Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Ships by IMO number

I respect the work spent on this category, but all this category and its sub-categories do is create a parallel system to the existing categorization system for ships. On Commons (and the Wikipedias), there is exactly one category for each ship (even if a ship has been renamed throughout its history, we assign only one category). This means that every IMO category is totally identical with another existing or to-be-created category. Or in other words, in every IMO category there is exactly one sub-category: Namely that of the ship, which refers after all to the exact same content as the respective IMO category. It's like creating country categories and the categories for the telephone codes per country. By definition, they match precisely in pairs. [BTW, even in the cases where there is only one image (or sometimes 2 or 3) of one ship (yet), it only means that a name category for the ship is not yet created. And if someone says now: "Yeah, but we don't want categories with just 1 or 2 or 3 images, so maybe such a name category will never be created"... then I'll respond: "If we do want to avoid such near-empty categories, IMO categories are no better because they, too, contain only 1 or 2 or 3 images in these exact same cases."]

So what is then the benefit of this category? After all, it is simply a directory of one (unique) feature of all ships that exist or have existed. Could this information/service be provided without creating a parallel universe of categories? Yes, easily: We only have to add the information from the IMO categories--most importantly the IMO number--to the existing categories... and then everyone can easily browse for every possible number (on Commons or via search engines).

In short, then, the entire IMO category system is a system of (sorry) superfluous synonyms (!) of existing or to-be-created categories. Thus I move to delete this entire category system. Before deletion, the extra information that the creator of this category system has admirably added, can be added to the categories or (where it might be even more fitting) directly to Wikipedia. (And pragmatically speaking, foreign ship articles aren't usually created by people without any knowledge of English, so moving the information to the English Wikipedia will likely be good enough... but whatever, we can also leave it on Commons.) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS (Just to make sure it's crystal clear): I just want to emphasize that this deletion request does not request to delete information. I think that Stunteltje's work on the IMO numbers is admirable. I just don't think that categories are the best venue for this information 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.

This is why I request to delete this and all the sub-categories (i.e. single IMO number categories). And now let's see what others think... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: In my opinion the IMO-categories has a broader perspective than categories based on ship names. Though the IMO-system is much lesser known it does provide a more coherent categorizing of individual ships. So if anything is superfluous it would be the ship-names categories. That said i really don't see the problem with two parallel universes of categories. They both spawn from Category:Ships and basically just produces another entry-point to a vessel (much like Category:Ships by operator by the way). As none of the categories are abandoned i don't see a problem. They just produce another entry-point and i don't think that Commons is running out of category-space, so let's keep them. --Hebster (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information about Scheepsnaam may be found at [[:Category:IMO {{{1}}}|IMO {{{1}}}]]. A ship can change name and flag state through time, but the IMO number remains the same through the hull's entire lifetime. As a result, it can be useful to identify a ship by using the IMO number.

• My intention is to help users finding all pictures of barges and sea-going ships on Commons by gathering the available information in a single file. As barges and ships change names as clothes, the constant factor is the number of the hull together with the engine room. For barges was it the Europenumber, now ENI-number, and for ships the number of Lloyds Register, now IMO number. The wrong assumption is that these numbers easily can be found by Google. It takes me sometimes a week to find the right number and I have experience to look where they can be found. The easy way is to pay Lloyds to get access to their system, but it is expensive and not everybody has sufficient money to do so.

The reason for owners of sea-going ships to register the ship with a new name in a new company under a diffrent flag is the fact that during the lifetime of the ship the rules change per nation. The sea is safer now that it was before. But it is not always possible to keep up the standards of a certain nation and many times it is cheaper to change the registration to a registration at a less strict nation e.g. Liberia, Panama, Bermuda. (Advantage for the managing company is also that the number of qualified crew can be reduced.) Have a look at Category:IMO 7126322.

