Category talk:Carriages
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Category:Carriages[edit]
The category description says a carriage is "a four-wheeled horse drawn private passenger vehicle" but this contains sub-categories including Category:Two-wheeled open carriages (contradictory), Category:Gun-carriages (contradictory), Category:Horse carriages (redundant). Themightyquill (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep
- Category:Two-wheeled open carriages - obviously a carriage but as the name indicates it has just two wheels so not a (n unqualified) carriage!
- Category:Gun-carriages have been around almost for ever - they are special-purpose carriages
- Delete
- Category:Horse carriages possibly to differentiate from baby carriages?
- Eddaido (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Eddaido: It's not just a matter of keeping or deleting, but of hierarchy. If Category:Carriages is for "four-wheeled passenger vehicles" then neither Category:Two-wheeled open carriages nor Category:Gun-carriages should be sub-categories - they can continue to exist and even retain their names, but they shouldn't be in Category:Carriages. Alternately, we could change the category description for Category:Carriages to be broader. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- That seems to me to be confused thinking, perhaps you might go to some trouble to explain why you do not see the way they are now is the correct hierarchy. Simply saying so is no help. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how I can put it more plainly. If Category:Carriages is for "four-wheeled passenger vehicles" all the images in the category and its sub-categories should generally be four-wheeled passenger vehicles. It's a basic principle of our categorization structure. See Commons:Categories - Themightyquill (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK. I think you must be a computerist. A two-wheeled carriage is a carriage But it has only two wheels which is why that distinction is made in its name. Our language seems to make no allowance for this problem you have found. I dunno but cars have internal combustion engines and that simple fact might very well be included in the definition of a car. But there are a very very few that have e.g. electric motors and we call them electric cars or two seats not the four or six which remains a norm. Does'nt stop them being cars though. Does it? I don't think I can help any more but I will watch with interest. Eddaido (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how I can put it more plainly. If Category:Carriages is for "four-wheeled passenger vehicles" all the images in the category and its sub-categories should generally be four-wheeled passenger vehicles. It's a basic principle of our categorization structure. See Commons:Categories - Themightyquill (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- That seems to me to be confused thinking, perhaps you might go to some trouble to explain why you do not see the way they are now is the correct hierarchy. Simply saying so is no help. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Eddaido: It's not just a matter of keeping or deleting, but of hierarchy. If Category:Carriages is for "four-wheeled passenger vehicles" then neither Category:Two-wheeled open carriages nor Category:Gun-carriages should be sub-categories - they can continue to exist and even retain their names, but they shouldn't be in Category:Carriages. Alternately, we could change the category description for Category:Carriages to be broader. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, please don't make assumptions or accusations about my personal character. Second, Category:Automobiles doesn't include a description of the category that suggests all automobiles have internal combustion engines, so your hypothetical is useless. I'm not saying that a two-wheeled carriage isn't a carriage. I'm not saying a gun-carriage isn't a carriage. But neither belongs in a category for things four-wheeled passenger vehicles. So if you want them in Category:Carriages, we need to change our definition of carriage. Category:Cartridges is fine as is (with no definition), but if you added a description that said "Cartridges are packaging for projectiles" we'd have a problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I came across this as I was looking for a Category:Horse-drawn carriages which doesn't exist, but should (IMO) as it is the general name for the type of carriage (and not "horse carriage" as far as I'm aware). Repurpose the Category:Carriages to be a hold-all for all the above, including for instance "railway carriages". What do you think? -- Deadstar (msg) 08:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Deadstar. Yes, that might make sense. Alternately, a disambiguation page might be good if we can make it work. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- We could also leave the category structure as is, but change the category description to "wheeled passenger vehicles designed to be pulled by animals" and add "see also" links to other things (like train carriages, gun carriages, horse-drawn sleighs, etc) that don't fit. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK, so was bold and created Category:Horse-drawn carriages to replace Category:Horse carriages, as that just sounded wrong to me (ie it's not "a carriage for transporting horses"). I have added files to the category which now needs sorting... Updating the description here might then be enough? -- Deadstar (msg) 13:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- We could also leave the category structure as is, but change the category description to "wheeled passenger vehicles designed to be pulled by animals" and add "see also" links to other things (like train carriages, gun carriages, horse-drawn sleighs, etc) that don't fit. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- But what do we do with all the sub-categories of Category:Carriages? Leave them? Move them to [[ Category:Horse-drawn carriages and rename them (e.g. Category:Coachman-driven carriages > Category:Coachman-driven horse-drawn carriages)? I'm not sure we've figured out the complete solution yet. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can't think of a non-horse-drawn carriage where you would qualify the driver as "coachman" (but then, am not an expert in the area!) :) Underlying categories... Not a big fan of renaming everything to include "horse-drawn" as things get a bit clunky. So what about moving them and not renaming (unless that gets very confusing). I'll have a think. Inviting anyone who reads this to have a think too :) -- Deadstar (msg) 10:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Take a look in Category:Carriages in India. =) Though after a brief search, those are the only ones I could find. I actually thought I'd find a lot more. Maybe that small number make up a reasonable exception that can be overlooked. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for Pete's Sake! OMG, Quill, edit the danged description and do something useful. THERE IS NOT ANY WAY to have a perfect schema, as media cover the whole breadth of human experience and cultures. We all come at things with different thinking. So settle for what is sensible and understandable and do useful work. Two or Four wheels, who cares but the Amish and Gypsies... perhaps some Asiatics still using animal power. The key is to have places people can sort into and follow down looking for things... search into logically. Concurrently, the MORE Categories you put in between a keyword people gravitate to (Such as 'Carriages'... a good solid no-nonsense word, unambiguous even!) makes it harder for them to find media, if they don't know the links. Maps of cities by county of state of the US... lot easier to search maps of city name. Those extra words also makes it harder to classify, sort and park stuff. KISS principle. KEEP IT SIMPLE Student! Hope this is understandable. // FrankB 23:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks (I guess?) for your input/angry rant, Fabartus. As I already mentioned above, I wasn't proposing to delete Category:Carriages. You may notice that CFD statnds for "categories for discussion" not "categories for deletion." Firstly, I don't see how whether the people who you associate with use currently animal power is relevant to a discussion. We currently have 23 different categories for carriage museums so somebody cares about it. I found a picture of a "cabriolet" carriage in Category:Cabriolet (which is currently for cars, and subject to a different discussion) and thought I'd find a better home for it. The description that didn't match the sub-categories had me confused, so I proposed discussion.The whole point of my question is that "carriage" can mean a lot of very different things to different people, so no, it doesn't make sense to just keep it simple in this case, because that means keeping in ambiguous. I don't know what you're talking about with maps of cities, or how that's relevant to this discussion. Yes, searching is easier if you know exactly what you are looking for, but browsing a well categorized collection is easier if you don't, and adding categories doesn't have any negative impact on searching. If you're not interested in contributing, that's fine with me. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- In short: Edit the dang description, to what exactly? A good answer to that question would actually be useful, unlike a rant telling me to be useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks (I guess?) for your input/angry rant, Fabartus. As I already mentioned above, I wasn't proposing to delete Category:Carriages. You may notice that CFD statnds for "categories for discussion" not "categories for deletion." Firstly, I don't see how whether the people who you associate with use currently animal power is relevant to a discussion. We currently have 23 different categories for carriage museums so somebody cares about it. I found a picture of a "cabriolet" carriage in Category:Cabriolet (which is currently for cars, and subject to a different discussion) and thought I'd find a better home for it. The description that didn't match the sub-categories had me confused, so I proposed discussion.The whole point of my question is that "carriage" can mean a lot of very different things to different people, so no, it doesn't make sense to just keep it simple in this case, because that means keeping in ambiguous. I don't know what you're talking about with maps of cities, or how that's relevant to this discussion. Yes, searching is easier if you know exactly what you are looking for, but browsing a well categorized collection is easier if you don't, and adding categories doesn't have any negative impact on searching. If you're not interested in contributing, that's fine with me. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- The description says "The classic definition of a carriage", not that that's the full or definitive definition. I say change the description, maybe to something like "a wheeled vehicle without its own power source" or "a wheeled vehicle that is propelled by human or animal power". Also adjust the categorization. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Closing as kept as the category is clearly useful, and there has been no active discussion here for close to 2 years. (I suggest any further suggestions for improved wording of the hat note be made at Category talk:Carriages.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)