Category talk:Diagrams of road signs of the United States

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

Minnesota State Highway shields[edit]

I would like to request that someone make a blank template, in SVG, based on the Minnesota State Highway shield that I can use to make individual route shields for use in the Wikipedia. Thanks. Station Attendant 18:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Subcategories[edit]

Moved from User talk:ŠJů#Category:Diagrams of road signs of the United States --ŠJů 21:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion was announced atd Commons:Categories for discussion#Category:Diagrams of road signs of the United States. --ŠJů 21:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add {{OverPopCat}} there again, since how it is arranged right now is the only plausible way to structure it. Thanks, (O - RLY?) 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't create a new category. Thanks, (O - RLY?) 18:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? --ŠJů 18:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The current category structure before you changed it without consensus was fine as it is. You will be upsetting people with your changes. (O - RLY?) 18:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, see the category structure of Category:Road signs and dont make a chaos. --ŠJů 18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not making one, you are by changing a long-standing structure. I will get another person to intervene, because you are doing something controversial that requires consensus. (O - RLY?) 18:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I applied the established structure of Road signs to category Diagrams of road signs of the United States. Some of its subcategories and its content dont satisfy to rules of categorization clearly. Why How I cann get a consensus, if you are erased all of my proposals? --ŠJů 18:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] You need to discuss this at the Village pump so that a consensus can be reached. Just doing something random to a large category structure isn't going to help, since there would be disagreement and others would be upset. Wiki isn't just about you. (O - RLY?) 19:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The established consensus is, that the category Category:Road signs is intended for all types and kinds of traffic signs (only for roads, not for railroads). The signs labelling the concrete routes or roads are inserted into the category Category:Route signs. The established consensus is, that the diagrams (drawings) of signs are inserted in the special subcategory of category containing fotos of signs.
It is apparent, that the category names as Guide Signs, Construction Signs, Warning Signs etc. are absolutely unsuitable as subcategories of Category:Diagrams of road signs of the United States. A renaming of they is necessary. The world is not only U. S. --ŠJů 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I can care less about anything other than the U.S. cats. The thing is, prior editors (SPUI, Scott5114, TwinsMetsFan, Master son, and others) have mainly been maintaining the U.S. categories without any controversy. How would they feel if one person took it upon himself to move 25+ categories into another without letting them know why? On another note, I don't see any consensus-building discussions for these moves at all. Could you point me to those discussions? (O - RLY?) 19:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Cann you express about these executed changes factual? Any well-founded objections? I havent remarked, that the named users expressed their opinions to them. I have said some my objections. --ŠJů 19:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get hasty about this. Something as simple as pointing me to an actual discussion about this really helps clarify why you did what you did. But to prevent making this discussion even more heated, let's sleep on what we have right now, think about other things, and then come back to this tomorrow. (O - RLY?) 19:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The category Traffic signs was 24/06/2005 redirected to category Road signs (see [1]). This redirect was created by Man vyi and consensual modified by Ranveig and Personalguy (and by me). In the course of 2 years no objections against this redirect was noted. This is any proof of consensus, isnt it? (I myself am not english native speaker and my english knowledge is low, I can not to lead such a diskussion and i can hardly to participate in it. I have only respected the established using.)
The question is, whether the categories concerning the U.S. signs have been to accommodated to a structure and terminology of categories concerning all others countries of the world and compatible with they. I was convinced that this is self-evident and that there are not objections against it. Is not efficient to open the discussion about every one obviosity. If you not understood meaning of changes that I attempted to make, I have not any more convictive instruments to make more clear it.
The needfullness, that the subcategories with route shields should not been blend together with other types of traffic signs, appears clear aswell. --ŠJů 20:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the flaws that you believe are present in the category structure. The only thing that could be changed IMO is to standardize the name of the state-level cats. Other than that, I see no pressing need to change anything. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Changes that I made was especially this: the separation of route signs to the category Diagrams of route signs of the United States (and its subcategory Diagrams of route signs of the United States by state. This way is necessary to accosiation U. S. route signs in the common uponcategory Category:Route signs with route signs of non-american countries. I ask you, do discuss by your objections und against my concrete objections. The unsubstantial supports or disfavour are good for nothing. --ŠJů 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
