Category:IMO_9196357, especially where I placed the different categories (I removed all those from the individual pictures of course, after I had done it). I know that this level of detail is probably beyond you as you still likely have a big pile of pictures that don't even have any IMO categorisation, but still, it's the way it should be in the ideal case, I think. It will allow us to gather the different life stages / names / configurations / country regristrations of a ship neatly under the IMO category. Ingolfson (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks very fine. My intention was to find as fast as possible an IMO number for all sea going ships (and later on an ENI number for all European barges). Finding all those details it was a pity not to use them. So I added the information in a standard sequence to the IMO category. I assume the easyest way of working is to ask somebody to use a bot to remove all these teksts to a normal page under that category, as you did for this ship. It takes to much time to do that while gathering the information. My only problem with your work now is, that if someone finds the individual picture, she can't click on the IMO category to find all the details. Where can I find the coupling to the IMO category to click on? I'll give it a try in your pictures. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with the way you did it. People would expect the info there in the description. Ingolfson (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"I am not familiar with templates at all, the result of yours in the file itself looks good." - Uhm, there must be a mistake here. I have no idea which template you mean. I never created any templates, except one on Wikipedia itself - which had nothing to do with ships... Ingolfson (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I obviously misinterpreteted the work you did on ships. Creating a picture, showing the way to the IMO page on commons. How does it work? --Stunteltje (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Still confused - "creating a picture" (do you mean uploading it? "showing the way to the IMO page on commons"? Do you mean the internal link "For ship details and history see her category:IMO 9196357"??? But you added that yourself! - Why ask me how to do it? Puzzled here. Ingolfson (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was you who created a banner with a small scetch of a ship, clicking on it shows the details in a separate page, not in a category. Can't find it anymore. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Detective work[edit]

The ship shown here File:K Crane Visit ZPMC In Ports of Auckland II.jpg and here File:K Crane Visit ZPMC In Ports of Auckland III.jpg is the "Maersk [SOMETHING]", and the second part seems to end with an O and is 6-9 letters long, based from what I can see in the photos. Maybe that and the look of the ship will be enough for you to identify her? Ingolfson (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Will try to find her. Thanks for the information. The resolution of my screen wasn't fine enough to read te names. But have a look here: [2] It will be difficult. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It's the Maersk Radford, exemplified here. Sorry to jump in, but this caught my eye. Crossposted to Ingolfson. Huntster (t@c) 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It helps when other users find the names of ship by knowledge. At the end of the proces of adding IMO numbers to all sea-going ships of the Commons fleet I'll ask at the village pump to have a look at category:unidentified ships to find names of ships on pictures with a low resolution. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Female ship[edit]

Hi, at some point in time, I forgot that a ship in English used to be female (en:Grammatical gender#Gender in English), and I remember that I "corrected" on some place the "her" in "it". However, I don't remember where I did it. There was no intention to be pedantic. --Foroa (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Saw the change and wondered why. But as you have seen already, I don't revert much. Not native speaking English. No problem. If I pass the file, I will revert the change. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment requested[edit]

Hi! Don't know if you care about this, but maybe you can weigh in here with your opinion? Template_talk:By_country_category Ingolfson (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

question...[edit]

I have seen you doing a lot of work adding IMO numbers to vessels.

I am convinced this is valuable. And when I can see the IMO number in the image. I add tat to the images I upload now.

But how do you determine an IMO number, if it isn't in the image?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  • That is extra work, as normally IMO numbers aren't given with the files. I combine data from different sites to find the numbers and check the information found on other sites. Knowing a name by filename or by looking on the picture, firstly I go to http://www.vesseltracker.com. If the ship is found there, mostly the given picture there gives a solution. If not, I take the IMO number and check the picture of the ship at http://www.shipspotting.com. Around these two sites there are a lot of sites to find the ships. The best site if a ship isn't found is to go to http://e-ships.net/index/C12.shtml and continue from there. More details are found via vesseltracker (button more Information) at www.xvas.it. You can't go there directly. If the ship isn't found, Google helps via giving the shipsname and the abbrviation IMO. From there there are a lot more sites with valuable information. http://www.digital-seas, http://www.ferry-site.dk/, http://www.cruise-vessels.com and so on. The site with the best information I have found is http://www.miramarshipindex.org.nz Thanks for the help of adding IMO numbers to pictures of ships. For European barges the similar ENI numbers can be found at http://www.debinnenvaart.nl --Stunteltje (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll go through the various images of vessels I have uploaded, and see if I can find the IMO numbers for any that lack one. Is there a category for images of vessels that are missing an IMO number? Geo Swan (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
No special category. In most cases the ship is too small for an IMO number, or doesn't come in international waters. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Signet_Magic has an IMO number already. I found it here [3]. MMSI and callsign are of value, but there isn't a special Category:Ships by MMSI number or Category:Ships by callsign. Might be of value, but I didn't start them. I add these data to the files, if I find them. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Austal[edit]

