User talk:Stunteltje/archive 2012

Tall ships vs Sailing ships

Hallo Stunteltje, danke erstmal für die bessere Benennung der Kategorien im Schiffsbereich. Wegen Deiner Revision bei Tall ships zu Sailing ships hier zu Deiner Information dieser Link: Tall ship = Großsegler (LEO), oder dieser en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_ships. Dat de Tall Ship van de opvoeding van jonge mensen is alleen beschikbaar in de nl.Wikipedia mfG --Botaurus (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Danke. Ich versuche ein klares unterschied zu machen, via die Geschichte des terms "Tall ship", daß ist alles. Ich denke die Holländische version der Wikipedia und die Englische "Tall ships'races" geben die correct interpretation der Geschichte.

• Tall ships. The phrase "tall ship" was adopted to describe the participating sailing vessels. It comes from Poet Laureate John Masefield poem Sea Fever;

I must go down to the sea again, to the lonely sea and the sky,

All I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by.

• Participating vessels are manned by a largely cadet or trainee crew who are partaking in sail training, 50 percent of which must be aged between 15–25 years of age and who do not need any previous experience. Thus, tall ship does not describe a specific type of sailing vessel, but rather a monohull sailing vessel of at least 9.4 metres (30 ft) that is conducting sail training and education under sail voyages. Participating ships range from yachts to the large square-rigged sail training ships run by charities, schools and navies of many countries.

Daneben ist er so, daß Category:Tall ships ist ein sub-category der Category:Sailing ships. Es gibt dabei auch ein mögligkeit für extra categories in die training sections, wenn es vieleicht vorteile gibt. Aber wenn Sie denken daß es ein serieus problem ist, bitte frage es the community und nach eine frage warte ich mit categorisierung dieser art biss eine conclusion kommt. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The present definition (added by you) is "for the purposes of this category, tall ship will refer to those vessels rated as class "A" [of Tall Ships' Races ] only.

I think the definition is reasonable. Perhaps one should state clearer whether that means ships in fact so rated, or ships that would be so rated if participating (and thus including e.g. old ships). I think the latter is what is intended, but are all big historic sailing vessels to be included? (I am sorry my German isn't good enough to be sure what was said above.)

--LPfi (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I can make clear what was intended. The term "Tall ship" is of later date. So in my opinion it is better to save the term for class A Tall ships in the Tall ship's races, as this are training ships. It gives the opportunity to use the category in training or school categories. Besides, Category:Tall ships is a sub-category of Category:Sailing ships. My ploblem is, that otherwise I cannot see where the sailing ships or even sail-steamers start to be tall ships. Sailing with students is a claer tool to devide. The races for me are less important. I asked Botaurus to ask it the community, if he thinks that it is an advisable move. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Finding ships by name

Hi Stunteltje,

If I understand that correctly, at some point, Category:Ships by IMO number was meant to be a secondary scheme, allowing to find ships by that criterion. The primary way was meant to be the name of the ship. Thus, I'd add the shipyard to the category/ies by name rather than the one of the IMO number. --  Docu  at 06:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right in the fact that the IMO category was created to be a tool to group images of certain ships. Renaming the categories bij date an investigation is needed to find the date of completion. In many cases even the shipyard is found. Adding the shipyard category to the "category by shipname" gives a problem for some people with the conventions here, if also the category: "Ships built in" is given. I found a number of categories: "Ships built in" a certain country removed, when a category: "Ships built at" a certain shipyard was added. I myself tried to escape by adding the shipyard categories to the IMO categories and leave the country categories at the categories by shipname. I saw other users already used the IMO and ENI numbers in the shipyard categories. It has an advantage that only one description (by number) at the Shipyard is given, the coupling is in the IMO/ENI category. This is a try, but it can work. Another suggestion? --Stunteltje (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there may be two or three separate issues:

1. where to add the category for the shipyard
2. where to add the category for the country a ship was built
3. and possibly, how to make better use of descriptions in "IMO nnnnnnn"-categories

For (1), personally, I'd stick with the initial solution: add them to <ship name> categories. I'm aware that there is at least one user who seems to like adding them to IMO categories. For (2), I suppose they could go either on the category for the shipyard or the ships themselves. For (3), I think we should try to find a way to systematically link the IMO category in any subcategory by ship name. There is a template for this somewhere, but I don't particularly like its layout. We might even want to transclude the IMO number category description into ship by name categories (there are few downsides to this though). I made an ugly sample at Category:Al-Zahraa (ship). Any solution could probably be implemented by bot.

BTW, I got some thanks for you in my name at User_talk:Docu#Category:Fishing boats of Taiwan. --  Docu  at 05:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• (3) Using this one? --Stunteltje (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Information about Svitzer Freja may be found at IMO xxxxxxx. 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.

Yeah, that one. If it's done be bot, I suppose the work is about the same. In any case, we should add something the category descriptions. It's somewhat lost if nothing is there. --  Docu  at 11:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to simplify {{IMOcat}} a bit, shall we use it that way? e.g. {{IMOcat|5164174}}? We could still change it to {{IMO}} if preferred --  Docu  at 09:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Very nice, I prefer your IMOcat. Is it possible to make an identical one with a barge in it for ENI numbers? --Stunteltje (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I could edit File:IMOinfo.svg to replace the text "IMO" with "ENI", but you'd need someone else to replace the ship with a barge. I made bot work request for {{IMOcat}} at Commons:Bots/Work_requests#IMOcat_template. --  Docu  at 13:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Replicas

How shall we link these with the initial vessel? I added Category:Pinta (ship, 2005) into Category:Pinta (ship, 1441) and mentioned in the description. --  Docu  at 06:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfect for me. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to summarize this at Category:Replicas of sailing ships. --  Docu  at 02:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cat-a-Lot

well, for some reason i don't know, Commons Delinker is not working, so some people are trying to reduce the backlog by doing what he is supposed to to. That why i'm doing that categorizations, and since you (and Docu) are the ones who are changing the names, would be great if you people do the moves too.

Best regards, Béria Lima ^msg 12:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: Even Commons Delinker "destroy" the old category history (because we can't move categories), but in files the only change is a diff with the change of categories.

And we should thanks the fact that not even 50% õf the categories need to change :D Béria Lima ^msg 12:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Beria, thank you for doing a few of these renames. I appreciate your help. If you add the requests to User:CommonsDelinker/commands, they are done by User:SieBot. It seems to work these days. --  Docu  at 06:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sluis Lanaken

Hello,

It seems to me that this picture has a wrong description. Sint Pietersberg is not in Lanaken. I think it is one of the two little locks in Lanaye. (Lanaye is not Lanaken in dutch language) and Sint Pietersberg is not situated along the Kanaal Briedgen-Neerharen. --Les Meloures (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Very well possible. I passed the lock with my ship a very long time ago, all I remember is that comming from the Julianakanaal we passed the lock at Smeermaas and from there to Belgium. Please correct if needed. --Stunteltje (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems to bee clear, because of coming from Julianakanaal you cross Maastricht and than take the lock of Lanaye (Ternaien in Dutch). The locks of Kanaal Briedgen-Neerharen you can only take by coming fron Zuid-Willemsvaart an to get there you must pass the lock of Bosscheveld before. Next week I will be on the locks of Ternaien and check the situation, easily to compare because of the two guardian shelters. If 100% sure, I will remove and replace by a picture of Neerhalen-lock. Perhaps I can have one of the channel too.

Best regards. --Les Meloures (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I remember it was the first or second lock of Kanaal Briedgen-Neerharen. I uploaded a picture of the schip incoming in the lock File:De Stella Maris in de sluis.JPG. I assume we first passed Bosscheveld, turned left and passed the two locks and from there via Ternaaien back to Maastricht. We were on holiday and wanted to do something special. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The picture is from Lock Panheel. Oude sluis van Panheel bovenhoofd.

Category:IMO 9243461

Why did you remove Category:Ships of Panama from this? Baltic Highway - IMO 9243461 - is Panamanian flagged.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because we use to add the country categories to the Category:Ships by name, as I made the Category:Baltic Highway (ship, 2001) for the vessel. There you find your Category:Ships of Panama. By the way: Isn't she not a car carrier? (Seen the shape.) Regards --Stunteltje (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC) The names and country of a ship can change, the IMO number not. --Stunteltje (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've done a lot of cat work, but very little in ships -- which is odd because I've spent a lot of time at sea. I realized that we might have to change the country if she changes flags, but didn't realize that you carry both an IMO number cat and a name cat for every ship -- but it makes sense, I suppose.

Really ugly always equals car carrier, in my experience. That's confirmed on her owners' web site.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Your advice please

I'd like to call upon your advice again.

The USN built a ship in 1941, the Category:USS Matagorda (AVP-22). This vessel was transferred to the USCG, shortly after ww2 where she spent a couple more decades. Today I found seven more images from the USCG period, which I put in Category:USCGC Matagorda (WAVP 373), but I didn't create Category:USCGC Matagorda (WAVP 373)

So, would you recommend a single category for the USN and USCG incarnations of the 1941 vessel?

Some additional info you can skip...

After the first Matagorda was decommissioned Category:USCGC Matagorda (WPB-1303) was one of the 110 foot Island Class cutters. The USCG built 54 of these vessels.

A Louisiana firm, Bollinger, got a contract to build 69 smaller Marine Protector class vessels. The newer vessels were superior, having a stern launching ramp, that let the vessels deploy and retrieve their pursuit craft without stopping. They also had more modern electronics, and crew accommodations that allowed crews of mixed sex.

Bollinger got another contract to refurbish the Island class vessels, with newer electronics and accommodation -- and also to extend the vessels' sterns by about 5-6 meters, so they too could have a stern launching ramp. During the upgrade and for a couple of years after, the first eight extended Island class vessels were described in glowing terms -- as a great success.

I was taken in. It turned out that the refit was not only late, and over budget, but was a complete failure. The extension of the stern was flawed, and the vessels were unseaworthy. This failed refit may have cost more than building brand new vessels.

The second Matagorda was the first vessel to be refitted. And I have been looking for more pictures of it. I haven't found any, but I have found lots of pictures of old Matagorda.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all: you are free to do what you like, as long as it is in line with the community. Your question illustrates a serious problem: prefixes. Category:Matagorda (ship, 1986) solves your problem. But it is not so easy. At this particular moment a number of users is working on renaming of the ship categories to avoid difficulties in naming, when ships have the same name. We just mention a ship a ship and add the year of completion or commissioning to the name. So we have now Category:Rotterdam (ship, 1908), Category:Rotterdam (ship, 1959) and Category:Rotterdam (ship, 1997). SS for steam not used anymore, because in German it had to be DS and that can be restricted to the Wikipedia's by nationality. Now your question: In my opinion we shall skip all prefixes and add the year of commissioning. But then another problem is created: how do we reach an agreement about this naming system to use it for all US ships in the community? As you will find a hell of a lot ships with this kind of prefixes. I didn't burn my fingers on it, so up till now I didn't rename this kind of categories. Te be practical for this moment: As I created a new series of categories in line with [[:Category:Ships buil in <year>]], (if you pass a ship at renaming, it costs not extra time to add a category by year of completion or commisioning) I passed a lot of empty categories where just is mentioned that the ship also has another name, where the images are to be found. Category:USNS Johnstown (AGM-20) for an illustration. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I can see that a good schema is even more important than I realized. I can see a good schema is even more important.

1. It is a lot easier to know the name of a ship on the date an image was taken than to figure out its name when it was commissioned.
2. (Most) ships are only launched once. But those USS, USNS and USCG ships are officially decommissioned, only to be reconditioned after their transfer.
3. Landlubbers like me don't always understand the difference between a launch and a commissioning.
4. I've been trying to follow your example, and look for an IMO number when I upload an image of a vessel. But there are some names where I am concerned that the IMO number I found is not for the vessel whose image I found -- but for another image with the same name.

