Category talk:Captains' cabins on United States Navy ships

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

Surprising categorization

[edit]

Another contributor, who added this image to the highly questionable new category Category:Driving cabs of watercraft has re-added it, with zero meaningful attempt to explain themselves.

There is no such term as a "Driving cabs of watercraft". Even if there was such a term it would be wildly inappropriate to add Captain's cabins to it. The Captain's cabin is where the captain sleeps, and, if they have to meet with or entertain local officials, they may entertain them in their cabin. The only equipment in the cabin for "driving" their vessel might be an intercom, or reasonable equivalent, for calling them to the working part of the ship. Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this unexplained surprising categorization, and another surprising categorization that added this image to Category:Sea captain. A Captain's cabin is where a Sea Captain sleeps. A captain's cabin is not a Sea Captain. Geo Swan (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The categorization is utterly insufficient. Stop to disrupt categorization with your unconstructive and stubborn negation of all. I understand, "driving cabs" is not the best word, but always better than NONE categorization by the purpose of the room. Removing from the category Category:Sea captain is pure nonsense, a groundless destructiveness. --ŠJů (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:ŠJů, I am sorry, but I believe you are "in over your depth", and that you need to slow down, and make a greater effort to listen to other contributors, and a greater effort to explain yourself.
There is no way you should have reverted me, after I provided an explanation for reverting you, without providing a counter-explanation. Please never do this again.
You are not a native speaker of English. You learned English as a second language, and you are making your best efforts to communicate clearly in it. That's great! More power to you! Nevertheless, you should bear in mind that ESL people, like you, are at risk of writing something that means the complete opposite of what you really mean, when you use words like "insufficient". You have used this word several times in your comments and I have been very concerned you actually meant "sufficient". If you are asserting you are confident in your own categorization then the word you should have used is "sufficient" or "adequate", or even OK. I honestly can't tell whether you are defending your own categorization or challenging my categorization.
I think I have finally understood why you have tried to insist on substituting "driving cab" for long established and perfectly adequate English terms. If I understand you, you are asserting that those long established English terms are not adequate, and that this is an instance where the commons needs to pick a neologism. I agree, there are rare instances where we should use a neologism -- because of problems of ambiguity in the terms experts use. When two or more related fields each use a different term for the same item, an argument can be made to use a neologism. Similarly when experts use different terms in different regions or different languages, then an argument can be made that to use a nelogism.
But the step you should have followed after concluding a neologism was appropriate you go completely wrong. The next step you should have taken is to suggest a neologism was appropriate. If the community does not agree that a neologism is appropriate you have an obligation to keep using the same structure as everyone else. Alternately, your proposal may convince others that you found one of those rare instances where a neologism should be used instead of the standard term used by experts -- but other people may disagree with you as to what that neologism should be. If, for the sake of argument, you convinced others that a neologism was appropriate, they may have concluded it should have been Category:Driving consoles of watercraft or Category:Navigating consoles of watercraft.
I don't think you have made a good case that a neologism was appropriate -- but even if you could make this case, it was premature to start using your personal choice of neologism without getting input from other contributors first. Now that there is a discussion underway about your neologism I believe it is premature for you to apply it any image, until there is a discussion that endorses it. Geo Swan (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the basic principles of categorization is that combined category "A in B" or "A on B" must be categorized under A categorization tree as well as under "B" categorization tree. Do you understand this principle? Do you accept this principle? It is not "my categorization" but categorization of all wiki projects, regardless of language diversity or knowledge. When the category Category:Captain's cabins on United States Navy ships is/was not categorized under Category:Captain's cabins or even such parent category doesn't exist, that is objectively a fail, insufficient categorization. If the Category:Crew quarters on United States Navy ships is categorized under Category:Crew quarters but this parent category doesn't exist, thus it isn't engaged to the category tree, it is objectively a fail, independently of my knowledge of English. If two types of analogous device are not categorized under identical parent category, it's objectively insufficient categorization. I await you fix these defects instead barren talks.
The systematic discussion about categorization structure of control stands belongs to the appropriate special discussion page; it's not practical to open a parallel discussion here. Please, try to not introduce disorder to the discussion.
You need not to speculate what I want to solve. I described it many times at the discussion page. No need to foist on me some intents which I never declared. When you was repeatedly invited to propose better name for the category, it can be hardly interpreted that I insisted on the previous name. When I repeatedly ask for your opinion about classification of various types of control stands, that doesn't mean that I rejected the classification. I'm very pleased you come with any constructive proposal, though you was not able to place them into appropriate discussion where it was asked. However, i can move the proposal there and I have no problem to accept your proposal immediately. --ŠJů (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, that's a good idea, to have a general category for all ship captains. However, simple rename proposals should be given rather through {{Move}} template using the category talk page for discussion. However, when there exists a category of an item, all content related to the item belong to the category, it's also a standard categorization principle. --ŠJů (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Captains%27_cabins_on_United_States_Navy_ships&oldid=696059482"