Hey, no problem.  :) Altairisfartalk 22:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


Category:Ships by IMO number[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Ships by IMO number has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hi Stunteltje, I've requested deletion of the IMO number category system. As I've written on the resp. page, I think you're doing great work with the IMO numbers. I just don't think that categories are the best venue for it because it means creating two identical categories per ship (which only differ by name of the category). That's why I suggest to delete those extra categories and add the IMO information to the regular categories (i.e. to categories with ships' names). If someone really knows only IMO number of a vessel, the search function (or google) easily allow to find the category of the ship. And for all other purposes, it is common and easier to simply use the ship's name. Well... that's my view. I'd love to hear yours in the deletion discussion. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Vraag beantwoord[edit]

Hoi Stunteltje, stuitte bij toeval op een vraag van je en wist hem te beantwoorden: [4]. Groet, Tekstman (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Waarvoor mijn hartelijke dank. Kijken of ik de scheepsgegevens kan vinden en de beschrijving bijwerken. Met groet,

--Stunteltje (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

brig vs. brigantine[edit]

Hi Stunteltje, thanks for letting me know. As I wrote on the discussion for merging the categories, I don't think it's a good idea: A brig (brik) is different from a brigantine (brigantijn). We could have a super-ordinate Category:Two-masted square-riggers if you think it's useful (though I'm not sure if that's an official term, and at any rate the riggings of brig and brigantine are far better known); either way, I think the separated sub-categories are distinct, useful, and large enough to justify their existence. Regards, Ibn Battuta (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO categories[edit]

That reminded me: As discussed, I've now relisted the IMO discussion here. Let's see if someone there has an idea how to resolve it so that everyone's happy in the end! :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stunteltje, I've moved that discussion to a subpage: Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/04/Category:Ships by IMO number. Cheers, AFBorchert (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought that the discussion could be closed, seen the reactions already given in the deletion request. But no problem to discuss a good workable solution. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I had suggested to move such a discussion to COM:CFD and now, even if it comes quite late, exactly this has been done. I see the problem that we had an already quite lengthy discussion at the DR and I see like you no big point in repeating the very same discussion at COM:CFD. However, I respect these processes and after all it is very well possible that some of our specialists in categories get aware of this discussion since it is listed at CFD. The only thing I could do at this point was to close the DR and to leave a pointer to the CFD. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both of you that (due to my own mistake in listing this as a deletion request), we've had a lengthy discussion already, with a clear tendency not to change anything. My concern is, as AFBorchert mentioned, that some of the "usual suspects" for categorization did not see it and thus did not react. Besides, my impression was that some people (again, due to my own mistake) were still trying to avoid deleting content rather than comment on the actual proposal(s). Even now, however, I'm a bit surprised that some users seem to stick to their pre-conceived notions of what they think someone has suggested... but I guess I'm just bad at explaining. Anyways, this is why I've initiated a "second" discussion. Sorry about everyone's time!!!!! --Ibn Battuta (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with a lengthy discussion, as long as it leads to a good workable solution. Unfortunately we differ in opinion, as my solution is what I developed here. Working with with two categories, one by name and one by IMO or ENI number, is the simplest way. If an uploader forgets to look for the IMO number, we only have the situation as we had before introducing the IMO category. --Stunteltje (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we both agree that uploaders will never do what we would like them to do. You see the problem that they may create wrong categories. I instead am concerned that they wouldn't create links between name and IMO categories. If categories already existed, however, (as they would in case of a merger), they wouldn't even have to create categories--they'd simply have to navigate in an already existing system... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The IMO category is a simple and working tool to group pictures of the same ship under different names and to create categories by name - if necessary - if more than 1 picture was found, that's all. And that is what is recognised by a lot of users. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:SS Fryderyk Chopin[edit]