So, you would deprecate "SS". And would you deprecate "MV" for motor vessel and "RV" for research vessel? I have created a number of wikipedia articles on icebreakers where I included icebreaker in the article name. I think I have created commons categories that included icebreaker in the category name. You'd deprecate those names too?

Thanks again. Geo Swan (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You have to realise that we haven a lot of uploaders who don't know anything about ships and definately don't know the specialist sites to find information. For them it is in most cases possible to find the year of start of service -> year of completion, than the date of launch. I think I misinterpreted the term "commissioning", as you are right. So it has to be "completion" on the yard of originally built. At 4: You see the advantage of categories by IMO number to group images. It is sometimes difficult and I use a number of sites to verify an IMO number together with a certain ship. No problem at all to use prefixes in Wikipedias. Please do what you think what is best there. What we have to do is making images easy to find on Commons. There the SS, MS, DS, RV, MV, M/S prefixes hinder - are language dependable - so I think we have to get rid of them on Commons. Recategorising the Category:Ships by name by adding the dates of completion in the name of the category gives us the possibility to change this too. Problem was the interlinks. I now make category redirects, hope it solves that problem. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Another solution to the problem. Have a look at Category:Sovereign_of_the_Seas_(ship) --Stunteltje (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation categories need be empty and contain only forward references. But this is a solution, although I would prefer interwiki related stuff at the gallery level such as Sovereign of the Seas (ship). --Foroa (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ship category renames

Has there been some sort of discussion about all these ship category renames you and Category-bot/Docu are doing? I find several of them to be silly and are breaking convention with every other Wikipedia. The proper method/venue for contested category moves is either {{Move}} or COM:CFD. Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 19:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been a discussion on several places, starting a few month ago. Clear ones are found e.g. at User:Foroa and User:Docu. The reason was that we categorise thousands of ships and found a number of ships with the same name and even the same ships with different prefixes. Besides that, also a lot of different conventions on different Wikipedia's. The French, German and others use the year of completion of ships in category names, the English the year of launching. Another problem were the prefixes. SS, DS, M/V, French ship and so on. So the feeling was that the best way of working was to follow the convention that Commons is not following a convention of a certain Wikipedia, but to make images of a ship to find as easy as possible. That means: by name, without prefixes, and by year of completion. If the last one is not found, the year of launching. Even then we have double categories and if necessary we add the place of built. (Found only once untill now). Renaming the ships gives the possibility to check the country of built and add the year of built by category. Were add as much as possible links to the Wikipedias by language. So it might look silly to you, it has a reason and as far as I can see it works. Sometimes we find many ships with the same name, but grouped in year of sequence, in Category:Ships by name. Much easier to find for not in shipping experienced users.

Using method/venue for contested category moves is either {{Move}} or COM:CFD, but - as far as I know - it gives extra work and I was not sure the history goes with the category. So for that reason I myself used Cat-a-lot, together with category rename. If that is a problem and it solves the finding of the history of renamed categories too, I definately will use the "move" command. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Stunteltje, you might want to add that the convention was proposed at Commons_talk:Naming_categories first and met consensus. --  Docu  at 06:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We even discussed it earlier on the WikiProject Ships on the English Wikipedia. I assume not the naming is a problem, but the way how the categories have to be renamed without losing the history. I did it so far via Cat-a-lot and category redirect. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 24#Ships naming on Commons? That's not a discussion, that's a notice. I hadn't noticed the discussion at Commons talk:Naming categories#Ship naming conventions/policy so I will comment further there. Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 12:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Nautica

Category discussion notification

Category:Nautica has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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 it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--  Docu  at 05:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion please

When I uploaded File:The Soviet icebreaker Leonid Krassin, in 1941, being studied by US maritime authorities.jpg I was advised it was a duplicate of an image that had previously been deleted. The deletion discussion is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Krasin (1916 icebreaker).jpg.

I left the following request on the talk page of the administrator who concluded the image should have been deleted. I trust your judgment. Do you think this could be an instance when the initial deletion showed too much caution?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If you are ever nominated to be an administrator here I will happily endorse that nomination.

Thank you very much for your compliment, but I don't have any intention to become an administrator. Too old and too busy with other very interesting hobbies. Wikimedia Commons is just for spare time and I like to support the idea of the project.

On the subject: I see your point and it looks a logical one. Just give it a try. The worst thing that can happen is, that you don't have a positive result. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Milestone

Category:Ships by name passed 7000 subcategories. Mostly thanks to you btw. Congrats! I wonder if we should announce it as a milestone on Commons:Community portal. We could also wait till 8000 or until the subcategories are a bit more stabilized. --  Docu  at 09:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed it too. Funny to see the work grow. I am still proud on the IMO category, it realy helps grouping images of ships. And by name and date of completion we find different ships now, with the same name in one category. For me we save announcing a milestone untill we pass the 10.000 ships by name, it will take nog too long. Or when someone is able to solve the problem of reaching agreement in naming (ship, date of completion). But when you think it can help solving something, go ahead. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Me too, I think that Category:Ships by IMO number is the greatest progress, especially in a multi-language and multi-name encyclopaedic "pedigree" context. I think that there are still hundreds if not thousands ships of all types that are not in the ships by name category yet. A bot should be able to complete that quickly. Agreement on naming will come if we reach a critical mass that follow the new naming convention, I guess that we are already doing better than 65 %. --Foroa (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There was some increase due to the QLD contributions (there is some left) and a systematic addition of categories already created, but somewhere lost in subcategories. I skipped the subs, so there is some potential left. As the toolserver lags terribly these days, I'm not quite sure how much is left. Other than that, I'm not sure if we really want to create a new category for every new image ;)

I agree that the IMO categories work well and it's always a pleasant surprise if one finds more images of the same ship that way. When I had read the discussion that took place I found it odd that it didn't meet instant support. In regards to the naming, I tried to do all the "A..." (other than more specific categories) and put the ones I couldn't place in Ship categories with missing year. Until we figured out what to do with the naval ship categories, I placed them at least in subcategories of Ships by year built. Whatever milestone we pick, there is still a lot to do .. BTW thanks to Foroa, for doing the ones cat-bot had problems with. --  Docu  at 17:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Info gevraagd

Hoi Stunteltje, ik benader jou even vanwege je binnenvaartexpertise. Ik heb zojuist de File:Twentekanaal en IJssel.jpg neergezet. De monding van het kanaal is als ronde verbreding gegraven. Ik vroeg me af of dat een zwaaikom heet, of zit dat alleen in de loop van een kanaal? Ook als je aanvullingen hebt op de bestandsbeschrijving zijn die welkom. Groet, Apdency (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Dat noemt mijn Wegwijzer voor de binnenscheepvaart inderdaad een zwaaikom. Realiseer je dat je afvarend van de IJssel met een rotgang voor stroom die kom binnenloopt en dan heb je gewoon ruimte nodig. In de opvaart kan je je gewoon binnen laten vallen. Moderne schepen met hun enorme kopschroefvermogen hebben minder last, maar dan nog. Onlangs zijn er ter plaatse nog schepen op elkaar geklapt, die te weinig onderlig overleg hadden gehad. Ik zal de omschrijving aanvullen. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Dank je voor reactie en aanvulling. Groet, Apdency (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:HMS Windsor Castle (1852)

Hello Stunteltje, please help me fix this Category:HMS Windsor Castle (1852), I created both categories for that ship, but I'm unfamiliar with the ship categorization and I believe that I've done something wrong. There should be someway to group ships that changed name over the time under the same category. :S Cheers, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 02:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For modern ships we solve that problem via the IMO number category. Categrorise for each name and couple these in the IMO category. For this ship you can create a category by each name - as you have done - and make a note in each category directing to the other category. "See also category ... for this ship under that name" or similar. I myself prefer categories as Duke of Wellington (ship, 1852) and Windsor Castle (ship, 1852) to come in line with the naming system. But unfortunately we didn't solve the problem of naming naval ships yet, as a lot of people use the naval prefixes. No problem at all in the Wiki, but on Commons not the best way to find a ship. As you see clearly in this case: adding "ship" and "year of completion" makes life easier. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I find the prefixes very useful, and I believe they should exist, at least as redirects, since they help a lot in finding a ship. I'm a bit confused with the cat naming conventions for ships. I've seen one of those HMSs names as "ship" and "year of name change" (The Procupine or something like that, I seem to recall), and it really confused me, as I took that year, which I later found out to be the one of name change, for the year of construction. I don't believe the year of name change should be being used to disambiguate, it's not helpful in the least and confuses things a lot.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ships by year built

Shall I attempt to add such categories to [1] by bot based on categories used at en_wp? This could later be refined manually to use the year of completion. --  Docu  at 06:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any experience in using these programs, so I don't have an opinion. But if you think it is of help, for me it is OK. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

My question was less program-related, but about the soundness of the structure this may create. --  Docu  at 06:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am still a beginner at Wikimedia, so I don't have any experience with this format. You are much more experienced, so I trust your work in this. Better ask Foroa. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO it's mainly a subject issue. For that, both us tend to relay on you for expertise. Besides, even for mw questions, we tend to get carried away sometimes ;)

For the year, en_wiki uses launch date while Commons uses date of completion. For many Naval vessels, the later isn't readily available (or I don't know how to find ("=date of initial commissioning"?). If we import categories from en_wiki, we will have more launches dates. If this is limited to naval vessel, this might not be much of an issue though (if we would end up using that date anyways). --  Docu  at 08:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have some working knowledge on inland waterway vessels (as i own one) and follow (and sometimes influence) the regulations on European scale. My knowledge of sea going vessels is restricted to more technical matters. That's all. Your remarks on launching and completion are correct, that's what I already found out myself. Someone mentioned that commissioning of naval ships is not the same als completion, as naval ships can be commissioned many times in many functions. So I assume that the best way of working is how we do now: ships by completion and if we cannot find that date, then by launching. As long as we mention that clearly in the header of the category by name, it must be sufficient. There is a clear difference with the English Wikipedia indeed. It only gives trouble when someone insist on a launch-year. User:Vantey e.g. I was not able to clarify that even some French and German ships on their Wikipedia's differ in year with Commons. For me making difference is no problem at all, because Commons has it's own policy. (As stated on Commons many times.) For ships still in service I use the dates of Vesseltracker, check at Equasis and Shipspotting, unless I find an exact date of completion. As far as I know they use the year of completion too. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm finally working on this. Here is one: Category:USS Saratoga (CV-3). --  Docu  at 10:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Tourmalijn

Hallo Stunteltje, hast Du eine Möglichkeit an ein Bild von dem Veranstaltungsschiff Tourmalijn (ex KD Berlin) zu besorgen? Uns fehlt ein aktuelles Bild im deutschen Wikipedia-Artikel [2]. Vielen Dank für Deine Mühe. Gruß --Rolf H. (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Es soll dieses Schiff sein. Mehr als File:ENI 02329184 TOURMALIJN (01).JPG habe ich leider nicht. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Vielen Dank - ich wußte das man sich auf dich verlassen kann. Ich werde das Bild heute abend etwas mit Photoshop bearbeiten. Viele Grüße --Rolf H. (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Stunteltje, da bin ich schon wieder. Da ich momentan dabei bin die letzen fehlenden deutschen Artikel über ehemalige Köln-Düsseldorfer-Kabinenschiffe zu schreiben, suche ich noch dringend ein Foto der Hispania (ex. Helvetia, ENI 04804450) die lange Zeit als Hotelschiff im Hafen Rotterdam lag. Jetzt liegt sie in Eemshaven in Nordholland. Hast Du da vielleicht auch noch eins? Viele Grüße aus Köln --Rolf H. (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Leider nicht. Ich mache nog nicht so lange foto's von Schiffe. Es sind meistens digitaler foto's und die Anfang ist von drei, vier Jahre her. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Kein Problem - dann muss ich weitersuchen. Eventuell finde ich ja noch ein verwendbaras in der weiten Welt des Internets. Gruß --Rolf H. (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Cruise ship categories/Companies

