Category talk:Ships by IMO number

This category was created in order to group all files of sea-going ships. An IMO number doesn't change in the lifetime of a ship as name, owner, call sighn etc. do. So it is possible that you find ships with different names here, as the IMO number is the same, it is the same ship. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

templates

I think using templates would be useful to standardize and internationalize infos. However I have no knowledge about ship. I could copy Wikipedia but internationalizing would certainly not be easy. So I have created templates using info that were used in categories: {{Ship}}, plus two auxiliary templates to make translations easier: {{ShipEvent}} and {{Ship type}}. See three testcases. Is someone more knowledgeable than me willing to develop those templates ?--Zolo (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any knowledge of templates. But it looks to me nice and easy to use them. I have a few suggestions. My problem is always the tonnage. We have different ones: BRT, GRT, NET and so on. I think every possiblity must be given, as you never know what you will find looking for data of a ship. We use the International System of Units, so perhaps automatic calculation can be done if necessary. History must be free to edit, I think, as it gives every possibility to make any remark. And perhaps a remark-possibility is of value. It was not the intention of the category to give all information on a ship, as we have the Wikipedi's by language for that. But the basic facts can be gathered here to support making fast and easy new subjects bij name of a ship for those Wikipedia's. --Stunteltje (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

I will add other tonnages, could you provide an exhaustive list ?

By "remark-possibility" you mean some comments about the ship ? Would the description parameter added in Category:IMO 5014123 sound okay ?

The history parameter is free to edit: I have added an optional {{ShipEvent}} to use inside for better internationalization. I am not yet satified with it and try to make it better but it is likely that it wont be able to handle all cases.

About the unit, Wikipedia uses a "convert template" that provides automatic translation. It is rather complex, and for various reasons I think it would be hard to maintain on Commons if the users had no choice about the input unit (I just need to be sure about which one to use). On the other hand the output unit is easier to customize (English users already see the length in both meters and yards in Category:IMO 0100052). --Zolo (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not a specialist in these tonnages, unfortunately. My inland waterway vessel can load 83 tons, I don't know how to convert this to tons for sea-going vessels. For the conversion of units i cite the English wiki for SI-units: The system has been nearly globally adopted. Three principal exceptions are the United States, Liberia and Myanmar (Burma). So for world-wide use we have to stick to SI-units. In scientific US no problem at all, is my experience. --Stunteltje (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just seen the Wikipedia tonnage article. I suppose I can use all measurements that are given there. From what I understand no unit is given for gross tonnage etc (it is always 2.83m3). For displacement or deadweight tonnage I suppose we can use SI tonnes.--Zolo (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Should I use the SI km/h, even if knots seem to be much more widely used ?--Zolo (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Speed in knots, as it is easier calculating in m/sec. In shipping and air traffic knots are the standard. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Mostly finished now (I still have to enhance layout). Translations can be added at {{Ship/i18n}}, {{ShipEvent/i18n}} and {{Ship type}}. What are "NET" and "GRT" in IMO 0100228 ? Are they the same as Net tonnage and BRT ? --Zolo (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Exact my problem. I don't know the differences in international measured tons. (Go out for painting my barge. Very nice weather here. Back tonight.) --Stunteltje (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Ah apparently BRT is the same as GRT. Still another question ? What exactly is the yard number, and can we find a list on the internet ? --Zolo (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There are 5 or 6 that use Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Heb/Shipinfo. --  Docu  at 05:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have merged the two templates. {{Ship}} is becoming rather expensive, but since it is in categories where there is not much other content, it should still be acceptable. I have also tried to keep the template easy to use (no template to used inside except for the optional use of {{ShipEvent}} in the history parameter).--Zolo (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Would you consider limiting {{Ship}} to category namespace (or at least exclude file namespace)?

BTW, as this is Commons, I don't think {{Ship}} needs an image. We got the category for this. --  Docu  at 10:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added "namespace=Category" in the documentation. If you think the template should be disabled alotogether in the file namespace, feel free to do it in the template. I dont know about the photo. by IMO number categories often do not have any photograph directly (we have to look in the subcats). So I think the image gives a good idea of the boat.--Zolo (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

IMO only

Ships by IMO number only has been updated. It now includes all 1509 categories of 7430 Ships by IMO number which don't have a subcategory in Category:Ships by name.

New ones should appear on New ships. --  Docu  at 17:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Templates again

As for the template talk above, is it really necessary to maintain these large datasets here on category pages instead of just linking to correspoding Wikipedia articles? 90.190.114.172 18:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --  Docu  at 18:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Most would probably not considered eligible for a Wikipedia article.--Zolo (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Conflicts between contents of a Ship's name cat and an IMO cat

We need consistency regarding which categories should go in the IMO category and the ship name category.

I came across a ship's main cat where a bot had deleted, a cat telling me the ship had been built in Germany. It took a while for me to realize, that information was already attached elsewhere as a cat to the IMO number cat.