As I don't want to rush into another deletion request ;o) ... The Category:SS Fryderyk Chopin is empty; besides it refers to the same ship with the (all but over-flowing) Category:SS Kapitan K. Maciejewicz and Category:SS Wisconsin. Is there any reason not to delete it? And while we're at it: Any reason to keep both of the other categories? They contain a combined three pictures: Any reason to assume that this will change in the near future? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No reason. I assume that the picture there was deleted for copyright reasons or moved to Category:Fryderyk Chopin (ship) --Stunteltje (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:HMS Endurance (A171)[edit]

Hi, today you created the new category Category:HMS Endurance (A171) but it contains photos of two distinct icebreakers sharing the same name and pennant number. See: w:en:HMS Endurance (1967) and w:en:HMS Endurance (A171). Could you possibly separate them? Regards, Sv1xv (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Very good that you recognised the error. I found the IMO numbers and left only the last ship in the category by name. Do you have a suggestion for another category name for the older ship ? --Stunteltje (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:HMS Endurance (A171) (1967), as it is similar to its name in English WP. Sv1xv (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion to stay in line. I'll create the directory. --Stunteltje (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Category removal[edit]

Out of curiosity, why this edit? No big deal, just wondering, since the tugboat in the image is the American. And yes, Freedom Star is technically also a tug, but it seemed this was a situation where cat'ing in both the parent cat and sub-cat seemed appropriate. Huntster (t@c) 03:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You gave the correct reason why I did it. I don't have any problem reverting it, if appropiate. My experience is that many of the IMO numbers are deleted when the ship gets her own category by name. So I tried to stay in line with that policy, that's all. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll probably revert then, since I do think it adds to the proper categorisation of the image. Personally, I love the IMO categories, and strongly applaud your efforts in creating and expanding them. I wish more people could understand the value they present. And I will try to keep an eye on the Unidentified ships category and help out when possible. Huntster (t@c) 01:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ships and ferries[edit]

I didn't delete any category. I just put "Ferries in Chile" into "Ships of Chile". You can see it here. Jorge Barrios (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And that is exactly the problem. I think not in this particular case, as we are talking about relatively small vessels. Bigger ones are often registered in another country than they do the ferry service. E.g. the Condor 10 is registered in the Bahamas, for that reason a Passenger ship of the Bahamas. But she is also one of the Ferries in the United Kingdom and one of the Ferries in France. What I try to spread is that knowledge. When ships are categorised by IMO number, we group fast and simple more pictures of a ship in the IMO category. When I find two pictures I create a category by name, give it the category: Ships by that country or even the category of the yard where she was built, the company and so on. If no IMO number is available, this grouping function can be done by the category Ships by country. You are correct in adding the category Ferries in Chile, but I hope that you understand why I try to get each of these individuals ship in a category Ships of Chile or Passenger ships of Chile. It is easier for later use e.g. when more pictures of these ships are published in no ship-related categories. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I made a mistake. I didn't know the IMO number and all that stuff. Jorge Barrios (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
No mistake, just a lack of information. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Aegean Navigator.jpg[edit]

I want to thank you for all the information that you provided abou the Aegean Navigator! Great job! This kind of cooperation is very inspiring for a beginer like me. Greetings from VSolymossy. 10:04, 16 May 2009 (GMT -03:00)

You are welcome. I used the information of http://www.vesseltracker.com/en/Ships/Aegean-Navigator-9326809.html for this file. When i have more time, I use the information on http://www.miramarshipindex.org.nz/ship/show/415081 and check the ship/IMO number relation on http://www.shipspotting.com/search.php?query=9326809&action=results. Hope you will add IMO numbers yourself to pictures of sea-going ships. Greetings, --Stunteltje (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Matadi city port 1965.JPG[edit]

Hi! I tried to read the nome in the front of the ship (the lower right in the image), i see something like "Yang..." or "Yan...", but not clear. "Yangog"? The writing under the "Yan..." i couldn't read, is unclear. Maybe it begins with "Cant.." or "Can..". I think that would be easier to identify the ship by seeing a list of ships, list of cargo ships. What do you think of trying to contact the author in english wikipedia? Trying to contact the port would be fine?--Eduardoferreira (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume the auhtor of the article in the English wikipedia just used the picture. No problem, we will wait and see if more picures of Chinese ships will be seen on Commons. I doubt the year, as two funnels are on most ships of a later date. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar award[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For his excellent job in ship classification by IMO. Sv1xv (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ships[edit]