I started with the Category:IMO XXXXXXX and gathered there the individual existing categories by name of the ships or the loose pictures. No one had a better suggestion at the English WikiProject Ships. Doing so and giving IMO numbers of the individual file in the project of ploughing through all the files on Commons, it is unavoidable that the IMO category contains the Category by alphabet (with all the pictures made during the time she had that name) and some of the same pictures, loose now. It takes time and extra effort to delete these loose files. Besides: Not every ship has her own category by name (alphabet) also.

Doing that an extra advantage could be realised. Looking for the IMO number, a lot of information on the ship was also found. It was a pity to ignore that and I added the information to the IMO number category. Most compact Vesseltracker information or more extedted Miramar information. As a former professional standardiser I standardised in a single format, the technical information under Ship and the names and other relevant information under History. So an user who looks for pictures of an individual ship in Commons can also find an extract of the relevant information together with the picture. Not necessary to put all that information in the Description part of the picture, but if someone wants to do so, go ahead.

The question here is: is the Category system the best instrument? I am not so very experienced in Wikipedia, so I thought it was. I asked it in the WikiProject Ships and here in the village pump too and no clear alternative was given. Giving a ship her own category by IMO number, it works fast and easy to group the available information and files. For me it is no problem if the category-system is changed by another system, as long as it works fast and has the same advantages.

By the way, we have 1.364 IMO categories now and I have no intention whatsoever to export all information by hand into a new system. I'll wait with adding new categories until this question is solved and hope I have sufficient motivation left if the work is to be done on a more complicated way. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I'm still not clear. I do ****NOT**** want to delete information (nor do I want to make anything more difficult for you!). I do value your work and think it's awesome to have all the information on Commons!!!!!!! It's *only* about how to provide it. What I meant to say is merely: It's simple to google an IMO number because (i.e. after) *you* have already added it to Commons. It's just not necessary to name a category after the IMO number to make it accessible. You can just as well enter the IMO number into the category, and you'll have the exact same benefit: a number, which remains the same for the ship's "life", no matter how often it is renamed. - And BTW, nobody's suggested putting the information into an image description, I think we're all talking about categories. All I'm saying is that it's not reasonable to have two categories for the same content; and BTW, one of these categories happens to have the information, and the other doesn't. What's that good for?

And yes, you're obviously right that not every ship has its own category yet--but instead of creating more and more IMO categories, we could just as well create categories with the ship's name. So the question remains: not whether to create categories, but whether to create two identical categories.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn Battuta (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it is not strictly forbidden to make another category with (in most cases) just a single file in it, and I should be glad to create such a category in Category:Ships by alphabet in parallel. But on the other hand I have the impression that it is not appreciated to do so. Perhaps can this discussion also give an answer about the advisability to create these single file categories. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. My sense so far was that in generall these categories are heavily discouraged... and that nobody actually cares if you create them nontheless. Regarding the question discussed here, I think it doesn't matter much whether we will have a one-item IMO category or a one-item "pick your category name of choice" category. We cannot avoid one-item categories without deleting a lot of the information (IMO numbers and technical data), which you have entered. And as I said, that wouldn't be an option for me. BTW, right now, almost all the IMO categories should be one-item categories (only having one "name" category in there) or few-item categories (having name-subcategories and/or two few ship images to allow for a name category). At least the former could be avoided if we merged IMO and name category systems... although that improvement by itself wouldn't matter very much for me... :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: often having "technical" or "expert" named categories like this can be useful. I see no beneficial reason for deletion, however, maybe the main category could be refined into subcategories (is this possible while maintaining sense of the IMO system?). OSX (talk • contributions) 10:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Commons serves as server for encyclopedias. "Ships by IMO number" is the only category for ships that is precise and unambiguous, while avoiding confusion with other ships. All other category systems can be in error, with spelling or naming convention mistakes, other alphabets, other names/owners/operators/countries through their lifecycles, ... This is obviously the mothercategory of all ship categories. I doubt that one can recreate the information as for example in Category:IMO 9206712 or Category:IMO 5183364 without other complex structures or templates. --Foroa (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, to my knowledge and in my opinion, the subcategories of the mentioned ships are just a mess and not encouraged by Commons. There is nothing wrong with combining all these images into one category. But even if you don't want to do that: Just create one joint category, which should be used anyways because information like the shipyard actually remains the same. And you can't categorize different names for different countries because many ships are renamed more often or less often than they are sold internationally, and/or their names may changed briefly before or after transfer of ownership etc. etc. etc.--in short, it's a mess, and trying to solve it with subcategories is well-intended, but usually impossible. And a super-category is never a problem. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: As outlined by Stunteltje, IMO numbers follow an internationally accepted system that allows to identify individual ships even if they go through a long number of ownerships and different names. Considering this, it seems to be quite natural to name individual ship categories after their IMO number (as far as we have one) and to keep the associated top-level-category. Multiple hierachies of categories covering the same range of subjects are quite common here and present no additional problems as far as I can see. Many thanks to Stunteltje who worked so hard to set this up and we shouldn't make his work harder. It is of course possible to think about alternatives to categories like identifying templates (see {{PND-link}}, for example) but so far there is no consensus to move into this direction and such a new system should be in place along with bots supporting the move etc. before we get rid of the previous system. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: I'm happy with this category system. (David.lindeijer) 27 March 2009