Why have you removed these ([3], [4]) categorizations? All sub-categories and images fit it in there. --MB-one (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To be consistent in the whole cateory of cruise ships. The category contains only ships now and not shipping lines. Some ships of Aida where already mentioned, some not. Now each individual ship is mentioned cruise ship and the line is not. That's all. The were a few other lines too and also these were withdrawn here. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Danke aus Cuxhaven

Moin Stunteltje, einfach mal ein großen Dankeschön aus Cuxhaven für Deine unermüdliche Arbeit, Schiffe richtig zu kategorisieren, vielen Dank dafür und weiterhin immer eine handbreit Wasser unter den Kiel. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nachtrag in der deutschen WP gäb es dafür von mir einen Gummibärchen, und so sieht es aus ;) da ich Deine de Seite gefunden habe. ;) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:MV_Silver_Spirit-1.JPG

Hi. Can you provide an explanation about why you have altered categories for these images? File:MV_Silver_Spirit-1.JPG, File:MV_Silver_Spirit-2.JPG and File:MV_Silver_Spirit-3.JPG. I understand from your user page that your expertise is limited to inland waterway vessels. Or have I misunderstood that? George.Hutchinson (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I can. Perhaps you have already noticed that we - a number of users - are working hard on the ship-categories. The intention is to categorise all ships by name and year of completion. That was what happened first. What I did with the individual files is nothing more than changing the "Ships of Silversea Cruises" category from the individual files to the common category of the ship. That's all. It is done by all ships, where possible. By the way: My expertise is not limited to inland waterway vessels, i just have one. As I brought thousands of ships on Wikimedia Commons in their categories, most of the changes I do are in line with the intentions to make the finding of ships as easy as possible. But I am not perfect and make mistakes from time to time. So if you think that I make a mistake, please make a note here. No problem. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I hadn't noticed. I wondered whether there was a rational explanation, or whether it was merely a personal preference. I'll be sure to categorise further images in the way you describe. One has to be careful because there are some people online who aspire to no higher purpose in life than to regulate others. Clearly you are not one of those people. May I ask a further question? Is it acceptable to add other categories such as this 2010 in Hampshire or this April 2010 in England in this example Celebrity Eclipse. George.Hutchinson (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please realise that ships move from place to place. So it is not useful to categorise ship-categories that way. But individual images can be described the way you prefer. If there are a hell of a lot images in a certain place, harbour, river, a working solution is to add a such a category at the ship-category. Have seen it before. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Sea Falcon"

Hi Stunteltje,

I'm a bit hesitant about these: Sea Wolf, Sea Falcon. Would you have a look? --  Docu  at 21:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

On Seaagent I found 7534660 SEA FALCON 1975 or 8851754 SEA FALCON 1982 and 7515846 SEA WOLF 1973 or 7926590 SEA WOLF 1979 or 8036263 SEA WOLF 1980 on Page 16 there.

On Shipspotting we find them without IMO numbers.

But looking at Gulf Coast Boatbuilders we find the SEA FALCON built in 1975 (for Patterson LA and Webb. Found Webb sued in combination with the Sea Falcon) and the Sea Wolf built in 1980. So what I think is: SEA FALCON (ship, 1975) IMO 7534660 and the SEA WOLF (ship, 1980) with IMO 8036263. Is that what you wanted to see? --Stunteltje (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess we came to the same conclusion. From [5], it seems like both are owned by the same company. BTW for US vessels w/o IMO number, the "USCG Doc. No." seems to be a helpful way to identify them. --  Docu  at 07:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:IMO number

You're welcome. I was happy to do it. Thank you.--Ivan T. (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikibreak

When I don't find an open connection to the internet in the harbours I visit on my way from Meerkerk to Sneek and Leeuwarden and back, I am on wiki-holiday from 17th jui to 31st of july 2011. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy! Geo Swan (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion please

Is this category rename suggestion consistent with the newer conventions for names you have taken a lead in developing?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: yes. --Stunteltje (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Brigs of the United States

Hi, can you try to fix the many incomplete cats in Category:Brigs of the United States or you know someone that can do that ? (I just put them there to group them)--Foroa (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Pffff. I'll try to remember that one, as I am finished to work on the Categories Ships, Cargo ships and General cargo ships. I don't know anybody who is specialised in the old ships. It takes a hell of a lot of time for each ship to find the details. After my trip on Waal, Lek and IJssel I have to upload many barges and finding all years of built takes time too. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a little job indeed, but so many people are keeping an eye on the central ship talk categorisation page of Commons, so maybe someone will "sail" away with the problem. --Foroa (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My bot did some basic fixes. Hope this helps. --  Docu  at 07:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, even bots are watching the discussions here ... --Foroa (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Still a lot to do (basic categories). Please call the second generation bot ;). --Foroa (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you outline it? Maybe I can call it then :) --  Docu  at 08:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW looking at what you put into Category:Brigs of the United States, Category:Ships of the United States might have been the better category to start with. For the QLD, we just started with "Ships by name". Worked fairly well IMHO. --  Docu  at 10:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Danke

hierfür. Herzliche Grüße, --4028mdk09 (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Coast_guard_of_Turkey

Coast guard of Turkey has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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 it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Eusebius (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives bot tif uploads & prior uploads

So are we deferring to the bot's uploads of .tifs over previous versions of the same image that are .jpgs? BrokenSphere (Talk) 16:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. The only thing is that we have two images of the same subject. One in a high and one in a low quality. It is to the serving moderator to take a decision about the jpg or tif matter. I dont have an opinion on that. Make a remark on the discussion part of the images, when you think both versions are to be kept. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ships by name

Ships by name has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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 it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--FieldMarine (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Toronto Ferry Primrose.jpg

Hello. It's great that you want to create categories for ships. But when you delete categories from an image, please make sure that you are only deleting categories that pertain to the ship, as opposed to those that pertain to the image. For example, you deleted way too many categories in this edit (and then didn't even bother reproducing them when you created Category:Primrose (ship, 1890), so why did you delete them in the first place?). This subsequent edit should give you a sense of what you ought not to have deleted. I hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just speed of working, not familiar with these particular categories. Please add them to Mayflower too. Sorry. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, and no need to apologize. I do it myself all the time. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason for speeding is, that I try to bring as much ships under categories by name, before starting with the bulk of old images in black and white. Difficult to find the dates of completion of these old ships. By the way: Is this: File:Toronto ferry 1972.jpg the Thomas Rennie? The image is mirrored, see the source. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea about that 1972 image. I uploaded it to Commons solely because we lack 1970s photographs of Toronto here. It wasn't flipped while here on the Commons, so it may have subsequently been altered at Flickr. The Flickr user is very active at Flickr and would probably be delighted to answer any questions you have. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

See the name on the wheelhouse in mirror-writing and realise that the name is not painted in the centre. I'll try to contact him. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Found him and it is the Thomas Rennie indeed. Had no idea how the image got mirrored. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:SuperTankerHarbourBizerte.jpg

Why did you decide that it is a photo of the ship with IMO 9231224?--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In these cases I check against images of Vesseltracker, Shipspotting and if still in doubt the year of built in Equasis. The EBN BATUTA I found by name at: http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1113008. Unfortunately I cannot remember where I found the IMO number and name of this particular tanker. In most cases I find this details together with other images of the ship, in categories where they don't belong. So, looking at the foremast, it is very well possible that I made a mistake. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, EBN BATUTA has IMO 9231224. I found it in the same way as you. But I think File:SuperTankerHarbourBizerte.jpg is not EBN BATUTA.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth: Google Images thinks a picture of "IRENE SL" is visually similar. --  Docu  at 16:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

BBC Bergen

FYI I've just uploaded a picture of the ship BBC Bergen at File:Barco BBC Bergen en el Puerto de Valparaíso.jpg so you can categorize properly. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC). PS: I've just uploaded a picture of the ship Natalie Brook at: File:Barco Natalie Brook en el Puerto de Valparaíso.jpg.

 Done --Stunteltje (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and best regards, Alpertron (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ship categorization

1. I planed to organize the Category:Tankers as the Category:Cargo ships. There will be only unifying categories, and there will be no category for individual ships. What do you think about this?
2. Since there are a large number of coastal tankers, I suggest to move the Category:Coastal motor vessels to Category:Ships by type, and remove it from the Category:General cargo ships, and all the ships from Category:Coastal motor vessels to move to Category:General cargo ships by bot. Could your bot do this?--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

1. For me no problem, but I think it is better to discuss this at the discussion page of the category. I myself don't have much information on types of the tankers, as you found out already, unless I investigate in the details. For me work to do when the bulk of ships is brought under name-categories. You are doing a great job there.

2. I agree in your conclusion that there are a lot of coastal tankers. Category:Coastal motor vessels is now a Category:Ships by function. So to find out is, what the role of "coastal" is here. As far as I can see no other difference with other ships than the use. Not sure about the regulations for these ships, as certificates. (I am familiar with barge certificates, not for sea-going ships.) So I assume that it is the function and not the type that counts, as the difference in that case is not the construction, but the use. But again: it has to be discussed at the discussion page of the category. The bot is of user:Docu, regret I am not able to write software in Wikipedia. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

2. Main idea is to delete Category:Coastal motor vessels from Category:General cargo ships because some of them isn't general cargo. And OK, Category:Coastal motor vessels can be in Category:Ships by function, not in Category:Ships by type.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right, coastal ships can be tankers and this is the consequence. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thames barges

This is getting confusing, and you are not talking to me. If there is a special type of barge beyond a simple "Thames barge", perhaps it should have its own category.Oh, I see the difference now In any case, "Thames" is an insufficiently precise category for these vessels. I propose two categories "Thames sailing barges" and "Thames barges" to distinguish between the two; this means a move of all images in the existing cat to the first, and a recat of all those not in the existing. Let me know what you think. Meanwhile, I've plenty of other stuff to be doing. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've moved them back to Category:Barges on the river Thames for now, and will get back to this issue when I reach "T". Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the lack of communication. I thought it was common knowledge that we have a special type of old sailing barges for the Thames. (I own a Dutch motor barge of 24 meters in the Netherlands nl:Stella_Maris_(1929)). You are right in your conclusion that "Thames" is an insufficiently precise category for these vessels. The reason why I opt for "Thames barges" and not choose for "Thames sailing barges" is the fact that in the international associations of owners of these kind of ships these barges are known under "Thames barges". No problem at all to leave it as it is now. Category:Barges on the river Thames (some will be Dutch, Belgian or French) for ships on the river Thames and Category:Thames barges for the type of sailing barges known by that indication. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Pilot vessels Hanse and Elbe

The picture File:2007 05 15 Swath Elbe (I).JPG shows the pilot vessel now called "Hanse" with IMO number 9199957. You find the pilot vessel now called "Elbe" with IMO number 9514793 on Elbe Pilot SWATH.jpg. To discover the difference, have a look at the superstructures. At IMO 9514793 there are four windows in the middle of the first row under the bridge. "Hanse" with IMO 9199957 does not have these characteristics. And then have a look at the second row under the bridge. So I had to undo your change to my changes. Another place to see the differences is to analyse two pictures of the ships at marinetraffic.com. Please compare http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/de/showallphotos.aspx?imo=9514793 with http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/de/showallphotos.aspx?imo=9199957#top_photo. "Elbe" with IMO 9514793 is bigger (length 60 metres) as the "Hanse" with IMO 9199957 (49 metres). "Hanse" was called "Elbe" until 2009 but they changed the name because they found that "Elbe" is the right name for the bigger vessel so IMO 9199957's name was changed to "Hanse". Further on, compare the dates. The uploader of File:2007 05 15 Swath Elbe (I).JPG states that the photo was made in 2007. At this time, the pilot vessel "Elbe" with IMO 9514793 was not yet built. It came into service as already mentioned in 2009.Tvabutzku1234 (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Elbeloodsboten.jpg

File:Elbeloodsboten.jpg : I can only repeat what I said above. This photo was made in March 2004 so it cannot show IMO 9514793 ("Elbe" of today) that was built in 2009.Tvabutzku1234 (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the explanation. As far as I can see no problems at all any more, as the text gives the answer. Swapping names for ships makes it always difficult. In many cases (when I find out myself what happened) I make an explanation including the ship details and devide between ship and history. Have a look at Category:IMO_8113554 as example. A lot of other users do too. So feel free to add the rest of the ship details. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ships query

Hi,

The category scheme works well for present-day civilian ships, even if its a little "odd" looking at times. The IMO number categories contain everything, and the ship name categories contain everything of that ship when it was called by the specific name. This means all images of the vessel can be linked, despite any changes of name.

Odd looking is less important to me than easy to find images of ships. See the discussion via Category:Ships by name. This system can be used for every commodity that uses names for identifying.--Stunteltje (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

However, this breaks down with military ships. It likely also fails with pre-IMO civilian ships. A couple examples here:

1. The USS Phoenix (1938) was sold to become the General Belgrano
2. The French warship Franklin (1797) was captured and renamed the HMS Canopus

In both cases, there is no IMO number.

You are completely right. Found hundreds of ships with this problem of categorising. We have a discussion about the prefixes, see Category:Ships by name. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The use of prefixes does not bother me particularly, beyond a preference for things like "HMS Victory" over "Victory" for that ship. Either way, that isn't actually the point to me here.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Nesting the categories within the original name - including the Belgrano category in the Phoenix cat - isn't correct, but provides a workaround. The ideal would be if there was a overarching meta-cat, like the IMO number categories. This structure could also handle changes to pennant number. The problem is working out the overarching category name, in absence of a unique, fixed, designation like IMO numbers.

Again, you are right. I use the same workaround. I am not aware of any (numbering-)system that can help. Found out that there are even different "official number" systems. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the important bit here - I'm not happy with the workaround, but can't see a better solution. Two related problems: If you look at the primary name category, you can readily find the relevant media of the later names. The same is not true of the reverse, as going "up" the category tree is much harder. The second is - the initial name may not be the right name to use as the primary one. An example here is Category:Golden Hind (ship, 1577). That ship is universally known as the Golden Hind, so media of the Pelican would belong there - making the Pelican category the parent will prevent people finding media, not help them. The Phoenix/Belgrano case is one where the "primary" meaning is not that obvious: People looking at both categories may be interested in the content of the other.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally with military ships, I think the date of commissioning is much more significant than the launch date (the Belgrano was commissioned as such in 1951 not 1938). It makes more sense to use that date - the fact its more readily available is a bonus.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here we differ in opinion. I think it is better to use only one system of dating the ships in Commons, civilian and naval. One of the problems is, that a lot of civilian ships became naval - sometimes with different names - in times of war. I prefer very much the date of completion. In a lot of cases publications are done around the date of completion, much more than around the date of launch. Useful to retrieve information on the vessels. I agree that for naval ship the date of commissioning is important, but there are ships that have more than one date of commisioning. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Muliple commissioning is easy enough, use the initial one. The USS New Jersey was commissioned in 1943, 1950, 1968 and 1991, the initial one is by far the most significant. Initial commission is effectively when the shipyard hands it over to the operator, which is an important event for both civilian and military ships. Date of completion is typically months behind date of launch, date of completion is typically not long before it enters active service - that is true of both civilian and military ships the greater interval between the first 2 events means the second pair is more likely to be useful. If a (military or civilian) ship was laid down in 1900, launched in 1905, completed in 1910 but didn't actually enter service until 1914; which is the most important date?

For me the date of completion, as the ship was handed over to the client. This is always done by a legal document, that can be retrieved from archives. Entering service can be at any date, not neccessarily found in the books, exept the log of the ship. Even the dates of laying the first keel plates or dates of launch are more important, as these dates in most contracts are keys in the paying schedule for a ship. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As for military commissioning of civilian ships, recommissioning, assigning different pennant number etc, these can be handled by appropriate use of sub-categories. For each of these 3 cases: Category:Military service of Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse (ship, 1897); Category:USS New Jersey in World War II and Category:USS New Jersey in the Vietnam War; Category:USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and Category:USS Enterprise (CVAN-65)... The precise sub-category names don't really matter, but the principle works.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Might work. Give it a try. The community will give comment, if necessary. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's bad idea. The categorization system must be simple as possible. Using different years making the system more difficult.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't realise that. Saw no harm. Thought of just an extra category of (in) the category of a particular ship. Was done before for some tall ships. Extra category for the ship in some Sail. --Stunteltje (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished

Dear Stunteltje, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help. You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 01:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Attend the award ceremony of the Dutch Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

Dear Stunteltje, We've already thanked you for your contribution to the Wiki Loves monuments photo contest. But with a contest, there are prizes to win! The award ceremony will be held in Utrecht on Saturday the 5th of November, at the end of the Dutch Wikimedia Conference at Media Plaza, held the same day. Media Plaza is located next to the Central Station in Utrecht, in the middle of the shopping mall. Admittance is free from 3pm onwards, just in time to catch the last few presentations at the WCN. Off course you can join us for the full day conference as well and enjoy a day full of information on wiki's and cultural heritage. After the ceremony, our location sponsor generously offers a free drink to everyone! Remember: in order to make a chance to win, you need a confirmed e-mail address added to your Commons settings. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team and the Dutch Wikimedia Conference team

Sent by Lucia Bot^talk in 23:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

see this

See File:Navio Velho Porto Alegre.jpg Name: Mariscal Jose Felix Estgarribia Please help in the categorization and identification of this vessel. Thank you.

Info added to IMO number and image categorised. System is: Take the number of IMO, put it in Google and add the abbriviation IMO. Gives result. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ships by name

What do you suggest to do with Category_talk:Ships_by_name#Hiddencat?

Personally, I don't think the current situation is satisfactory. Either we need to sort categories on every subcategories or mark them in some other way. --  Docu  at 21:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

For me your system with hiddencat is a good working system. As described before, I don't see any problem in using. But I don't have sufficient amminution to force the use, as I am not familiar with the technical aspects of Wikipedia Commons system. So I hoped that a more experienced person is able to kut the knot. Sorry. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's mainly about seeking consensus to implement the removal (or adding it). Given that it was there for quite some time, it's actually the removal that would need discussion/consensus.

Oddly, there seems to be some confusion about the effects of the tag. Some people commenting might not have ever seen it working. Maybe Category_talk:Ships_by_name#Poll_on_the_visibility_of_this_category_on_subcategories can sort it out? --  Docu  at 05:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Give it a try. Perhaps you can even ask if there is a preference for users using hiddencat in this case yes or no. I prefer the use, that may be clear. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you tell me where the best would-be "ship by name standard" description can be found, if it is complete (including the tug and submarine cases and where the year is the year of completion). Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean an international standard elsewhere or a ship in Commons that has a "standard" description? In Commons I don't know, as far as I know there isn't a "standard" exept the new template "ship" of user Zoo. For the IMO categories I just copy/paste what I made in Word myself. (By the way, I answer from my volunteer job, not sure I can read here before tonight.) --Stunteltje (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant "our Commons would be ship by name standard". Used to be on Commons talk:Naming categories IIRC. --Foroa (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Work on it in the coming week, I hope. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want a detailed status: try Special:Permalink/62173643. --  Docu  at 12:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As a "how to", I expanded editintro. It's also visible when creating a new category and clicking on "ships". It's still a bit of a draft. --  Docu  at 07:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Very, very nice work. I found only I thing that I don't do: {{:DEFAULTSORT:<name>}} to sort fishing vessels with license numbers by name. Sample: "N206 Castle Bay (ship, 1965)" uses {{DEFAULTSORT:Castle Bay}}. Because in that case you sort in categories the way I don't prefer. I use [[Category:Ships by name|shipname]], as the license number comes first in all other categories. Have a look at Category:BA 45 Charisma (ship, 1988) and go to Category:Fishing ships of the United Kingdom. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I added the defaultsort part mainly due to note on Category:Ships by name. Most of the time, I don't think it isn't actually needed. We could omit it or use Category:Älv-Snabben 5 (ship, 1995) as a sample instead. --  Docu  at 11:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OK --Stunteltje (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User:User:Stunteltje/gallery

Typo in Commonist setup or was the name explicitely chosen? This page is reported at Commons:Database reports/Ownerless pages in the user space --Denniss (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Typo. Never realised. Thanks. Action needed from my side? --Stunteltje (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:USS Beukelsdijk.jpg

Hallo Stunteltje als scheepvaartkenner/categoriseerder kun je me vertellen of ik dit schip (waar ik het lemma op de Engelse wikipedia over heb aangemaakt) goed gecategoriseerd heb? Dit was een Nederlands schip dat tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog gevorderd werd door de US Navy en officieel dienst deed als USS Beukelsdijk. Ik heb het schip toegevoegd in Category:Naval ships of the United States en Category:Beukelsdijk, die ik heb aangemaakt onder Category:Ships of the Netherlands. Het schip heeft natuurlijk niks te maken met de Beukelsdijk in Rotterdam, behalve misschien de oorsprong van de benaming (hoewel de US Navy site Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships stelt dat de naam komt van "A town in the Netherlands", bij mijn weten is er geen plaats in NL met die naam) dus Category:Beukelsdijk (Rotterdam) is daar geen onderliggende category van. S_peakF_ree (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ik ben amateur-binnenschipper en de enige link naar de zeevaart zit in mijn opleiding als elektriciën op een LTS voor de scheepsbouw in Rotterdam. Oranjeboomstraat, is er niet meer. Uiteraard ken ik de Beukelsdijk als straat in Rotterdam, maar inderdaad ook geen plaats, dorp of gehucht dat zo heet. Had er kennissen wonen.

Uit mijn hoofd had de HAL een aantal schepen met "dijk" op het eind. Even zoeken en jawel: Averdijk, Axeldijk, Beemsterdijk, Bilderdijk (2x), Binnendijk, Blijdendijk (2x), Blommersdijk (2x), Boschdijk, Breedijk, Burgerdijk en dus ook de Beukelsdijk uit 1903, de ex- Grangesberg, in 1916 gekocht van W. Muller, Rotterdam en de nieuwe naam Beukelsdijk kreeg. In 1923 vergaan bij Bodo, Noorwegen. Dat kan je vinden op The ships list. In het systeem dat we proberen de standaard te maken zou het daar in Category:Beukelsdijk (ship, 1903) thuishoren. Die dan weer als subcategory van Category:Ships built in England, Category:Ships built in 1903, Category:Steamships of the Netherlands, Category:Auxiliary ships of the United States en Category:Ships by name. De bouwer kan je vinden in The wrecksite.