Thanks for adding descriptions to my photos. emijrp (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • You are welcome. If you follow my work you'll find more than 2000 IMO numbers and descriptions on seagoing ships. It helps enormously if people pay attention to the IMO system, publishing photos of ships. Specialists look for the IMO numbers, seldom for shipnames. In most cases they are painted on the ship. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

File:フェリー長崎(20080302).jpg[edit]

Hello,

I translated the description and added some categories. Her name (written on the hull) is "Ferry Nagasaki" (フェリー長崎) and it belongs to the "Kyushu Shosen" (or Kyusyu Shousen) (九州商船) company. I don't know how to find the IMO number. Do you think "category:unidentified ships" should remain until the IMO number is found ? Or should we insert this file into "category:unknown IMO number" ? Teofilo (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost always when a name is found, the IMO number can also be found, if she has one. The problem is: Not all sea going ships ships have IMO numbers. Most of the time I start with www.vesseltracker.com and check the results with a picture of the ship on www.shipspotting.com. Renamed ships can be found via http://e-ships.net/index/C12.shtml passing the inlog procedure. Besides, most IMO numbers can easily be found with Google, with the addition of IMO after the shipname. It am not sure if it is a good idea to use a special (temporary) category for the ships without an IMO number, as the majority of the ships hasn't. --Stunteltje (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for finding the IMO for this one. I had made a google search with the japanese name + IMO and had found nothing. In the future I will know that ships are registered with their English name. Teofilo (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Tasso Nummer[edit]

Goedendag Stunteltje! Du hast bei meinen Bildern die Kategorien ENI 02313289 und nachgetragen. Den Schiffsnamen verstehe ich, die Nummer kenne ich nicht. Wo finde ich die auf dem Schiff? kunt u mij uitleggen? --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Mein Deutsch ist leider nicht sehr gut, doch ich versuche es klar zo machen. Jeder Schiff dass sich professionell auf das Europeïsche innerwasser befindet soll heutzutage ein special nummer führen. Vergrosse File:SchleuseFlaesheim05.jpg und est ist zu lezen auf das eerste vertikaler Brett unter. Auch am File:SchleuseFlaesheim10.jpg, hinter die Flagge. Sehe Category:Barges by country fur mehr Auskunfte. Das wichtigste ist, dass dieses European Identification Number niemals ändert, auch nicht wenn das Schiff verkauft wirt und ein andere Name bekommt. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Alles klar. Ich werde beim nächsten Foto darauf achten die Nummer gut zu fotografieren. Danke! --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Naumon[edit]

File:BarcelonaHafenPano.jpg is probably of the same ship, but I wasn't sure. -- User:Docu at 15:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume she is. Have a look at the versions of painting on http://www.shipspotting.com/search.php?query=6506329&mid=7&action=showall&andor=AND and you will find no stripes on the bow in the red paint, but they are painted on the versions in green. --Stunteltje (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. The dates on most of these images suggest that she was repainted in August/Sept 2008. File:BarcelonaHafenPano.jpg is from Oct 2008. -- User:Docu at 16:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

E N I[edit]