Glad to hear that... but it wouldn't hurt to say why you think it's necessary? ^^ --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Some of these categories do have multiple subcategories -- when a ship is renamed and maybe transferred to a new country, we sometimes have a category for each name (quite reasonable if we have many photos of the ship under each name); these are both under a single IMO number category. Given the nature of commons, we are more likely to need multiple subcategories in that situation (as we get more and more images) than wikipedias are likely to need articles. This does provide a neutral way to group them. It does feel a little bit awkward, but I can't think of a much better way, and I'm generally in favor of more ways to navigate to categories. I certainly don't see any harm in keeping them; they aren't required but they could be really helpful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some ship categories do not have a common super-category yet. That's a problem, which can (and should) be easily resolved. It's not a reason to categorize a ship by an entirely different category name. As I wrote before: If Stunteltje had used the common category system, you would already have the common categories. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: This method of categorizing ships seems to make the most sense since the ship name may change but the IMO number always stays the same. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Useful for those who need it. We have for example dual schemes for scientific names for plants and popular/culinary names for the same thing, each serves its own purpose. No one is asking for you to maintain it, if it really bothers you just ignore it, there is no need to spite the work of those who are maintaining this scheme by asking for deletion.KTo288 (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out the identical categories you refer to? I don't know a single one. And please keep your ready assumptions to yourself - if you believe that requests for deletions mean to spite others' work, that's your own prejudice and no reason to judge me on. Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many species and animals have a category naming system for the popular naming and use, a second more specialised category system for the scientific ordering. Just think of dogs (and canis), flax, cannabis, cotton, hemp, melons, oranges, ... At some point, the two systems overlap or even conflict, but they are complementing each other, just as ships by name and by IMO are separate. --Foroa (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pork for example belongs to subcategories which follow both a scientific and culinary taxonomic branches. One could get to say the beef category by following the scientific branch, so one make the arguement that the parallel culinary branch is redundant, which I hope no one will. Categorisation wise having additional categories poses no problems to the server or software, the principle is that each file and category should have as few categories as possible but as many as is appropriate. The fundamental thing is that any categories used are accurate, if you were arguing that the IMO categories are inaccurate then I would be the first to endorse their deletion. If the arguement is that the categories are not that useful for the majority of users or that they are too technical, we have and live with not that useful or technical categories. Watercraft by colour for example which is perhaps useful for graphic artists, or gaff rigged vessels which is divided into gaff rigged cutters, ketches etc which is probably a level of technical detail which is unnecessary for most users. With your arguement that we would be having multiple categories for the same thing, it is normal that people and things will have multiple identities and qualities at the same time and that it is right and proper to recognise each of these identities and qualities, for ships type, class, flag, construction, ship yard, service etc, the IMO number is just another of these qualities.. Finally may I offer my apologies for not assuming good faith and assuming malice as a motivation on the barest of evidence. However I remain perplexed as to why you see the need