- 1 А и Б
- 2 Files in Category:Grey and red rolling stock
- 3 Tram transport in the United States
- 4 File:Plaza Italia Homenaje Tranvia Buenos Aires.jpg
- 5 File:Station_avec_plaque_tournante_(par_Ch._Chusseau-Flaviens).jpg
- 6 Campos das Cebolas
- 7 Notification about possible deletion
А и Б
I was in a mood for mischief (happy Halloween!), and decided to break the beauty of Category:Tram routes by number with some letters. So here you are: Category:Tram route А in Moscow (note Cyrillic А). I also created Category:Trolleybus route Б in Moscow, but trolleybuses are pretty non-existent in Commons category tree... Also: how about using ">" instead of "Ⅽ" for numbers > 99? It should follow the numbers directly, before any letters. YLSS (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Letters are very welcome, of course, even after Halloween has passed. Typographically identical cyrillic letters will trigger accusations of phishing from some quarters; will be wicked to witness. Using "Ⅽ" (not "C", mind it!) was my own attempt at mischief, I dont mind it changed. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Grey and red rolling stock
Tram transport in the United States
Hi Tuvalkin. I have reverted your change at this category, as this is a clear example of overcategorisation. Category:Tram transport in the United States is already a subcategory of Category:Rail transport in the United States, which is itself a subcategory of Category:Public transport in the United States. The guidelines on categorisation are quite clear: if it is already a subcategory of a subcategory, it should not also be a subcategory of the main category. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes it is technically COM:OVERCAT, but the problem lays at Category:Rail transport in the United States being categorized as Category:Public transport in the United States, something I could have not guessed. Surely freight trains are not public transport in any usual and useful meaning of that phrase, are they? What needs to be done is not remove "publicness" from trams but from rail in general. (Are there freight trams? Yes they are, but very few, and in the US none extant — they would account for, say, 0.01% of our media on the wider subject, while freight on rail in the US notoriously surpasses the passenger kind.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- The way to deal with that problem then (and I tend to agree with you that Category:Rail transport should not be a subcategory of Category:Public transport) is to raise the matter at Categories for discussion for the global categorisation, and not to treat the United States in isolation. There are wider implications of course, as some elements of Category:Rail transport are proper to Category:Public transport, and it may well be necessary to create a new Category:Passenger rail transport, which would be a subcategory of both Category:Rail transport and Category:Public transport.
- Category:Tram transport would then sit quite comfortably in Category:Passenger rail transport as a subcategory of both Category:Public transport and Category:Rail transport. This would mirror the situation at Category:Bus transport, which is a subcategory of both Category:Public transport and Category:Road transport.
- As you say, there have been freight trams in the past (I can think of very few, or any, that still exist outside museums). Perhaps this should also be addressed, though things will start getting somewhat complicated by then! There is also the problem of getting any sort of consensus at Categories for discussion. Such discussions always seem to peter out into nothing on Commons, and drift unresolved for years, unlike categorisation discussions on English Wikipedia, where firm decisions are reached and the discussions closed by an administrator. The system at Commons, frankly, is not fit for purpose. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi again Tuvalkin. My reasoning at the above was that the category for the monument belongs properly to Category:Tram transport in Palermo, Buenos Aires, but the image of the tram on the tiles belongs to Category:Trams in Palermo, Buenos Aires, given that one is a category for a monument and the other is an image of a tram. However, I can't say I'm too bothered either way. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see your point. Either way, subject categorization should be concentrated in Category:Azulejo de homenaje a la Tranvía de Buenos Aires, leaving only a few specific categories to be added to each photo of this tile panel, such as taken-date etc. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Just wondering why you reverted my edit? The name of the station is clearly written on the negative and it is identified as such by the George Eastman foundation which owns the slide. That it looks different from the actual station may be explained by the fact that it was rebuilt in 1926. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit because you’re wrong. If you really do not trust the Portuguese railroad specialists who are trying to figure out all the details of this historical misidentification, I can give you a few tips: First out, the skyline was not affected by the 1926 rebuilding of the station — the photo shows a hilly horizon where only sea-level water exists if this were Cais do Sodré (either the Tagus Estuary if this wes seen from west or the Atlantic if from east). Then there are the details of the building, not matching what we know about the pre-1926 station (example), compounded by elements visible on the picture (i.a., platform ramps, turntable, and clock) which are deemed unlikely for this time and place. As said in the talk page, this looks like Valencia de Alcántara, in Spain, a likely stopping point for Ch. Chusseau-Flaviens on his way to Lisbon, and where both the station building and the skyline match this photo till today. Why did you bother to come to my talk page to question my reversal instead of checking the file’s talk page and history first is something I cannot comprehend. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Campos das Cebolas
Francamente, essa categorização Category:Objects resembling onions é completamente absurda. A praça assemelha-se a uma cebola? E porque é que pelo simples facto de ter "cebola" no nome deve ser categorizada? Por esse andar tínhamos todas as ruas e praças em categorias do tipo "Liberdade", "Comércio", "Cais", "Almirante", "Ribeira", "Bacalhau", etc., só para ficar nas mais próximas.