Not every IMO number cat has been catted to the shipyard name. Not every ship's cat has has its IMO number added to it. If a shipyard name is missing on the main cat, you are obliged to look elsewhere (within the IMO cat or even Wikidata) to ascertain if it has been assigned or not.

@Ghouston: @Huntster: I'm thinking that the IMO cat should be connected to the ship cat by just a link and contain no other cats as such. The shipyard cat should only be in the Ship cat. The ship cat should hold all the defining cats of the boat, either that, they should all be in the IMO cat if that's preferred. My point is that defining characteristics should be in one place only. Certainly if a boat has had more than one name, putting everything in the IMO cat would solve that. In the case of the latter, that would leave a ship cat containing just files and images and containing only one cat, the IMO cat.

A ship should have only one named cat, the chosen name being the dominant name of the vessels history. That cat is where we should have all the defining cats and images. The IMO cat just holding a data table.

In summary we need to resolve potential conflicts between the Ship cat, the IMO cat and Wikidata. Broichmore (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• There are definitely times when a ship has been so reconfigured that I would not support "A ship should have only one named cat, the chosen name being the dominant name of the vessels history." Sometimes, the same hull has really been two essentially different ships. This happened especially as the age of sail came to an end. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• There would be no point in IMO cats if they were just subcats "to hold a data value". You could just as well put the data value on the ship's main category. However, the system that's in use now is that the IMO cat, where it exists, is the top category for a ship, and there are also categories for each name which are subcats. The place of construction is the same for all the categories, so by category logic it must go on the IMO cat to avoid overcat. What you are really asking for is to abandon the IMO cats, but I don't think that such a proposal would get consensus support (I could be wrong). --ghouston (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You have to realise that a ship can have many names. The coupling to the yard is done via the IMO number, otherwise the yard and year of built categories have many duplications of the same ship. In that case it is not logical to couple the yard to the shipname. You'll find in a shipname category a template that states that the ship information can be found in de IMO-category. In the past there was not enough information on shipyards as it is in these days. So if a new ship gets her name category in Commons, in many cases seagoing vessels can be coupled to an IMO-number and European inland vessels to an ENI-number. When a shipyard can be found (I spend very much time in this activity) the IMO and ENI categories can be coupled to the shipyard. When there is an opportunity to do this for existing shipname-categories I delete the categories built in a certain country and year and add these to the IMO and ENI categories. More users familiar with ship- and vessel categories follow this way of working. In due course you'll not find double notifications with a number as well as a name in the same shipyard- and year of built-categories.--Stunteltje (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting comments, but they dont all address the simplicity required by a human being for making use of our work. The IMO number should, ideally, only be in wikidata, and be seen in commons as a part of the infobox. This means all modern ships, defined as those with an IMO number, would require to also have a wikidata number and a commons infobox. Fair enough. There are also other numbering systems out there...

Life here is already difficult enough with OTT sub catting. The ideal is to see all the relevant information / data on one screen, without the need for drilling up and down and or printing screens to make comparisons. Ships are simple enough in the main to allow this.

@Jmabel: For a ship where a keel or hull has been reused, there's no problem in having two cats (linked); that makes some sense.

@Stunteltje: Yes, name changing has always been a problem, and worse than ever in the modern age. All the more reason to use wikidata for that, and on the rare occasion (where appropriate) redirects.

We seem to be obssessed here with trying to duplicate and or compete with wikidata and wikipedia. We should use them to our advantage as partners. This is a data tank, the design constraints have limits. We are not a database. I'm stunned by the fact that commons has so few links to it, in wikipedia, something we need to address.

Where is the flexibility we need. back in the day the system in commons was designed by barge people to suit barges and tankers, and ever since then we've been trying to pour yachts, boats, and all sorts of ad-hoc vessels into it. The arguement against using ship names, because name changes happen is weak. Wikipedia has the same problem, that's why they use the perceived (popular) most notable name; and that's usually only one. Again let wikidata do the work.

Finally I might add that complicated systems (and the need for multiple screens in our case) are problematic, because of the maintenance overhead they entail. Also users come here as a second step after wikipedia; like that or not. Broichmore (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If we are talking about what is easy for people to use: how many people are ever going to find a category for a ship that isn't under the name that they have for it? - Jmabel ! talk 16:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Possibly three ways. First (it doesn't work yet IMO, but it will) it's logged as a name variation in wikidata. It could be logged via the cat Ships named Foo, the alternative name can also be listed in the header of the main cat page or failing that as a redirect. Often its already there in the name of an image, which helps if its filed correctly.

When Joe public is looking for a ship, the very last way on earth that he does it, is by IMO number. They will resort to Wikipedia or any one of a thousand websites before they even find the IMO number. We dont find it all that difficult, why should they. If we want to make it difficult we should use the IMO as the focal and start point. In any event the IMO number is hardly visible on many ships as a take away at time of seeing.

Or another way if it's not broke... Broichmore (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)