to delete these categories. No one is asking you to help maintain them, no one is asking you to use them and if they bother you, can't you just ignore them?Categorisation by IMO numbers will be useful to someone maybe not to you, I haven't looked but I guess there are categories which are of no use to me but I don't ask for their deletion KTo288 (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[squeezing in...] I think this is exactly the misperception: No, ships do not have "multiple identities" in terms of a name and an IMO number. As I've written below in more detail (look for the list with the numbers 1-4.3), ship name categories should exactly refer to one vessel/hull. There may be subcategories for different names and different times (although I can promise you that many ships do not have these), but there is or at least should be exactly one category per vessel/hull. And that is precisely what the IMO category does. If they were only partly overlapping etc., I certainly hadn't started this discussion. Many category systems are parallel and end up at the same super-super-superordinate categories. No problem whatsoever. I'm only objecting because these category systems overlap 100.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 % (not rounded ^^). As I said, see below for a case-by-case list of how & why they overlap precisely. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC) PS: Thanks for the apologies, and don't worry about it. I'm sure I was also off, and I should just have made sure I phrased my initial request more clearly... and, as AFBorchert mentions below, I should have posted it at on entirely page. Warm regards, Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just that different ships have the same name, but the same ship may have different names. We have files of IMO 7018563 as both Pacific Princess' and as Pacific, all we now need is files of her as Sea Venture if there are enough files to warrant it. Thats three possible categories which would be logical sub cats of IMO 7018563, although it details such as builder would remain constant through out the sub categories, other details such as flag and operator have changed and will change.KTo288 (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Battuta, in my previous comments I made the statement that the IMO number could possibly be useful. I can now state that it is definately useful. For example IMO 7018563 was initially christened as Sea Venture and is currently called Pacific both logical candidates for the name of the parent category for this ship. However for most of her career she was known as Pacific Princess and is most famous under this name. She also has a fictional identity as the ship used in the television series "The Love Boat", because of the fame of the Pacific Princess name Princess cruises now operates a second ship by the name IMO 9187887 (which itself initially served under another name.) So by the logic of using either the most famous name or the current name we have two ships vying for the same main category title and until a couple of hours ago they were both were, meaning two files at least were mis-categorised. Although we cannot expect users to search by IMO numbers having the numbers helped in at least this case to correct the mistake.KTo288 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem (unfortunately) remains, no matter what we do--people will miscategorize ships with identical names, no matter how elaborate our categorization system will be. We can only try to minimize the number of miscategorizations by clarifying category names and/or trying to mention in the categories what is meant. And even then... just have a look at Category:Gorch Fock (ship) - I've intentionally not yet re-categorized the image in it, just to show that no hint or explanation seems enough, especially when many users will have no clue whatsoever which ship they've actually photographed. (BTW, if you have a better suggestion for this or other categories, I'm always happy to adopt the change!) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: Keep. The IMO system makes sense for the reason Captain-tucker states. Sv1xv (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(subheader added to make the discussion easier to edit)