In Commons hanteren we een eigen, universele categorie-indeling, los van de Engelse of Nederlandse. Dat heeft te maken met het feit dat elk taalgebied z'n eigenaardigheden heeft en ook andere indelingen. De Duitsers voegen tussen haakjes het jaar van oplevering toe, de Fransen soms ook, maar de Engelsen en Amerikanen zweren bij voorvoegsels als SS, MS, RMS en USS enz. De ergste zijn die voor de kustwacht. Nieuwe functie: nieuw voorvoegsel. Die zijn taal-afhankelijk en we proberen die er hier dus uit te krijgen. Volg de link Category talk:Ships by name. Helemaal niets mis met de categorie USS Beukelsdijk in de Engelse Wikipedia, maar niet in Commons, vinden meerdere users gelukkig. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Bedankt! Heb het aangepast. Zo kunnen zowel schip als straat ook samen in Category:Beukelsdijk staan. S_peakF_ree (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Scouting ships

I noticed Category:Scouting ships today. I moved Category:Fram (ship, 1901) from Category:Scouting ships to Category:Exploration ships.

Category:Scouting ships is an element of Category:Scouting -- a category largely devoted to the boy scout movement, not exploration and discovery. I figured this was a mistake.

I know, English is crazy.

I wondered how many of the other images and categories in Category:Scouting ships were exploration vessels. I wondered if others were some kind of patrol vessels.

I am not wedded to the category for vessels used for exploration/scouting/discovery being named Category:Exploration ships. An argument could be made that the exploration/scouting/discovery could all be in Category:Research ships.

Anyhow, I thought we could discuss this.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

We have to discuss this indeed, as you are mistaken by the name. The Fram you know from expeditions is the Category:Fram (ship, 1892). Scouting ships are ships from Scouting in the Netherlands. Scouting (the Boy Scouts) as organisation has only a few ships. The majority, all categories in the Category:Scouting ships are Dutch. My ship was used for this purpose for a number of years. Very, very fine years. [6] Hope I have clarified this. Extra: Have a look at [7] and [8] --Stunteltje (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You'r welcome. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Victron_Energy_BlueSolar_DUO_12-24V_20A.JPG

File:Victron_Energy_BlueSolar_DUO_12-24V_20A.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

-mattbuck (Talk) 23:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

More ships

if you have a time.

• Barca Trevo Leste 01.jpg [9]
• Navio naufragado no Rio Jacuí.jpg
• Navio Forte de São Marcos 01.jpg [10]
• Navio Forte de São Marcos 02.jpg
• Navio Forte de São Marcos 03.jpg
• Navio Forte de São Marcos 04.jpg
• Navio Faroleiro Mario Seixas 01.jpg [11]
• Navio Faroleiro Mario Seixas 02.jpg
• Navio Faroleiro Mario Seixas 03.jpg
• Navio Faroleiro Mario Seixas 04.jpg
• Barco de turismo Porto Alegre 10 01.jpg [12]
• Barco de turismo Porto Alegre 10 02.jpg
• Barco de turismo Noiva Cai II.jpg No yard found
• Rebocador Rio Guaíba 01.jpg [13]
• Rebocador Rio Guaíba 02.jpg Cannot read her name

Just curious, check this out. is for sale.

• Casa Flutuante no Rio Jacuí 01.jpg No information found
• Casa Flutuante no Rio Jacuí 02.jpg

thank you. --Paulo rsmenezes (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Categorised. Thanks for the info. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ships_by_name_by_type

Ships by name by type has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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 it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Badzil (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Patrol vessels of Canada

Patrol vessels of Canada has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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 it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Geo Swan (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

your advice please...

I am going to ask for your advice again. In w:Talk:Tanger_Jet_II#Merge_proposal a merge proponent argued that we generally have a single article when a ship has been recommissioned and repurposed. This sounds to me like assertions I have heard before, where, in the end, the proponent didn't actually base their assertion on any kind of homework. You are quite knowledgeable about nautical matters. Do you think there are times we should have separate articles for vessels, when they have been recommissioned or repurposed?

I am working on an article on Toronto's International Maritime Terminal. It was built in 2004, for a fast ferry service connecting with Rochester New York, the largest city on the US side of Lake Ontario. I was going to link to the article about the Toronto-Rochester ferry -- only to find that all the information above the scroll is about the Tanjiers ferry.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Very short arswer: No. I don't see any purpose for different articles for a ship when she still has the same name. Different name: might be. Better in my opinion to make redirects to the same article. To me it looks not profitable, because when you are intersted in a vessel, you want to find her complete history in one article.

Sorry for the late answer. Followed special first aid course, given specially for people responsable on board of ships. Learned e.g. to reanimate and use of the en:Automated external defibrillator. Very, very usefull. No time for wikipedia. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

New gallery

Hi Stunteltje,

At Commons:Ships by IMO number only, I built a gallery of ships in Category:Ships by IMO number, but not in Category:Ships by name. There are about 1700. For now, it includes only those with 3 and more images (365). Eventually I will try to include new ones in New ships. Both galleries include up to 12 images per ship. The text below the image is the filename. --  Docu  at 10:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we still have to bring all these ships under Category:Ships by name? --Stunteltje (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We could. Sample: Category:IMO 8317813. --  Docu  at 10:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. It will take time. Not today. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's for sure. It might also include ships with a category by name that is not yet a subcategory of the IMO cat. --  Docu  at 10:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Pacific

I checked the sites, and moved the file to File:Pacific in 2011.jpg, which is more accurate. Thank you and best regards, PRENN (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Tanks. We try to categorise images of ships in categories with names the ships have at the time the image was made. That is the reason why descritions are to be found in the IMO category, valid for the ship with any name given. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nieuw schip

Hallo - ik kwam File:Ship on River Boyne - geograph.org.uk - 571983.jpg tegen, en na enig zoeken lijkt het er op dat het om dit schip gaat: (als de geograph beschrijving correct is). Nu weet ik alleen niet precies hoe de scheepscategorieën precies in elkaar steken, wellicht dat je me kan helpen door juiste categorieën toe te voegen? Alvast bedankt! -- Deadstar (msg) 14:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Je boft dat ik net achter de computer zit. Ik zal er de in mijn ogen juiste categorieën bij zetten. Na vele duizenden schepen moet dat kunnen lukken. Met groet, --Stunteltje (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hartelijk dank. Ik kwam er nog een paar tegen, en heb toen besloten dat ik het toch echt ook zelf wel eens kan proberen. Maar ben nou eenmaal geen expert. Kan je even hier kijken: Category:Sigas Mariner? Alvast bedankt! -- Deadstar (msg) 14:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Zie dat dat dus "Sigas Mariner (ship, year)" had moeten zijn. Sorry! Volgende wordt beter :). -- Deadstar (msg) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Niks mis mee, het gaat wel om het jaar van oplevering. Vaak oorlog over, maar Commons mag anders zijn dan de lokale Wikipedia's. De Duitse en Engelse verschillen, de een kijkt naar de tewaterlating, de ander naar de oplevering. Je vindt de meeste scheepsgegevens op http://www.shipspotting.com, in elk geval het bouwjaar, daar kan je altijd de juiste category mee aanmaken. De rest komt dan wel een keer. Als je ook een plaatje in Categorie:Ships zet, komt ie altijd langs en wordt opgepikt. Voor Equasis moet je je aanmelden, maar die doen niet lastig en sturen nooit reclame rond. --Stunteltje (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hartelijk dank voor de hulp & informatie! groeten, -- Deadstar (msg) 14:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

IJsbrekers

Ik heb nog wat fotootjes in de Category:Icebreakers of the Netherlands gezet waaropo de namen van de bootjes en de tanker te ontcijferen zijn: voorop gin de Rodie, daarna de Chlsea-B en tenslotte de binnenvaarttanker Gulf Pride. Let op: de twee bootjes zijn kennelijk allebei van het bedrijf dat ook Rodie heet. En ik schrijf ~ergens Chelsey, dat is vaud, moet zijn Chelsea B. Koosg (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hartelijk dank. Daarmee kon ik de category van de Rodie aanmaken en de foto's daar naartoe overzetten. Van de Chesey-B had ik die al en de eigen plaatjes van de Gulf Pride heb ik gelijk ook maar eens geupload en in de eigen category geplaatst. Ik moet nog honderden binnenschepen doen. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ik schreef ook eerst Chelsey, maar zag vanochtend dat het Chelsea is. Ben je ook geïntereseerd in oude binnenschepen? In sleepbootjese? In jachten? Koosg (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Kijk op nl:Stella Maris (1929) (een varend monument) en daar zie je mijn eigen binnenschip. Ik ben zeer geïnteresseerd in foto's van binnenschepen. Zelf heb ik van zo'n 1350 schepen en sleepboten foto's op naam in de computer staan, waarvan ik honderden schepen moet uploaden. Ik heb op Commons ingevoerd weten te krijgen dat de scheepscategorieën op naam en jaar van oplevering zijn gezet. Daarmee zijn nu zo'n dikke 14.000 schepen en sleepboten op naam en jaar van oplevering gezet en ik vermoed dat ik daar zelf de een derde tot helft wel eens van gedaan kan hebben. Op mijn machien staat een lijst van alle binnenschepen en sleepboten met marifoon en die lijst werk ik steeds bij als ik weer een zwik plaatjes heb geupload. Kortom, foto's zijn zeer welkom en als je niet weet welke category ze zijn, gewoon even vragen. Ik zoek de ENI en IMO nummers er dan wel bij en het bouwjaar. Werk ook mee aan de LVBHB database. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Meripelastus

Thanks for notice, I've moved the file... Rename request to that file was added by another user but quite always I control if a new name is correct per spelling. I've not see the second "s" in the picture. Regards :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 16:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I make a hell of a lot of mistakes myself and I am alway happy being helped in cases like this. That's why. --Stunteltje (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Another ship

Another ship, the name seems to be Almirante Tamandaré.

File:Rebocador Rio Guaíba 01.jpg

Europa number ?

Frequently, when searching for ships by ENI number, I find information about them by dropping the leading zero. To facilitate such searches at Commons, I wonder if we should add a template to categories for vessels built before 2007 such as Category:ENI 06000961 mentioning this (sample: Europa Number 6000961). --  Docu  at 12:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't think it is a good idea. Everybody has to know that the Europanumber is the same as the ENI-number, but without the zero. In due time you'll only find Europanumbers in old documents. --Stunteltje (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Even the Europanumber doesn't exist. It is in Dutch the Officieel scheepsnummer. We also don't have categories with Official Numbers for sea going ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Sorry, thought you were talking about categories. A template with "Europa number" is something else. I wonder if anybody outside Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands has any idea about it. --Stunteltje (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I mainly thought about a template (or a text in the description), not a category.

In the past, I frequently found information with that number elsewhere, but I mainly hesitate about adding it because I'm not sure if it can apply to most ENIs with a leading 0 for a vessel built before 2007. Depending on the wording of the template, a few exceptions wouldn't matter.