Hi, I added 07001833 to Barges by E N I number, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the terminology. Shall we rename the category? -- User:Docu at 22:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may ask, what specific problem do you have with the terminology? I don't see anything wrong with your category, though I might suggest adding some specific detail to the category page, such as I've done at Category:IMO 7904889. Huntster (t @ c) 00:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
She doesn't match the definition given by en:Barge. -- User:Docu at 01:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
D'oh, I see now. Sorry. That whole category should be renamed to "Ships by ENI number" considering ENI is simply the European ID number, and not dedicated to barges afaik. Huntster (t @ c) 01:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Your ENI numbering is correct, as far as I can see. What is painted on the ship is the Europanumber, after the inspection by the authorities - has to be done from time to time - it will be changed to an ENI number, by putting just a "0" in front. I am against renaming the Category:Barges by ENI number to Category:Ships by ENI number. I see your point, but in that case is what you do in fact is renaming all barges to ships. I haven't heard of passenger barges, as far as I know it are passenger ships. The problem is that passenger ships on European inland waters have ENI numbers and sometimes even IMO numbers. Some ferries have. Category:Barges and passenger ships by ENI number is perhaps what you mean. --Stunteltje (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Except mixed in with those barges in the categories are passenger ships and tugboats, and perhaps other types. I'm not sure why there needs to be a dedicated ENI barge category, when the IMO cat is for all vessels carrying an IMO number. Huntster (t @ c) 05:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
You are right. But as I mentioned: renaming barges to ships will be not correct. Vessels is a possibility. The Category: Ships by IMO number is very simple, only ships get IMO numbers. Even a tugboat with an IMO number is big enough to call her a ship. Problem with Category:Barges by ENI number is, that ENI numbers are given to more kinds of vessels. By the way: I don't object renaming to Ships by ENI number, but I foresee a lot of discussion with people with strong ideas about ships. Give it a try on the discussion page. --Stunteltje (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
From [5], it seems that there are a some images (63 of 226) that are not in "Barges by country" or "Tugboats by country". Another solution might be to create another category (vessels by ENI number) for the few that are not barges. -- User:Docu at 06:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
You have to realise the intention of the creating of the category. Like the IMO category it was intended to group images. Giving an ENI or IMO number, you'll find all other images of the vessel and this makes it possible to create a category by name. Only few people - mostly specialists - are looking by IMO or ENI number, the general public looks for a name. Splitting the category by ENI number makes it less usable for the intended function. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, it is just a general category, and there's certainly no need to start sub-categorising based on location or type of vessel. So, Stunteltje's suggestion of "Vessels by ENI number" seems by far to be the best one. I'll leave a note on the talk page, and start the process in a few days unless there are objections. Huntster (t @ c) 17:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ferries[edit]

Category:Ships by country seems to be by country of registration. All subcategories use "of". Category:Ferries by country uses "in". Is this category meant to be by country of registration or by location of the ferry? -- User:Docu at 03:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't create the category, so I don't know the intention. But I use it as category for the location. Many ferries are registered elsewhere, so there can easily be a difference in country between the "Ship of" or "Passenger ship of" and the "Ferry in" for the same ship. Ferries are seen between two harbours, so a ferry in Finland can be a ship or passenger ship of Sweden. I have always a problem with choosing between ship or passenger ship. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
We could rename "Ferries by country" to, e.g., "Ferries by country of location" or add descriptions to all country categories (a template could be added by bot). This would clarify things. -- User:Docu at 06:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I assume that this good suggestion cannot be realised after this discussion. On the English Wikipedia there is a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships and here a category for Categories in discussion. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Why would the projects at en.wp have any bearing on what our category names are? As for this situation, I would suggest the names Category:Ferries by location or ("by country of use" or something similar) and Category:Ferries by country of registration. Huntster (t @ c) 22:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
No other reason than to avoid people - seeing themselves as "specialists" - reverting such a change. I'll copy this discussion to the discussion on Category:Ferries by country. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

Try http://translate.google.com frequently it works. -- User:Docu at 06:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way[edit]

I hope you don't mind my frequent intrusions on your talk page. These IMO and ENI categorisation efforts (and ship cat'ing in general) interest me greatly :) Huntster (t @ c) 23:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I think it is in the best intention to improve the usability of the database. Even when we disagree - can happen - your work is appreciated. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: ship[edit]

Re: User talk:Wiki ian#Ship

Hey stunteltje, thanks for the message rather than just undoing the edit. My thoughts are, all the pictures in that category but 1 have been taken in Hobart. As the ship spends up to six months a year in Hobart, I thought it would make it easier for people to find the ship in commons if it was diverted thru the Hobart, Tasmania Category. If you still feel it needs to be deleted, then so be it. But for anyone who lives in Hobart or southern Tasmania, they would agree the ship is a significant part of Hobart itself. I would at least suggest some way to link the 2. Cheers Wiki ian 01:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Another thought, isn't the ship's Home port Hobart? surely that in itself would warrant keeping the Hobart category? Wiki ian 01:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
To start with your last remark: For this ship OK, but I don't think this is a good idea for ships in general, as it adds no value to the bulk of the ships categories. For me it is not a problem when the category of the place or country of registration is added to the name-category, but I doubt if this is correct for the rest of the Commons distributors. You don't see much of the place on most pictures, contrary to the pictures of the ship in discussion. It is different for the IMO category. That category was created to group files, to make it possible to create name-categories. Only "specialists" know what they see when in a master category IMO (or ENI) numbers are shown. So, if you want to add ports or countries of registration to the name-categories of ships in general, please make a remark at the village pump, to find support. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Renamed ship/no number[edit]