 Comment category:Cats, category:Dogs, Category:Tulips, category:España, category:USA, etc. etc. etc.--all these categories could be used as well, but they aren't (click to find out!), in favor of different category names instead. In fact, there's also a template for merging categories with different names--because Commons so far does not have the policy to use two categories for identical content. With good reason: Why categorize every picture of a ship in two identical categories? To which category would you link on Wikipedia? etc. ... ... ... I don't see any reason so far why having two category names for the same category is helpful. Honestly, I'm more than willing to listen, but so far I only hear that the information is worthwhile. And I've never disputed that. Think of it like uploading the same image twice: We wouldn't keep both, even if the descriptions differ. Instead, we would add the description of one to the other.

I've heard one suggestion so far that addresses the problem of identical categories--namely to delete the non-IMO categories or to rename both. Hm, not bad. We probably all agree that the majority of Wikipedia and Commons users look for ships' names rather than IMO numbers (and unfortunately, ships' names are often harder to google because they can be names of different things as well; and IMO number is unique, as we all know)... but some may indeed find it convenient to use IMO numbers. Sooo... how about this suggestion: rename the categories into category:ship name (IMO number) or category:ship name, IMO number, so that everyone finds what they want? It'd be obviously easy to sort such categories for category:Ships by IMO number (just like sorting name categories by last name)... and there would/should always be exactly one category per hull. The two problems I foresee are: 1.) We have at this point far more IMO categories than ship name categories. Should all those IMO categories be renamed even if no ship name category exists so far? I think it would help, especially because most people won't use/know about IMO numbers, and besides it'd be consistent. 2.) Which name to use (in view of changing names)? I think that, like on the Wikipedias, it would make sense to use the most recent ship name unless the ship really became famous under a different name. I don't foresee too many discussions, at least about the other ship name categories there weren't. And in the case of doubt (or of changing ship names), it's easy enough to rename categories. - Okay, enough. Opinions? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC) PS: Just in case you wonder: Bots should be able to easily rename those categories, especially if two identical categories already exist.[reply]

• Do you mean what I started on a barge: Beveland_ENI_02323406? The main problem working this way is the fact that you can't ask a user who is not familiar with ships or barges to know of ENI or IMO numbers and you have to do a lot of work on each single file to come to this result. And after all that work it is really more a Wikipedia article than a Commons category. I can see what happens should I transfer this article to a not-Netherlands Wikipedia: "Never heard of the ship" with deletion request. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much so... except that I personally wouldn't start single pages for ships (or almost anything) because yes, they are pretty much like articles, and if they're in English, they could simply be articles in the English Wikipedia (where more people are looking for them anyways). But using the same idea for categories would for me resolve this issue. Regarding the "naive users", they won't start IMO categories either, so there's work to do no matter what (also see my answer below, to AFBorchert). --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Battuta, if I understand you correctly, you seem to assume that we have two identical category systems rendering one of them obsolete. As outlined by Stunteltje above, that does not seem to be the case because a ship that goes through multiple names and ownerships has a one-to-many relationship to the categories representing a time period with one name and usually just one owner but just a one-to-one relationship to the IMO number. You are further suggesting that in such cases we shall ignore the former relationship by merging the most common or recent name with the IMO number into the category name. I do not think that this proposal helps us as

• this would force us to join categories which were originally split
• to rename lots of existing categories, and
• enforce lots of renamings in the future as most people who do not know about the actual IMO number (or are perhaps not even aware of the IMO number system) are likely to name categories just after the current name.

This is in my opinion not feasible and given all its burdens would very likely be the end of an organisational system for ships that supports IMO numbers. In addition I would like to add that DRs are not the most suited method to open discussions about large scale reorganizations of category trees. Instead such discussions shall take place at COM:CFD. When a consensus is found there, a transition can be executed without issuing any DRs for individual categories. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AFBorchert, sorry, I didn't know about the categorization discussion site. I guess I should have imagined that it must exist, but yeah, I didn't.

As for the category system: We have virtually two identical category systems. The differences are:

1. Some ships have no IMO numbers. Not too many, but those will obviously not appear in the IMO system.

2. Some ships have no IMO category yet. Those will probably still be added at some point, but they don't exist yet.

3. Some ships have no name category. They obviously all have a name, so it's just a matter of creating said category... but we have far fewer name categories than IMO categories.

4. For ships with multiple names:

4.1 For some ships with multiple names, only one name category exists. For me that's perfectly sufficient unless a ship has tons of pictures. (I'll rather find two images of a ship in one category than one image each in two categories.) Anyways, such a category is again totally synonymous with the IMO category.

4.2 Some ships with multiple names have multiple name categories, but also one super-(ordinate )name category. Such a super-category is again totally synonymous with the IMO category.

4.3 Some ships have multiple name categories, but no super-category. I find such absence highly unhelpful and something I'd change wherever I see it. In other words, this is (for me) again a type of cases where the identical name category exists not yet, but should exist.

So overall, there is for me not a single case where IMO and name categories would differ... only cases where one or the other category is not yet created, and the few cases where no IMO numbers exist. In other words, those are two totally synonymous category system. Surprise? Hardly because it's after all about ships, and if there's a ship, there's a category, and if there's no ship, there's no category. Pretty straight forward.

A different question is that of feasibility:

• Right now: Most naive users create name categories; some have to be (or should be) changed, but most are fine or acceptable. (I should add that many users look at what's already out there. Given that the "visible" categories are the name categories, they obviously use the same system.) No naive users (to my knowledge) create IMO categories. So those categories have to be created by other people (currently: Stunteltje), and all pictures have to be added to those categories. In other words:
  • Every ship requires one additional category creation ("IMO")
• If we changed to "no IMO categories": No further category creation or edits at pictures (beyond what we're already doing anyways if users don't categorize images at all).
  • Every category would need one edit to enter the IMO and technical information (which is currently in the IMO categories). Maybe some users would add it to the category anyways... but more likely this would remain work for users like Stunteltje.
• If we changed to (some sort of) "name & IMO categories": Probably many users would keep creating name categories (although some may see the other categories and mimic them... but let's assume the worst-case scenario).
  • Every ship would require one category renaming (i.e. changing from "name" to "name IMO")
  • Images already uploaded at that time (usually not many) would require to be moved to the new category... unless we hire a bot to do that.

Overall, it seems to me that the work would hardly be different from today, no matter what. The only additional work in the case of "name IMO" categories would be moving the images, which, again, could be delegated to a bot.

The advantage, however, would be that first and foremost, information becomes accessible to regular users. We can make a poll, but I dare predict that virtually nobody tries to find IMO categories... which means that Stunteltje's enormous work is unfortunately hardly ever helpful/useful right now because virtually nobody finds it! That's a shame, and a waste of work and effort... and should be addressed. Second, we would only have to upkeep one categorization system. Third, I think that identical categorization systems are denying any demands for clarity, sparcity, ressources, etc. As I wrote before, other category names on Commons are intentionally not used to avoid two identical categories. So far, I don't see why ships should be treated any different.

In short, I think the current system is sub-optimal, and improving it would be possible and not cause much additional work in the long run. (And switching from the existing system to the new one could be heavily bot-supported, and I'd obviously also be willing to pitch in additional work, so let's disregard that for the time being.) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the basics. What is the purpose of the Commons system? For me it is a database of pictures to use for articles in Wikipedia and for pictures used in other projects, if the licence fits. So the main thing is: can the picture be found. Uploaders have to realise that uploading is useless for other users, unless they put the file in the right categories. Look at the number of uncategorised files to see that this is difficult for a lot of less experienced users. It's not so simple. What I did is adding fast tools to find ships. Two main categories: Ships by IMO number and Ships by alphabet. With an IMO number to group files of a ship that is known under different names and for specialists.

Being aware of the literalists who don't want to see categories with just a single file in it, I didn't create categories for ships by alphabet for ships with just a single picture, unless for a special reason. That is one of the reasons why the number of ships to be found by alphabet is less than the number of ships found by IMO number. A reason to give extra information on the ship by IMO number is adding value on categories with a single file. The other is that looking for an IMO number in most cases gives this information and it is a pity not to use it.

If a ship is found by somebody who is not familiar with the IMO or ENI system, the user will find that category under the pictures by alphabet or in another category and I assumed that most users want to know what's in it. There they'll find single pictures of that particular ship by that and other shipnames or one or more categories when the ship has more files under a certain name. Putting an IMO number on files in a later stadium creates the fact that files are found here loose and in their name-category. It is extra work to skip those loose files and I spent more time on adding IMO numbers to the Commons fleet than deleting files where the don't harm.