An alternate way of including it could be on {{ENIcat}} (possibly it could be calculated when it should be included). --  Docu  at 21:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

ENIcat is a perfect idea. Hoped for it. I am not able to create tempaltes, otherwise I had already made it myself. See nl:ENI-Nummer and de:ENI-Nummer and you'll find that almost any vessel with an Europanumber can have a 0 to get an ENI number. Only new vessels from other countries than Rhine-border-states will differ in some cases. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:AIDA_luna

AIDA luna has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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 it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Jochkdee63 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy of discussion

Ships by year of completion

I changed your Category:JS Haruyuki (DD-128). The reason is that the "Ships built in" date for ships on Commons differs from other Wikipedia's. Here on Commons we use the date by completion, for naval ships is that the date of first commissioning. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am quite embarrassed. Almost all the U.S./Royal Navy's ships are currently categoriezed in their date of launches. For example, nobody dares to change Category:USS Enterprise (CVN-65) into "built in 1961", nor Category:HMS Invincible (R05) into "built in 1980". How should I interprete these discrepancies? --トトト (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ships categorising is difficult, as worldwide Wikipedia's differ in the date of start. Some Wikipedia's use the date of launching of ships, some the date of completion of ships. Have a look at the digfference in e.g. French, German, English and Dutch Wikipedia. On Commons, as it is a worldwide working database, it is important and accepted to use just one system for any item. One has to make a choise. The date of completion can be found on the certificates of the ships, on contracts and publications in the media, even for old ships, not described in full on the internet. In that case the date of completion is the best choise if we want to find start dates. Unfortunately naval shiplovers here on Commons want to continue the system of their local Wikipedia for their naval ships. As the content of USS naval ships is the biggest of naval ships on Commons, you'll find the English Wikipedia system here on a lot of USS naval ships. That's why. But have a look at the en:Category:HMS Dreadnought (1875) and de:Category:HMS Dreadnought (1879), same ship. Here on Commons we have more than 15.000 ships in Category:Ships by name, in just one system: without any prefix and by date of completion. Without prefixes, as each language has its own prefix system. The only exeptions are a lot of naval ships. Sometimes it is impossible to avoid prefixes, as ships are just numbered and during a vast period only the pennant number is painted on the ship. E.g. Category:LST-325 (ship, 1943). Please realise that Commons is just a database for images and it is important to find these images. It is not a Wikipedia. --Stunteltje (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

More ships

• Barca Noiva do Cai
• Lancha Talha-Mar
• Navio Guarita
• Barca Princesa Daiana
• Barca Dona Armandina
• Rebocador Thor
• Shenandoah Highway see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_State_Highway_65
• Lancha Gravatai

thank you.--Paulo rsmenezes (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What wrong with these categories?

Hi! I ask you beforehand to excuse my awful English. Explain, please, what did you that for?--Kaidor (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand your English, no problem. I did it because you added (correct) categories to an image that is already categorised that way together with other images in Category:Peacock (ship, 1828). Categorising the way you did is double, the image and the category of the image have the same categories. We call it over-categorising. That's why. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. There are some problems with what you say:

1. In this case was enough to delete Category:United States Exploring Expedition.

2. From your explanation is not clear what wrong with Category:Washington (state) in the 1840s. It's neither doubled, nor over-categorised.

3. And in general, as for Category:United States Exploring Expedition, I think it would be better to create new categories inside it: a) "Ships of United States Exploring Expedition" and remove all picture of Peacock and other US Ex Ex vessels there; and b) "Books about United States Exploring Expedition" - remove in it Category:Twenty years before the mast (1896) by Charles Erskine and other books which I will upload hereafter. I can do it myself, but I am afraid that I will spell their names wrong. :)

P.S.: It was very hard to express so long thought in language which I almost don't speak. But I hope that you'll understand me. :))))--Kaidor (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't excuse for the language. Being a Dutchman I can very well understand what you write. I don't agree, but that is different. Have a look at the categories of the *Category:Peacock (ship, 1828). There are:

• Category:Ships built in New York
• Category:Ships built in 1828
• Category:Sailing ships of the United States Navy
• Category:Research ships of the United States
• Category:United States Exploring Expedition
• Category:Twenty years before the mast (1896) by Charles Erskine
• Category:Grounded ships
• Category:Ships by name
• Category:Ships built at the New York Naval Shipyard

and now the categories of File::Wreck of the Peacock. Drawn by A.T. Agate.png

• Category:Twenty years before the mast (1896) by Charles Erskine
• Category:United States Exploring Expedition
• Category:Washington (state) in the 1840s

You find two categories the same, that is overcategorised. The other one is not correct for all files in the ship-category, so I left this one out. Hope this clarifies. Otherwise: ask and I will try to explain. (Nothing wrong with your suggested categories. Just leave all ship images in the ship category. ) --Stunteltje (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll ask one of Russian-speaking administrators who is fluent in English to be an arbiter between us. Such dialogue is too difficult for me. Sorry. :)--Kaidor (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think, it is not correct to file the Category:Peacock (ship, 1828) in this both categories Twenty years before the mast (1896) by Charles Erskine and United States Exploring Expedition. Albeit I am not an expert in ships, I'm going to argue using just my intuition on how a category system usually has to work. An inferior category normally should be a logical subset of the superior one, like it is clearly the case in «Category:Charles Dickens -> Category:Works by Charles Dickens», «Category:Vienna -> Category:Streets in Vienna», etc. Now, this does neither necessarily apply for «Category:United States Exploring Expedition -> Category:Peacock (ship, 1828)» nor for «Category:Twenty years before the mast (1896) by Charles Erskine -> Category:Peacock (ship, 1828)». Otherwise, ALL photographs of this ship would be automatically in the category for the expedition resp. for the book, what would produce wrong logical intersections, since there were certainly pictures of this ship taken not during the expedition, perhaps long before it, so that they have nothing to do with the expedition as well as with the book. However, I would support if both categories were a part of Category:Peacock (ship, 1828), since the ship is superior for both subjects (without this Peacock ship, there would have been neither the expedition nor the book). I'd be OK as well with a separate categorization of selected files, but please do not produce subcats with wrong intersections. - A.Savin 17:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am no expert in history, but I categorised thousands of ships by name, country and so on. My only goal is to group images of a certain ship in a category by name and that category by IMO number (mostly ships built after 1960) as that number doesn't change during the lifetime of the ship. The category by name in a category by country, by type, and so on, see Category:Ships. You are correct in placing images of a ship in a lot of other categories, as long as they stay also in the category of the ship by name. In that case the category of the ship by name Category:Peacock (ship, 1828) is not used for the category where these images are shown. That is what was intended, I might have misinterpreted this. Your conclusion is right, for expedition or book not all images of the ship are applicable, so expedition- and book-category can easily be sub-categories of the ship, not the opposite way. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss it seriatim. First of all, I agree with your concideration absolutely but I can't see how my proposal is at variance with it. I'm suggesting again - it is necessary in the Category:Peacock (ship, 1828) to replace Category:United States Exploring Expedition by Category:Ships participated in United States Exploring Expedition (in exemplification of category's name to be), and to move Category:Twenty years before the mast (1896) by Charles Erskine straight into File:Wreck of the Peacock. Drawn by A.T. Agate.png (other categories of Category:Peacock (ship, 1828) will remain in place). Thus we will have the following category lines: «Category:United States Exploring Expedition→Category:Ships participated in United States Exploring Expedition→Category:Peacock (ship, 1828)→File:Wreck of the Peacock. Drawn by A.T. Agate.png» and «Category:United States Exploring Expedition→Category:Books about United States Exploring Expedition (in exemplification)→Category:Twenty years before the mast (1896) by Charles Erskine→File:Wreck of the Peacock. Drawn by A.T. Agate.png. Why not? Is it conflict with categorization ships by name? In what way?
P.S.: You are likely tired of me, but I do it becuase I worry about wiki-project the same as you do, sorry. :) I'm sure that two sane men always arrange a settlement if they want it. --Kaidor (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• First: I am NOT tired of you at all, we are in discussion and that is no problem. Your proposal is correct and I will NOT revert if you recategorise, as long as the images of the ship can be found in de ship by name category. I am perhaps a little bit short in tone, but please realise that you are discussing with a Dutchman. As far as I know the Dutch are famous for their bluntness. I'll try to avoid it. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Don't worry about tones - I am not so understanding English as to tell one from the other. :) As for the subject I'm glag that we could come to an agreement. I'll create those two categories, but tell me, please, are the names which I suggested for them correctly? Haven't they grammatical, stylistic or any other errors?--Kaidor (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And secondly, we are in disagreement over Category:Washington (state) in the 1840s. Do you think that a certain file (exactly file, not category) which have a certain category-1 may be added in certain category-2 only if ALL files in category-1 may be added in category-2? For example, mustn't picture "Peacock against iceberg" have Category:Icebergs if other files in Category:Peacock (ship, 1828) not contain images of icebergs? Do I understand your thought rightly or am I mistaken?--Kaidor (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is a relation of the ship with an iceberg visible in an immage, it is correct to categorise it in the Category:Peacock (ship, 1828) and in Category:Icebergs. And I am neither a native speaker of the English language, so don't trust my English too. Give it a try and if it is wrong, a native administrator will correct, I assume. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So it's immaterial whether the other files in Category:Peacock (ship, 1828) contain any iceberg pictures or not. Isn't it? Then it seems illogical to me to leave Category:Washington (state) in the 1840s out of File:Wreck of the Peacock. Drawn by A.T. Agate.png by reason of being "not correct for all files in the ship-category" (as you wrote).--Kaidor (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Should I take your silence as consent?--Kaidor (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Stunteltje (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for your patience. Good luck! --Kaidor (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

double files

I trusted the software to detect (exactly) identical files automagically. Seems that failed complete, did it? --Itu (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I assume so, as I found the image in the category by name after categorising. Something is not correct, as I saw the colour after "duplicate" not change to blue. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Trillium

After I tell you about the naming of the Trillium (ship, 1913), its renaming to Trillium (ferry), you may tell me you only think the (ship, year) naming convention should only be used on the commons. You may tell me that commenting at Talk:Trillium (ferry) lies outside how you budget your time. That would be OK.  :)

I value your organizing efforts. Organizing our images in a systematic way is more important than the uploading of new images. And I really appreciate your work.

I started an article on Trillium (ship, 1913). It was renamed to Trillium (ferry) -- with the old name speedy deleted.  :(

The renamer was correct. One of the first sources I found said the vessel dated back to 1913. But the others say it dated back to 1910. Famous writer Ernest Hemingway was a junior reporter in Toronto in 1911, and he wrote about it running aground in 1911. Even so, since some references say 1913 I think the 1913 redirect should not have been deleted.

Do you think there is an argument to be made for using the (ship, year) suffix on the English language wikipedia?

Thanks for your organizing efforts!

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• The renamer agreed to Trillium (ship, 1910). Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all: there will alway be discussion about the start-date of a certain ship, as long as there is no user who can check this date at the Lloyds-database. We have to live with the fact that we have no error-free database on Commons. For me no problem, as long as the vast majority is correct. Then we have also the difference in dates of launch and date of completion. Your suggestion for using the (ship, date) construction on the English Wikipedia is rational and logical. But I wonder if people will accept the change to date of completion for ships. When we use the same construction on the English Wikipedia and Commons, I assume it is even more confusing when in the same system of naming these dates of start differ. At the moment we see different systems of naming used and can be explained that different Wikipedias use different systems and Commons an own consequent system. See how difficult it is to change the naming of USS/HMS naval ships on Commons.

By the way: when you look at www.polsonironworks.com in stead of www.polsonironworks.ca, you'll find even a launch date of the Trillium. Unfortunately no date of completion. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your long and thoughtful reply. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments NL

Beste Stunteltje,

Alle winnende foto's van Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 zijn ondertussen gedrukt als kalenders.

Wikimedia Nederland stelt er hier 100 van beschikbaar voor alle uploaders van de afbeeldingen. Geef op de bijgevoegde link je naam en adres en we sturen je kosteloos een exemplaar toe, als dank voor je deelname! Let op: op = op!! Bestel hier één kalender per adres.

Ook dit jaar zal er in september weer een Nederlandse Wiki Loves Monuments plaatsvinden, als onderdeel van de internationale wedstrijd. Meer informatie vind je tegen die tijd op http://www.wikilovesmonuments.nl/.
Ook zoeken wij nog vrijwilligers die het leuk vinden om mee te helpen met het organiseren van de landelijke wedstrijd of van locale evenementen (een "Wiki takes..." in je eigen woonplaats dus!). Meer informatie daarover vind je op de wiki van Wikimedia Nederland.