Hi. If a ship changes names, but there is no number, how are the categories being done? I made the old name a subcategory of the new one. -- User:Docu at 15:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That might be a good workable solution. What do you think of 2 different name-categories with both the same parents and in both categories a remark that the same ship has/had that different name mentioning the period? --Stunteltje (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Theoretically, this would probably be the ideal solution, but related categories are harder to keep in sync and catscan would be harder to use to list all images of the ship at once. I already listed the parent categories in both. -- User:Docu at 18:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, no problem. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I added it to Category:Ships by alphabet. Please review/amend if needed. -- User:Docu at 03:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Good work. For me no need to amend. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wuzhen vs. Wuhan[edit]

Hi, Wuzhen is not Wuhan. Please be more careful with categorization. Thank you. Jakubhal (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought it was a kind of province, sorry. But why didn't you create the correct Category:Water transport in ... --Stunteltje (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
For Wuzhen? It's a historic town, today part of Tongxiang. If you want to categorize pictures per provinces then also category for Wuhan is wrong. It's a city. Please check articles: Wuhan, Wuzhen. Best Regards Jakubhal (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
As a said, I made a mistake. But obviously you know the right category for the Category:Water transport --Stunteltje (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Done, I hope I make you happy :) Jakubhal (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Tall Ships' Races[edit]

THX :-) Joymaster (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mayan Queen IV[edit]

Hi Stunteltje. The identification here seems correct [6]. As someone else remove it later, I wanted to get a second opinion before having the file renamed. BTW, in the meantime, we got an image of the real Eclipse. -- User:Docu at 06:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Have a look at:

http://www.vesseltracker.com/en/Gallery/Vessels/Mayan-Queen-Iv-1009479.html

and

http://www.vesseltracker.com/en/Ships/Eclipse-1003750.html?show=photos

The line of the ship looks like to me the Mayan Queen IV --Stunteltje (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also [7] at B+V. It could be a sister ship though. -- User:Docu at 14:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Superstructure(ships)[edit]

Any idea how to place Category:Superstructure(ships) with a proper name ? --Foroa (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


Some of categories "by alphabet"[edit]

Category discussion notification Some of categories "by alphabet" has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Bottomstiffener.png[edit]

Hi. I think, you removed category Ships part incorrectly. This image shows, of course drawing, but main subject is bottom stiffener, which is part of ship's construction, so it is part of ship, isn't it? Ciacho5 (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I just gathered all these kind of drawings together under Drawings. However: You might copy the drawing in the Schips part category again. But my suggestion is to make an extra category Category:Stiffeners in category:Ship parts. Advantage: Space for every stiffener and everybody can find illustrations for the terminology. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Category made, if You would see any stiffeners, add them. Ciacho5 (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiespedition[edit]

BTW, Polish Wikimedians are going to make Wikiexpedition 2010 durin the first week of July 2010. Wikiexpedition (Wikiekspedycja in polish) is kind of trip made for photographing subjects for Commons. There was one edition, 2009 and almost 3000 pictures of north-east Poland (Villages, culture and nature) were added (see Category:Wikiekspedycja 2009). Next year north Poland is target, with center in Gdańsk. I have plan to make plenty pictures in ports and shipyards (providing we obtain permission) and on board of ships.

We have plans to invite some people from another countries and Wikis, please consider and, if possible, spread this information. Here is main page of Wikiexpedition, but in Polish only.

Morever, if you have suggestions/request for pictures, let me know. List of planned subjects is made in Polish too:(. Ciacho5 (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to prepare my own ship nl:Stella_Maris_03011455 for Sail Amsterdam 2010 a few weeks later and so I don't have the opportunity to come to Poland. My only suggestion is to document the pictures as far as possible. Try to find the IMO numbers of ships, that way you can connect the pictures to a ship even if she changes name and/or nationality.--Stunteltje (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)