Using the category system the way I did, it is possible to find a certain ship and to create a category where it can be found easily. The extra work is to gather consised information on a ship, that's correct. Leave it to the user who thinks that it is nice work to do and thinks (hopes) that it is appreciated. In Commons, being a database, the result can be found by all writers of articles in Wikipedia's by language as a starting point for own research. The system @Ibn Battuta is after asks for a lot of extra work and for me it is less clear to users and I doubt if uploaders want to spend much time to work that way. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way. I don't oppose another way of working, as long as it takes no more effort to come to a good result and a simple user as I am can understand how it works. If all the work can be done by a bot, so be it. "Not invented here" is not an issue. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stunteltje, I think we agree totally on a few things, including: (1) We don't want to cause more work. Period. At least for me, there are two more important goals: (2) I want to create a minimum of work in the long run. Creating two parallel category systems, however, does create work in the long run. How long can you guarantee to take care of the IMO system all by yourself? 1 year? 10? 25? So if we can reduce the system with the same benefits to one sole IMO and/or name category per ship, we are already saving work. (3) I want users to get the maximum benefits. Right now, as we all agree, non-experts are unlikely to use the IMO category system. It is in these categories (and in them only!), however, that you are adding all the great information. So an ordinary user, who is looking for a name category, will not find the ship data. Again: If we can improve this situation, I am all for it.

So what speaks against the proposal I have made, i.e. using combined ship name/IMO categories? I haven't yet seen one (except that we will have to rename a lot of new categories - well, otherwise we have to create and link a lot of new categories, so I assume that shouldn't be a big issue. Besides, if most ship categories were already created, naive users wouldn't add many more--so we're really talking about very few cases here. And again, we should talk to a bot programmer, if even the renaming might be facilitated. [Just as an example: A bot could compare newly added name categories with ship names from the IMO categories. In many cases, there should be a rather small number of fits, which could be printed onto one website. So one of us only needs to look if the ship is indeed the same.] I do see only one big disadvantage: If all IMO categories were to be sorted into the existing (name) category system, the superordinate categories (e.g., "ship" :o)) would be overcrowded. Not sure if we want that... but I for one wouldn't mind as long as there's at least one image per category. ... though that is a point that we should discuss no matter what.

I should add that I somehow didn't understand what you meant by these two sentence: Putting an IMO number on files in a later stadium creates the fact that files are found here loose and in their name-category. It is extra work to skip those loose files and I spent more time on adding IMO numbers to the Commons fleet than deleting files where the don't harm. Sorry, could you explain? Do you mean "files" like "images" or categories... or what else? Sorry to be so slow... Warm regards, Ibn Battuta (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly in the IMO category a single image (file) is first. The IMO number groups the images (files) and the name category was created afterwards, when more files are found, and also put in the IMO category. --Stunteltje (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive use of IMO numbers is relatively new, that's why a lot of people are not familiar with it. However it is becoming compulsory in a number of activities and applications (like AIS), so more and more people will want to search with it in the future. Regarding "lots of work", if most of photographs in Commons are categorized, it would be relatively easy to add new ones to the proper category by IMO number. I have also added quite a few IMO numbers and IMO number categories to photos, so Stunteltje is not alone. Sv1xv (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already found out that the number of IMO categories was increasing without my presence. My person isn't important at all to maintain them, people like Sv1xv and others are helping already. Thanks !!! By adding information of the ship and history to the IMO category it is all the same for each ship by her name. @Ibn Battuta has a point, that I am not scheduled to maintain the information for more than 40 years. My impression is that somebody will, as it is useful. Main problem in my view in his proposal is the renaming. The suggested names are too complex for users not aware of IMO and ENI systems, the majority I assume.