Sent by Lucia Bot^talk in 15:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Burdigala peniche (1).jpg

You uploaded this file and I try to categorise the ship properly. Can you read her ENI-number on one of your originals --Stunteltje (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I think it's LI10564F but i'm not sure. I hope it's ok for you. Regards. CaptainHaddock (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't found a transponation table for French barge-numbers to Europa- or ENI-numbers yet. But I will try to find the year of built via Google with this number. Thanks for your help. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Found !! 1960 Hopefully with correct ENI number, as it can be changed by changing flag those days. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Viking Kirov (ship, 1987)

She is not "Viking Kirov". Viking Kirov has four decks. Viking cruises don't have two decks ships in Russia ([14], [15], [16]).--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• You are right, I found other images that gave the impression. But I could not read the text in Russian. Thanks for the correction. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't read the name too. I'm sure that she is Dunay class, 305 project. May be "ПАЛЛАДА" (Pallada) [17].--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Thomas Tucker shipwreck 24 Jun 2006.JPG

Where you find the IMO number of this ship? IMO was founded in 1948, but the ship was lost in 1942. It makes no sense to give numbers to the lost ships.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume the number came from the Miramar Ship Index, see the time and date 18:45, 18 April 2009‎. Miramar used the number 5 for ships of ancient and old ships, just to make it possible to group information per ship. Since Miramar wants to be payed, I don't use their information any more. I'll ask for deletion of the category, because you are definately right. So if you go through the IMO numbers starting with a 5, very well possible you find more of these old and virtual IMO numbers. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have the same problem with File:Bundesarchiv Bild 116-127-060, China, Tsingtau-Dampfschiff.jpg. I can't find anything about the ship.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless found by this IMO number or by accident we'll never find the vessel. The indication is Tsingtau and that is a place in China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsingtau#German_colonial_period_and_Japanese_occupation. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I hoped that you remember info about ship with this number. So propose to delete this number too.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    •  Done --Stunteltje (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bore (ship, 1894)

Dag, enig idee om de mixup in Category:Bore (ship, 1894) op te lossen ? Ik vind geen andere Bore ijsbreker. --Foroa (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ga ik naar zoeken. Gebeurt er niets, heb ik niets gevonden. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Wel een foto gevonden: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22539639@N02/4481538608/ en de omschrijving lijkt er op. Ga je op IMO nummer zoeken vind je alleen de uitgebreide naam en niet die op het schip staat. Mijn idee: Bore (ship, 1962) omdat in de tussenliggende periode het schip best zo geheten kan hebben en dit staat op het schip geschilderd. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Dank je, maar eindelijk is het een tug, dus zou het "Bore (tug, 1962)" zonder "AF Vesteras" moeten zijn ? --Foroa (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Oef, foutje, bedankt :=)) Bore (tugboat, 1962) Ik denk zonder die toevoeging, omdat het zo op het schip staat. Andere schepen met zo'n naam heb ik ook niet kunnen vinden, maar ik heb geen toegang meer tot Miramar. En als iemand het beter weet worden wel op de vingers getikt. Heb ik nooit moeite mee (grrr). --Stunteltje (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Military ships

Hi,

Just noticed this... Leaving aside the POV I feel, and I know a significant body of users feel, that for military ships we should use the military prefix (when it exists), I have real concern with the exact categories you are creating.

Military ship names are the plain name, and do not include the pennant number. For example, the "name" of the ship described at w:USS Enterprise (CVN-65) is "Enterprise". Its not "CVN-65 Enterprise". Including the pennant in such a manner is less consistent with the standard for civilian shipping, and creates something that never existed in the first place. Furthermore pennant numbers can change without any alterations to the ship or its ownership (the Enterprise was reclassified from CVAN to CVN).

In the case of certain ships, such as some LSTs and submarines, they never received a "name" as such, but are known by the pennant number in the absence of anything better, so the pennant is the de facto name.

While I'd strongly prefer that military ship cats are not adapted into the commercial structure, if that's done I'd like to see it done properly (please put appropriate redirects/disambiguations in place so people searching for ships by using the most common form of their name (ie prefixes) can find them). It would be better to drop the pennants entirely than to fit them awkwardly in like that.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all I agree in the fact that the naming of categories has to be consistent. As mentioned, the problem is the changing of the prefixes for militay ships. Ships can be found via the name painted on the ship. You don't have to be an expert to find the ship that way. In Commons no problem when a ship is renamed, the ship gets a new category for images with her new name. Ships built after 1948 or so have in many cases an IMO number, so the connection for all images of those ships is via the IMO number.

Military ships in fact don't differ from commercial ships, when someone wants to write an article, available images of the ship can be found in many cases in Commons. I am not happy with the fact that military ships up till now cannot always be directly found in a category by the indication painted on the ship. Experts know excactly all possibilities, but we don't have a database for experts, but for everybody who wants to write an article on a certain Wikipedia. So in my opinion also for military ships the category-name has to be the indication (pennant number in many cases, I learned Russian ships have no real pennant number), painted on the ship, followed by her name and the year of completion or first commissioning.

Unfortunately there is no such IMO number system for military ships, as far as I know. So when the number on the hull is changed - we don't have a coupling mechanism.

I strongly feel that we have to leave ou the prefixes, as long as they are not painted on the ships. My problem is, that we don't have consensus reached about leaving them out completely for all USS ships. You yourself gave a good reason not to use them in a category name, they can differ from time to time. No problem at all to do it in a certain Wikipedia, but not in Commons. Ships of the Royal Dutch Navy are always known here as "Hare majesteit's" followed by the name. Not a way the Dutch naval ships should be categorised in Commons. We also had "French ship" categories. Category names have to be language independant as much as possible. Even for ships of English speaking countries. But sometimes I categorise in line with the rest of a category, although I don't agree with the system used. This is what happend here :=((

For the LSTs we have two other problems. (1) In the fifties a lot of them got a name, not all. I choose to mention these names in the LST categories, according the mentioned system. (2) Many of them have painted US with a pennant number on the hull and not LST. I categorised LST, but after all for these ships US was better and more in line. We can alway recategorise. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The pennant number may be painted on the ship, but its not the name. The ship's name is also painted on the ship and/or put on a nameplate - typically in the same sort of places as it is on commercial shipping (such as the stern). Its not as prominent as the number on the side of the hull, but that number is there to serve as a quick recognition marker. This image shows the ship's name clearly enough - and that sign is similar in proportion to the name on most cargo ships.

The most prominent marking on the ship may not be the ship's name on commercial ships as well as military ones. Consider File:HMS Richmond.jpg and File:Normandie edited.jpg. The most prominent markings on those ships are "F239" and "Brittany Ferries", but the two ships are "HMS Richmond" and "Normandie" to their owners.

Its problematic that the IMO system doesn't extend to military hulls, but that's not the end of the world. The Titanic didn't have a IMO number, or the Santa Maria, or... IMO number is one valuable sort mechanism, but its not the only one.

The category scheme can allow search-by-pennant number easily enough. To use the Enterprise example - it could be in categories with names like "ships with pennant number 65", "US Navy ships with hull classification code CVN" and "US Navy ships with hull classification code CVAN". The pennant information doesn't need to be in the category name to allow non-experts to use the categories.These categories allow for appropriate searching by people who are unfamiliar with the ships. Remember also, if the only thing a person knows about a photo of a ship is that it has "65" on its side, they cannot ID it from that alone, but need further information.

Including the pennant name in the category name, not in parentheses to disambiguate, but as part of the name itself is unnatural. Removing prefixes has pros and cons, but adding something else is just plain wrong: No-one refers to this ship as "J181 Tamworth", so we shouldn't either.

Including the pennant also has the major drawback that many military ships have their designation changed while remaining in service with the same country. Their name is much more stable, and is only likely to change if the ship is sold to a new country. Using exactly the same system as for commercial shipping, or to use an alternative system based on prefix and pennant, are viable as category schemes. But not <pennant> <name>.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To use the Tamworth example - the following forms would be OK to me: "Tamworth (ship, 1942)" (with or without a HMAS prefix), "Tamworth (J181) (ship,1942)" (with or without a HMAS prefix) or "HMAS Tamworth (J181)". The middle one is awkward but makes it clear that the J181 is not part of its name.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the community will accept the second option indeed. The only problem is that people can't find the ship directly in a category with the indication that is painted on the hull in big letters and numbers in the first option, as by "J181 Tamworth (ship, 1942)". But I agree that for military ships Category:Ships by pennant number is a workable solution for that problem. We can always mention that in the header of the name category. Your first option has the enormous advantage that we don't have problems to think about prefixes and pennants anymore, just by name and year of completion or first commissioning also for military ships is the very best solution, in my opinion. Having seen the discussion before, I hope that the community will agree. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I can tolerate that option, but I don't really like it without the prefix for the English-language navies. The objection to the number being in the category name is its not part of the name in any way shape or form; the category header can and should include such info of course. I think we should ensure we use commissioning dates too - otherwise we will have cases where WP says "1923" and Commons says "1925" for the same ship.

With regards to the prefix: In the English-speaking navies, the prefix is a formal part of the name. Furthermore, the ship is referred to with the same prefix in other languages (see these Argentine, Dutch and German stories for instance), the prefix for these does not change with the language of the speaker. The "USS" or "HMS" may not be painted on the side, but its how you correctly refer to the ship in multiple languages, not just English. Therefore Commons ought to use this form too (ie with the English prefix), even though its not physically on the ship's hull, for the English-language navies.

This behaviour is peculiar to the English-speaking navies. The Dutch prefix "Hr. Ms." is used in Dutch, but Dutch ships are often referred to as HMNLS in English. English-language sources use FS for French ships and FGS for German ships, to fit them into the English pattern, even though the French and Germans do not use any prefixes for their own ships. That suggests, to me, without prefixes for the non-English-speaking navies is fine.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

We are not talking about naming ships in a Wikipedia, but about categorising ships in Commons. It has to be language independant and that leaves prefixes out. There is a difference between Wikipedia's and Commons. Commons is the database for images and NOT a Wikipedia. In the Category:Ships by name it is possible to find any ship by name, as long as there is a name in the category, just using the | tool. Categories of military ships - if one has to categorise an image - can be found by name and in many cases also by pennant number. By the way: do we have images of HRM ships where the name is carved with prefixes in the nameplates? --Stunteltje (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My point is this ship is known as "HMS Daring" in English. It is known as "HMS Daring" in French, and German, and Dutch and Spanish and... That is language-independent - as all languages include it! The fact HMS is short for an English phrase (Her Majesty's Ship") isn't relevant, non-English language sources use it without translating, just as they don't translate the rest of the name. What's on the side of the ship is beside the point too - the name of the ship is "HMS Daring" , and therefore its category name should include that phrase too. Category names ultimately reflect the name of the subject, not some code we make up for convenience. (You can use sort keys to sort that as "Daring").--Nilfanion (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

We already had that discussion. See Commons_talk:Naming_categories --Stunteltje (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