To me, I don't like it. Leave it the way it was so people don't get confused. The categories were fine just how they were. If we happen to change them, we might have to go to 4 different categories just to fine one thing. --Ltljltlj 17:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Have I good understood this objection? So were the ideal categorization of WikiCommons the one big category for all images and files, without any subcategory, without any structure? My opinion is, the many categories concerning the one type traffic signs should not been mixed with some few categories containing other types of traffic signs. In a sorted and interconnected content is anything searched more easily than in a goulash. --ŠJů 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
That may be true for other images and categories, but for traffic control devices it's not so much. U.S. Route shields and Speed Limit signs are considered in the same series—they're both traffic control devices, as proven in this Government-written Manual. (O - RLY?) 22:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I not proposed to remove of them out. I have proposed a reasonable structure of subcategories. There are many types and kinds of traffic signs. The signs with route number are by meaning only one of many meanings of traffic signs. --ŠJů 23:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I know, but I still fail to see a reason why you need subcategories. Like TMF and ltljltlj said, this may be a form of overcategorisation. (O - RLY?) 23:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
From how I see it, if we were going to rename all these categories, it will confuse alot of people when they keep seeing Diagrams of whatever signs of the United States up and down on the page. Now if we can somehow make it so if for example the page Category:Diagrams of speed limit signs of the United States shows up as just Speed Limit Signs on the main page, then maybe it will be alright. --Ltljltlj 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
If the cats were to be renamed, then we put the whole list of subcategories at the top of the page, like a list article on Wikipedia. That should save us from looking down at the category tree. (O - RLY?) 00:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
@O: Sorry, but the text overcategorisation is not about the problems that we are to solve here. On the contrary, the reasonable structure of subcategories and reasonable allocation of them is a efficient way to prevent a overcategorization. When the whole categories are allocated in reasonable upon-categories, then it is enough to allocate every image in one particular subcategory only. So such a subcategory can be found either by a country or by a meaning of sign (or by a design or other criterions). --ŠJů 16:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
However, I still don't see a need for category allocation. As ltljltlj siad before, we might have to go to 4 different categories just to find one thing. That is overcategorisation, and it must not go that way. Let's see what ltljltlj and TMF think, because a consensus is needed for any change, and apparently, they don't see a need for it and/or don't like it, as with me. (O - RLY?) 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
@O: This way we cannot make understood really. Hence I am acknowledging that it is not possible make a structure of this category compatible and interconnected with category structure that covers signs in other countries. Next my participation in this discussion were waste of time only. I have no choice but to resign. But a problem is not solved this way. (The overcategorization is defined as a direct insertion of one image in two vertically related categories, not as a detailed sorting by likeness and by differences of items.) --ŠJů 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I donot understand what modifications you want to make for this category, I saw no problems with it the way it was, and it should stay that way. -- JA10 T · C 18:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
What he wanted to do was to rename some of the cats from Category:Regulatory Signs, Category:Speed Limit Signs, and so on, to Category:Diagrams of regulatory signs of the United States and Category:Diagrams of speed limit signs of the United States and so on. So far, all of us but ŠJů think that it would not look right and just confuse people coming here to find one thing. --Ltljltlj 14:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Those names are too long and have too many "of". Like Ltljltlj said, this would confuse peopl. The names that these cats currently have don't have a problem and they shouldn'y be moved at all. -- JA10 T · C 19:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Other Interstate Shields[edit]

Would anyone have any objections if I made different kinds of Interstate shields? We all know that some states have different looks for their shields such as; shields with 10" numbers and some with 12" numbers, shields with Type D lettering and some with Type C lettering and so on. I am in the process of making ALL these shields. If you think we should have them, let me know, and if not, let me know anyway. Lets vote on it. --Ltljltlj 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to making these state-specific shields. However, we should never have votes when deciding things, as Wikimedia is a consensus-based community. When making the state-specific shields, be sure to find the various state MUTCDs or sign drawings to base them off of. (O - RLY?) 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have found some, but others, I'm just going by how the shields look from pictures. I'm even making the 3-digit shields that would go on a 24x24 shield with type-B lettering. Even the 2-digit shield on big green signs in Texas that uses the 30x24 shields. If anyone has any others, let me know. --Ltljltlj 23:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)