But uploading by name: no problem. Extra value is creating an IMO category and linking the name and IMO categories, if not done it is a pity, not a problem. Expert and uploading by IMO number and by name categories: no problem at all. More extra value is adding information on the ship in her IMO category, if not done it is a pity, not a problem. Very flexible, no renaming needed.--Stunteltje (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your word that you're not the only IMO worker. Still it seems like a "waste of time" for me that you are working on one system while other people work on another system. If we used a shared system, we'd be clearly more efficient. ... Two more thoughts: I'm not sure I've understood your most recent response. I'm sure it was some thoughtful counter-criticism, but I'm not sure... And second, given that this discussion has changed to a renaming rather than deletion discussion, I'd suggest to continue this discussion somewhere where renaming or generally category trees/systems are discussed. Are you okay with that? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As Sv1xv's comment shows, it's probably a bit difficult for any newcomer to keep track. This is an attempt of a summary so far... please add what you find useful. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and my respons added. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

current situation:

• 1 category tree ("category system") of ships categorized by ship name; these categories are sorted into all the normal ship categories. Only a small (unknown) percentage of all ships can be found in Commons, as e.g. Miramar gives more thar 400.000 entries on shipnames. Less than 600 ships in Commons have a category by alphabet (name).
• 1 extra category ("category system") per IMO number of a ship, approx 1350. These categories contain preferably further technical information on the hull and machinery, all her names, history etc., to group the pictures and information per ship in Commons, concise information as starting point for Wikipedia's per language for each ship

Ibn Battuta's criticism of the current situation:

• 2 identical category trees/systems are additional work (as compared to one)
  • two identical categories per ship have to be created
  • if images are not directly sorted into the category, they later have to be moved twice - once for each category tree/system (e.g., at the moment: Category:IMO 8811986 contains both the identical category Category:Nadieżda (ship) and image:Rotation of S2010024.jpg, which (along with half a dozen other images) is also in Category:Nadieżda (ship) - so someone needs to take it out etc. Check a few categories to see that this is by not an exceptional case, but happens all the time. I've left it in there as an illustration for the time being.)
• most people will not find the IMO categories => so they don't have access to the additional information provided there

Stunteltjes respons:

• creating description pages per ship is seldom useful in Commons, unless things are to be extra described.
• the IMO categories were intended to group pictures of a ship. In many cases finding more pictures of a ship with the same name resulted in a category by alphabet afterwards. The IMO category contains subcategories of ships by alphabet (and the pictures of the ship in that subcategory can be easily withdrawn from the IMO category) together with (a) picture(s) of that ship under (a) different name(s).

Ibn Battuta's "solution" (= work in progress):

• rename all ship categories to "ship name, IMO number" (or similar), then categorize them into all the normal ship categories and have all the information available to all users

Stunteltje's criticism of Ibn Battuta's "solution":

• as it is done so far, users will find the IMO number in the categories and are by then aware of the IMO existence
• not all people know about IMO numbers and/or understand how to name them => users may create categories, which would have to be renamed
• E-facts (as a new shipname) are to be changed in or added to an number of categories by alphabet, not in single IMO category
• in case of a new name on a ship: the category by alphabet is not only to be renamed, but all gathered technical and historical information of a ship is to be added

Ibn Battuta's response to Stunteltje's criticism:

• It won't be much more work (if any) than the current work of linking name and IMO categories
• Besides, we have far more IMO than name categories, so chances are that not so many users ever have to create new categories... because the correct categories will often pre-exist.

Not deleted nor transferred to renaming, so awaiting further action I started adding IMO numbers with descriptions again. We have 1450 ships in the IMO category by now. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's safe to conclude on this. There is a was majority for 'keep'. If somebody should think that a exact vote should be cast, this of course can done, but i really don't see a need for this and think that the delete template should be removed in a very near future. --Hebster (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the proposed compromise does not bring improvement, simplification or less work, so I would suggest, as the majority I presume; keep. --Foroa (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then some Administrator should close the deletion request and archive the discussion. Sv1xv (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, I have relisted this topic in "categories for discussion" as that seems to be the more appropriate place by now, and Stunteltje agreed above. Please feel free to voice your same opinions there. As some of the original voices did not concern the latest suggestion (and to keep the discussion a tiny bit shorter), I will not copy people's opinions into the new discussion unless they ask me to. Regards, Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as the further discussion has been moved to Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/04/Category:Ships by IMO number by Ibn Battuta and Stunteltje. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]