And that discussion hardly reached consensus with regards to the particular issue of military ships. "<pennant> <name>" format is significantly worse than the "<prefix> <name>" format for HMS and USS - ships with those prefixes are known as "<prefix> <name>" in most languages, much more commonly than they are known as "<name>", and they are hardly ever referred to as "<pennant> <name>". Keeping the prefixes for these actually is an aid to people looking for them, not a hindrance. Remember these prefixes (unlike ones like SS and MV) are not language dependent. Its OK to have exceptions to rules (as long as its clear just what they are) one size fits nobody is worse than no policy.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It is better to discuss this on a wider forum, because I think we don't differ much in the intension to improve the way of finding images. I was already prepairing a wider discussion in my sandbox Ships about categorising ships. When we leave out all prefixes, pennant numbers and hull classification codes and stick to just names it will give a lot of work but will improve clarity of naming categories of ships. Thought to present this discussion in the already opened discussion about category ships by name around the moment we reach 20.000 ships by name, but I see now it is wiser to do it earlier and try to finalise that discussion. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Suur Tõll IMO categories

Hello,

Estonian museum icebreaker Category:Suur Tõll (ship, 1914) has two IMO categories, Category:IMO 6104574 and Category:IMO 8640351. You have created both IMO cats, but User:Docu has added the 6104574 number to Suur Tõll later: Revision of Category:Suur Tõll (ship, 1914). Do you know which IMO cat is correct? MKFI (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Cannont find information about a ship with Category:IMO 6104574 in Google. Equasis gives: "The Imo Ship number is not valid", so the checksum is not correct and something is wrong with that number. For IMO 8640351 gives Equasis: "No ship has been found with your criteria" so the checksum is correct. This number is also given in Shipspotting. So I assume this number is the correct one. Please realise the IMO number for ships was created after WW2, so it is special when a ship built in 1914 has an IMO number. I'll copy this discussion to User:Docu, as he might have had a special reason for the other number. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Categorie Oleg Strashnov

Hoi Stunteltje, ik zag dat iemand onlangs de Category:Oleg Strashnov (ship, 2011) heeft aangemaakt om daar vervolgens een foto van mij in te plaatsen die ik 2010 heb gemaakt en waaraan jij destijds ook nog informatie hebt toegevoegd. Nu lijkt het bouwjaar 2011 op het eerste gezicht natuurlijk vreemd bij een schip dat in 2010 in volwaardig ogende toestand is gespot, maar zou het terecht kunnen zijn, bijv. omdat het om een afbouwjaar gaat? Groet, Apdency (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Inderdaad, goed gezien. Voor de categorie-indeling hanteren we het jaar van oplevering of ingebruikstelling. We strijden nog steeds over die indelingen en ik heb ter voorbereiding van de afronding een stuk geformuleerd in m'n zandbak User:Stunteltje/Sandbox/Ships. Daar wordt dat verdedigd, maar er kan op geschoten worden door iedereen en naar ik hoop staat er dan geen onzin meer als we de discussie hervatten waar die hoort, in Category:Ships_by_name. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Uitgebreid beschreven onderwerp, valt zo te zien veel over te zeggen. Ik hou me maar afzijdig van de discussie, maar weet (in elk geval voorlopig) hoe het zit. Hartelijk dank. Apdency (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

De Majesteit

Hallo Stunteltje, ich habe einige der Bilder des oben genannten Schiffs bearbeitet, da ich einen Artikel in der Deutschen Wikipedia über De Majesteit geschrieben habe. Vielen Dank für die Bilder! Viele Grüße --Rolf H. (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ich kann neue Bilder machen, wenn Sie wünschen. Dass Schiff is meistens in Bild wenn ich mit mein Schiff in der nähe von Rotterdam bin. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Danke Dir! Die Bilder sind schon sehr gut. Ich habe das Schiff meistens nur in die Mitte zentriert, ein wenig Farbe und Schärfe nachgearbeitet. Wenn Du mit Deinem Schiff vorbei kommst, wäre es schön wenn du die Radkästen und die Dampforgel auf dem Dach in Großaufnahme fotografieren könntest. Andere Aufnahmen sind natürlich auch toll. Viele Grüße --Rolf H. (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ships_at_Tonnerres_de_Brest_2012

Ships at Tonnerres de Brest 2012 has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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 it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--  Docu  at 16:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ships in Mülheim an der Ruhr

Hi Stunteltje, as I know you much better than me in categorizing ships, I'd like to ask you for a little assistance. Could you please check the ships I saw here in Mülheim an der Ruhr to give them appropriate categories? Thanks in advance! -- Ies (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

File:SS Bismarck Launch.jpg

Hello Stunteltje, I found this file, which is categorized in Category:Majestic (ship, 1914). A own category for pictures of the ship during WWI would be named Category:Bismarck (ship, 1914), but this category is allready used for pictures of a paddlewheeler. Now my question is how to name an alternativ category for the ocean liner. --Ambross07 (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

See "How to create a category for a ship", description in the header of Category:Ships by name. Just add the building place (of the yard) to both names. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Allright, thank you. --Ambross07 (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hartelijk dank.

Hartstikke bedankt vor de ondersteuning! Groet -- Biberbaer (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Graag gedaan. Was me met een aantal akties al voor. Prima. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Moin master, I need assistance once again ;-)) [18] Please create a category:Sanssouci (ship, 1962) Thanks for the trouble! -- Biberbaer (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Also for the Classic Queen --Stunteltje (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012! Dear Stunteltje, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 09:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Barges by country‎

It is against policy to have a gallery in a category, particularly a meta-category that should have no images at all. See Commons:Categories#Creating_a_new_category which lists very clearly what belongs on a category page. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have always understood that policy is less important than the fact that we can help the user with correct categorising images. For me the ENI number shown on a barge is very useful to trace the nationality, especially when the ship is not found via the internet. The image itself is the only source, in that case. For that reason I prefer the use of a gallery, but there is no problem at all with a simple list in place of the gallery. I own a barge, so for me categorising barges and ships is less difficult. My problem is the language, as I am not a native speaker of the English language and I am not familiar with non-european terms. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that having the pictures would be nice in this case, but I fear creating a precedent. Also, I think that a simple list might be even easier than trying to see the numbers on the images.

It works the other way around. Find the number on the image and with that number we find the name, shipyard, date of completion and so on. But O.K., skip the gallery. We don't need precedents.

As an aside, I should add that the word "barge" means something very different in the USA. Here, a barge is never powered and, with few exceptions, is rectangular with a sloping bow and square stern. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Saw that comment. Please help with finding a solution to create a logical structure for ships built for inland waterways. I already made a first suggestion at the category discussion. At least using the terms "passenger vessels" and "passenger ships" (ENI and IMO) is a good start, I assume. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Batjan-class corvettes

Aangezien je deze pagina aanmaakte en leeghaalde, heb ik hem verwijderd. Als dat een foute beslissing was, dan moet je het maar zeggen. Trijnstel_talk 20:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Prima, ik maakte een foutje. De informatie staat nu in de category, in plaats van in de gallery. Zoals je merkt ben ik de Nederlandse marineschepen aan het opschudden en dat is nogal veel werk. Maar het resultaat is wat mij betreft helderheid. Zie category:Naval ships of the Netherlands. Nu nog de class-categories separeren. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Naval ships of Germany

The description of this category is “Naval ships of Germany classes, [...]”. I don't see, why we should sort all ships directly in this cat. Best --MB-one (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

At this moment you are definately right. But have a look at Category:Naval ships of the Netherlands. This is what I intend to do for more countries, knowing that - when completed as far as possible - we have to skip the class-categories from those Naval categories. Doing it this way, a more or less standardised stucture can be created where every user can find images for the ship he/she wants to write an article for. That is the target.

In my opinion a not-specialist user will not know the proper classes, but specialists do. So the easyest way is to group all naval ships of a certain country in one category and group all classes in another tree of classes, starting with Category:Ships by class and by name. Unfortunately there are only 24 hours in a day and it is impossible to do all that work in a few days. I want it completed before I start organising and working on United Kindom or United States categories. Working on those naval categories, I started with categorising all individual images of ships in a category by function. Having all ships categorised in that function and by class, I skipped the class from the Naval ship category. So what you see now is in my view a temporary status.

Notice the all prefixes are skipped in Category:Naval ships of the Netherlands. That is what I intend to do for other naval ships too. So no Hr. Ms. or SMS. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It is no good way to sort all ships in only one category. Countries with big navies like the UK or the USA and even Germany would have cats, which would be real monsters with no comfort for users. When I'm searching for a special ship I allways use the searchbar. Who want's to search in much too big categories like Category:Ships by name? --Ambross07 (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If it works out being not practical, I think, it is only for UK and US. The Dutch fleet is very big, but have a look to the result. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC) For UK exists Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom by name --Stunteltje (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/04/Category:Disney Magic (ship, 1998)

Why did you undo the moving of the files in Category:Disney Magic (ship, 1998) to Category:Disney Magic and from Category:Disney Wonder (ship, 1999) to Category:Disney Wonder? I closed the CfD as having consensus for Category:Disney Magic and Category:Disney Wonder. If you want to contest this result, please file a new CfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Discussion of meta Category:Ships by name made clear the there was no discussion left and was closed. So the move was in line. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

At the bottom of Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Ships by name, the closer said, "If there need to talk about special categories, please talk elsewhere on a special discussion site." This means that the meta CfD did not establish standards for all ship categories to follow. Therefore any specific discussion overrides the general CfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That is yout own conclusion, which I don't follow. What you try to do is override the convention of more than 20.000 other categories. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Lets face it: Category:Ships by name with its 22000 categories has been driving a de facto international multi-language standard that works for all wikipedias and that obviously override CFD's from 18 months ago. --Foroa (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not obvious at all. Tacking pointless descriptors on the end of a category name only makes it hard for users to link those categories, and they're completely unnecessary in this case. You don't get to override local consensus just because you like "consistency". Powers (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't change the category names in any local Wikipedia, as sometimes even prefixes are used there, according local consensus. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe it is worth opening a discussion to ensure that people do actually endorse the (type, year) convention being enforced on all ships? Because it is not clear to me at all that the meta CfD had such a consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. It means re-opening the same discussion.--Stunteltje (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is another discussion besides the CfD, no consensus has emerged so far. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a naming convention for these category described at Category:Ships by name. --  Docu  at 05:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't catch that, fair enough. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/04/Category:Disney Magic (ship, 1998) doesn't seem like a valid CfD, as I don't recall being notified as its creator. It seems that it was started manually rather than through the tool (see Special:Contributions/LtPowers). --  Docu  at 05:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't waste energy on that. Those names will need be disambiguated one day or another: en:Disney Magic (album); en:Magic Music Days, en:Wonder_Dog_(Disney_short)#1950, ... Anyway, the basic naming rule of Commons states that one should be able to guess what the category name means, which is obviously not the case with Disney Wonder and Magic. --Foroa (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Tora-Zo

Hallo Stunteltje, hast Du irgendwo ein Baujahr für die belgische Tora-Zo, ENI 06000336. Ich habe drei Bilder von ihr, die ich gerne hochladen würde. Ansonsten werden in den nächsten Tage noch recht viele andere Bilder von Frachtschiffen hochgeladen - denn ich bin meine Archive der Jahre 2011 und 2012 am durchsuchen. Viele Grüße --Rolf H. (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Leider nicht. Alternatif nur Category:Tora-Zo (ship). Grüße, --Stunteltje (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Oil platform "Eirik Raude"

Hello Stunteltje!

I have recently uploaded some images of the Oil platform "Eirik Raude". I have put them in Category:Eirik Raude. Can you find out additional info about this platform like the IMO number or where it was built, please? Would be great. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

In half an hour your questions were answered by user:Mike1979 Russia. I was at a yearly meeting of my organisation of ship owners. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Hervormde Kerk Meerkerk Kerkzegel.JPG

File:Hervormde Kerk Meerkerk Kerkzegel.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Vera (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ship related discussion

Hi Stunteltje,

FYI: At CfD:Jean Cam at Tonnerres de Brest 2012, I opened discussion on an event/location specific category. --  Docu  at 09:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)