Open main menu

File:Tugboats taking bulk carrier into Fremantle Outer Harbour, August 2019.jpgEdit

Thanks for that, I definetly got that wrong! I will nominate the file for renaming. I think the ship is the STI Yorkville, I saw her from a distance but the jetty the ship is at is the only here at Kwinana the public can't get close to! Vielen dank und machs gut, Calistemon (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Bulk carriers by countryEdit

I'm not sure it's worth subcategorizing bulk carriers by country. Most of those ships are simply flags of convenience, without any real ties to the country in question, and as such are mostly a duplication of (for example) "Ships registered in Valletta". I think I would probably leave bulk carriers as a large, flat category, unless there are finer-grained types of bulk carriers that can be determined. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't understand your point of view. It means, that these categories are also a duplication and therefore unnecessary? --Ein Dahmer (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
No, most of those are fine. The "in country" categories are of course fine -- those are for ships photographed in certain locations. Most of the categories there are by country of location. For things like naval ships where they really do serve a particular country, it also makes sense. For international cargo ships, particularly those with just flags of convenience, it doesn't really make sense to call them "of" a country -- it is only some paperwork which ties them there, and little else. In general, I don't think we subcategories Category:General cargo ships or similar by country (other than country by photo location). It doesn't make sense to remove them from the parent category just for a country of registration (and being in "Ships registered in Valletta" means they are already subcategories of "Ships of Malta" anyways). Subcategorizing by ship class, that would make sense, and probably some other aspects. But the country of registration really is not a distinguishing characteristic of bulk carriers in particular. I think it would have been done by now if it made sense -- Category:Bulk carriers (ships) has been around a long time, and it probably would have been subcategorized that way already if it was common practice. Things like Category:Chemical tankers by country, Category:LNG carriers by country, etc. are solely by country of location and not registration (i.e. for photos in particular locations where the photos are in them, but not the ship categories themselves). If a ship spends most of its life in one particular country, it makes more sense to me (so things like tugboats and ferries which are usually always in one country we categorize that way), but cargo ships are usually international and don't really serve or spend time in any one particular country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Veto, Category:Passenger ships by country or Category:Barges by country are not for country of (photo) locations. More attention should be taken to the Category:Ships by name and there subcategories with a lot of duplication. The “common practice” so far is not always reasonable, e.g. shipyard and the year of completion are coherent and should be in one category and not in two different ones (see Category:Tiona (ship, 1999)).--Ein Dahmer (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Most passenger ships are local. Obviously cruise ships are not, but most harbor ferries etc. are, and there are many more ships of those types that exist. I'm not sure I'd bother putting flag-of-convenience cruise ships in "Passenger ships of country". Barges often are confined to a country or smaller area as well; those don't cross oceans as much. As for year... I can kind of see it both ways. Logically, it makes sense to use the IMO category for "built in year". But, it's kind of soulless and not very searchable to see just a bunch of IMO numbers in a large category, which can only be in sections starting 5-9, rather than names which can be broken up using the whole alphabet when searching (and using the index templates, etc.). Also, the build year is part of every ship category name as it is. So, I have no problem putting those categories into the individual ship name cats, and avoiding putting IMO cats in there, and I'll probably continue that practice myself. It's not OVERCAT. There are many ships which don't have IMO numbers of course, so there is going to be some duplication of ships anyways. There are definitely some OVERCAT problems in the entire hierarchy to be sure. The "Ships by name (flat list)" was created to avoid some of the OVERCAT issues. Primarily though, I really don't see flags of convenience as really making ships "of" a country, and feel that putting such ships in "registered in Valletta" categories is enough for them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I think "by country" has long been established as a valid breakdown for diffusing many of the large ship type categories. And as to flag countries, especially categories for ships of convenience tend to become large quite fast, so it does make sense to break them down into ship types. However, I don't see how "Category:Bulk carriers" could otherwise be diffused by common and readily accessible attributes. De728631 (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
"by country" makes sense in a lot of places under ships (many types do tend to spend their life in one country), but for international cruise and cargo ships, it is exceedingly arbitrary and frankly uninteresting and basically meaningless due to the flags of convenience, and I'd rather have one big flat category rather than diffuse it that way. The subcategories will be almost as unwieldy, to me. A simple category cross section between "registered in city" and "bulk carriers" would get you the basic same thing. Diffusion by country really doesn't really help anyone search ("Let's see, was that cargo ship registered in Liberia or Panama?") as it really isn't a meaningful relationship between the ships. Sort of like diffusing by which international ship register they are in. Diffusion by ship class, that would make sense, and would be a useful category. The registration country is interesting as a bit of trivia, but doesn't seem very useful as a primary diffusion topic to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you that the "registered in city" approach is the favourable breakdown method for a country category, but from my experience it has one big issue. We do rarely get information about a ship's port of registry, while the flag country (or even the IMO no.) is more readily available. De728631 (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: For most of the flags of convenience, if you know the country, you know the port since it's just on paper anyways :-) For older ships, true. But when you don't know the port, it can be listed in "Ships of <country>". Not sure we need the parallel breakdown of "general cargo ships" and "bulk carriers" along with registration country specifically. I just don't find that breakdown a searching aid when drilling down these types of ships -- the registry countries are completely arbitrary and have nothing to do with where the ship serves (whereas that used to be the case, long ago). If you know the ship name and type, the alphabetic index would no longer be useful since you'd have to know the arbitrary country of registration in order to find it. For ship types which typically stay in a location, and that location is likely to be the country of registry, it makes much more sense (many harbor passenger ships, etc.). But for cargo ships (and other types which typically use flags of convenience) I'd rather keep bulk carriers a flat list than have that be the primary breakdown. There's no harm in having the categories, but there is some harm when you move ship cats out of the main bulk category per COM:OVERCAT just because it's in one of the per-country categories. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ein Dahmer".