- Olá, e desde já parabéns pelo bom trabalho. Como não concordamos a 99% sobre o que é bom, porém, passemos à refrega:
- Respondendo de trás para diante, tenho a dizer sim — se a categoria Category:Rua Presidente Arriaga está categorizada sob Category:Manuel de Arriaga, e se a categoria Category:Calçada de Santo André está categorizada sob Category:Saint Andrew (e sob Category:Places named after saints, com possível futura fusão para Category:Places named after Saint Andrew), então a Category:Rua de Qualquer Coisa deverá estar categorizada sob Category:Qualquer Coisa.
- O interesse deste tipo de enlaces é mais óbvio quando se trata de personalidades, mas o facto de existirem arruamentos que homenageiam a Espanha, a liberdade, ou mesmo a saudade, é digno de nota. O mesmo para ruas nomeadas com base em profissões ou atividades que em tempos nelas se fixaram, como os referidos bacalhoeiros.
- Quanto às cebolas e ao campo das ditas, naturalmente a categorização ideal será Category:Onion markets, mas ainda não temos. Vou tentar melhorar o meu desempenho neste caso, sem abandonar o conceito.
- -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Muito francamente, continuo a achar um preciosismo desnecessário, mas como está agora já não me incomoda. Não tenho a certeza que "o interesse deste tipo de enlaces é mais óbvio", mas se o compreendo com alguma facilidade nos exemplos que enumera, já querer categorizar cebolas ou laranjas ou prata, ouro, etc..... --Stegop (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Ruas em categorias de edifícos???
Qual é o sentido disso? Por essa lógica haverá montes de igrejas que em vez de estarem nas categorias das ruas ou freguesias vai ser o contrário. O Museu Militar deu nome a dois arruamentos, mas colocar estes como sub-cats é um completo absurdo. --Stegop (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- P.f. ver acima. Category:Museu Militar de Lisboa deverá ficar sob Category:Largo do Museu da Artilharia, por ser o arruamento onde se situa (e pela mesma razão também Category:Rua Teixeira Lopes, Category:Rua dos Caminhos de Ferro, e Category:Calçada do Forte) Mas Category:Museu Militar de Lisboa deverá também ficar como categoria-mãe de Category:Largo do Museu da Artilharia por ser o “tema” do nome da rua. É um caso de anastomose da árvore de categorias? É sim, mas um caso justificado — se aborrece muito, dá-se-lhe um jeito. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- (E pare de fazer edit warring e de me insultar. Também há regras para isso.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Qual insulto e edit-war? Achar um absurdo esse preciosismo de querer que as categorias denotem a origem dos topónimos? Se isso é insulto, então com certeza que estou a cometer um delito de opinião. E quanto a edit-war, é natural que ao me dedicar às fotos de Lisboa tenha que "tropeçar" no trabalho dos outros (poucos) que têm feito o mesmo. --Stegop (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
|Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue.