Expand to view current and archived category discussions related to this category
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I developped the “Rail transport” structure in Commons because:
Railway and Railroad redirect to Rail transport in the English Wikipedia
I suspected some dispute between English “Railway” and American English “Railroad”
I was not sure that Railways had exactly the same meaning than Rail transport for Commons users.
However, Category:Railways by country remains with many subcategories. So, we should have to decide what to do with this structure, assuming it duplicates the Rail transport structure.
So, I propose to move:
every category Railways in COUNTRY to Rail transport in COUNTRY
every category Railway maps of COUNTRY or Railroad maps of COUNTRY to Rail transport maps of COUNTRY (see Category:Rail transport images).
I'm not very fit in English. So: what is "rail transport" precisely? Does it assume only heavy railways or does it stand for light rail transit forms like metros, LRTs and tramways too? And on the other side: What is the intention for the new categories? In my mind, the old categories "railways in COUNTRY" are for heavy railway systems only. --Chumwa05:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the link to the English Wikipedia under the section title. Rail transport regards “rail guided transport”. That includes Maglev train and other techniques without physical contact with the rail, but excludes cableways, conveyor belts, toboggans, pipelines, automated guided vehicles, amongst others.
As said above, “railway” is a redirection to “rail transport” in the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia term for “metro” is rapid transit, and this concept includes ligh and heavy railways. What are Category:Railways in Commons is unclear. In my opinion, either we are able to clarify the concept, either we must dismantle the matching structure. --Juiced lemon08:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the rail transport category system currently is a mess. I also agree with renaming Railways in COUNTRY to Rail transport in COUNTRY - existing categories can be merged into. Category:Railroad can be upmerged to Category:Rail transport. I think before we start any other moves, we should get together the list of renames necessary for this. When that is through we can get back to discussing the remaining mess. --rimshottalk13:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging categories that use railway and railroad in their name, to equivalent categories that use rail transport in their name instead. That includes the "in COUNTRY" ones as well. Probably soft redirects should be left behind and a periodic cleaning done too. But I also agree that developing a larger list of what all would be affected might be helpful as then AWB might be effectively brought to bear. ++Lar: t/c18:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the stuff on the temp page looks good to me. I see no objections.... Can you queue it up for the Delinker bot? ++Lar: t/c21:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have added the heading Batch 1 to all existing proposals. If you add anything new, please make a new heading or a new temp page, as the existing moves have all been double-checked by me. --rimshottalk13:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree to use railroad cars as a universal term for unpowered rail vehicles. As was said at the beginning of this discussion, railroad is American use, not universal english. We should build up a structure starting with rolling stock. Next level would be motive power and something like pulled stock. I guess there are better propositions. I will put a proposition on Batch 2 page. Gürbetaler01:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind using railway wagon instead or railroad car. We could put a redirect at Category:Railroad cars, to be safe. I've changed that part accordingly. I'm not so sure about motor coaches - to choose the name railcars, I went by the wikipedia article. Isn't a motor coach just a bus? --rimshottalk12:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. w:Multiple unit says that railcars are sometimes referred to as multiple units, when they can be coupled. We could add something to that effect in the description of railcar and multiple unit. As for the translation: the German Schienenbus is very much the same as a railcar. There is a word Triebwagenzug, which describes a train made up of motorized units, so that's about the same as a multiple unit. One part of this train is called Triebwagen. French is a bit more complicated: fr:autorail is used for each of these. There is, however, a word unité multiple, which can be used for multiple units. I think that railcars are special enough to deserve categories of their own - we shouldn't let shortcomings of languages hinder us. --rimshottalk14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that railcars are not elements of multiple units, hence are specific rolling stock. My concern was possible subdivisions of “Multiple units” categories, with a particular substructure for motorized elements of multiple units. --Juiced lemon16:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Life is complicated but language is sometimes even more complicated. Triebwagenzug is a word for a certain type of train, saying it is not pulled by a locomotive. But a Triebwagenzug can be a single railcar, a rake of coaches pulled by a motor coach or a multiple unit. The word Schienenbus is always a diesel powered railcar in Germany (but the Swedish rälsbus can also be electric). Newer series could be MUed and thus became DMUs. In Switzerland, the word was never used, except for the German vehicles, but in Germany the word is now also gone - except for the few preserved ones. This is just to say, language is living and there isn't always an exact match for one word in every language. Railcar or Multiple units are "wrong" categories for motor coaches that pull trains like locomotives do. Triebwagen stands for more than just multiple units, it is also motor coach and railcar. Gürbetaler23:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We specify categories according to selected subjects, that is subjects which can be easily defined and understood. Language issues have minor importance. If you need a particular category, define its subject, then we'll find the name if the subject is relevant. --Juiced lemon00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's what I'm trying to say. I need a category for the photos of Swiss "Triebwagen", which have conceptual elements of multiple units, railcars and motor coaches. Concept and use of these vehicles is different from British or American designs. This is why neither multiple units nor railcars does really fit. Gürbetaler21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that “multiple unit” is a shortage for “multiple-unit train” (see multiple unit). So, the components of a “multiple-unit train” are units like trailer units or special units (various types, according to combinations of “power-delivery”, “motor” and “cab”).
Literally, Triebwagen means “motor coach”, or “motor unit”. However, we can have steam, diesel or electric motors. Do you need categories for these types? Railcars are not “motor units”, because they cannot be coupled, except with trailers. And an only “motor unit” don't transform in a railcar. --Juiced lemon23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to a discussion on SwissRail group, neither multiple unit nor railcar is correct for many Swiss Triebwagen. They are used like locomotives, even for freight trains. They are now in the following categories:
There are buckets full of Ian Allen Books that were called "British Rail Motive Power" and contained all locomotives and multiple units. So, motive poweris specific to vehicles. And for the rest, why should we discern betwen motive power and railcars? No Swiss vehicle was ever called "Schienenbus". Simply assume, this category doesn't exist in Switzerland! --Gürbetaler19:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no need to discern between motive power and railcars, the current scheme for Switzerland is satisfactory, since it's the same one for any country in the world. --Juiced lemon19:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site you indicate is from a group of French speaking Swiss railway photographers. They may be a reference for railway photography or for Swiss-French railway terms but sure not for English railway terms. In a long discussion [2] between people from different parts of this world we could establish, that motor coach is a good translation for Triebwagen. However, only British English uses this term, while American English would rather tend to the word motor car. To avoid a mix-up with the American use of the term, which is for long-distance buses, it was proposed to put "rail motor coach". Now it is impossible to find a term that is equally used everywhere. It remains a fact that Americans call coaches passenger cars, points switches and railways railroads. Here are some references for the British use of motor coach for Triebwagen:
And, by the way, this is the word I find in my dictionnary as translation for "Triebwagen". There is no reason NOT to use the term "motor coach". -- Gürbetaler16:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia article locomotive lists the different types of railway vehicles which provide the motive power for a train:
I think we should confine with these terms. We should also define criteria in order to easily classify the railway vehicles between these four main types. --Juiced lemon21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There exist established categories Category:Railway lines by country with 30 subcategories and Category:Rail transport companies by country with 23 subcategories here. Besides there exist halfempty category Category:Railways by country with 3 halfempty subcategories. Inasmuch as "railway" means always either "railway line" or "rail transport company", i was presumed with reason, that the existence of this 4 halfempty categories is a banal duplicity and its reparation (in the way a mergence of a content to "railway line" categories) is no any fundamental change of category structure, but that I did adapt it to the established structure only. But Foroa with support of Ingolfson restored this duplicities. I don't understand what the word "railway" does mean unless "railway line" or "rail transport company" or "rail transport in...", which are names of the established categories. I propose this duplicate categorisation branch merge into the more used categories which are named above. --ŠJů (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ŠJů, for agreeing that we need to have a structure for this, or this back-and-forth will continue even longer. We need to develop a Category:Commons category schemes so that the main structures of the Category:Rail transport get consensus.
First, I will respond to some of ŠJů's complaints, then suggest a structure. ŠJů says that a "railway" is always either a "railway line" or a "rail transport company". And there is exactly the reason. EITHER. In fact, there are THREE different things there, which are often lumped together in general speech, but which Commons should subdivide:
rail transport companies, companies (commercial entities) to transport goods and passengers, like en:Deutsche Bahn which uses many different lines and has wide operations
railways, single organisational entities, like en:Bergische Museumsbahnen with the railway being a company/entity 'specialised' to one line or a just a few (this sometimes overlaps with the above rail transport company structure, but is different in its local specificness and the fact that many are not-for-profit - the example one is a museum entity, which may legally be a company but would only borderline qualify as a "rail transport company")
railway lines, geographical/infrastructure concepts, like en:Black Forest railway (Baden) (operated by a subsidiary of the Deutsche Bahn), which is (or has historically been) operated by different railways and rail transport companies (Note that just for good measure, my example Wikipedia article is called "railway" too, even if it is a railway line (Wikipedia too has not yet standardised all this, and since some of these are official names, they may never be standardised - that does not, however apply to Commons category structure)
While not specifically mentioned by ŠJů, there is also a fourth, related aspect, the categories in Category:Rail transport by function, which I have introduced to distinguish the concept of, for example "military rail transport" from specific military railway lines/railways.
Having shown that the concepts that ŠJů would like to merge together are, in fact separate things, I come to another of his comments - mainly the fact that some of these categories were "half-empty". While it is true that the creation of subcategories with only one or two files or a few subcategories is a bit of a debate point on Commons (some like it, some don't), there are two points here: a) a subcategory with only a few files to start out is then ready to receive images from other users, including those who would not create a new category on their own. There are so many cases when early creation of a correct subcategory would have helped to prevent indiscriminate "I will just chuck it in here" cases. b) there is also the point that early creation of a category structure will guide the correct creation of new categories in parallel and below and prevent more and more inconsistent versions/variants.
The main things I draw from the above is that we need category scheme for rail transport, including such often contentious elements like the above, and including rules for rail/train stations etc... I will start creating one for discussion at User talk:Ingolfson/Category scheme rail transport within the next days, running out of time today. Cheers all. Ingolfson (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's don't change a current category structure which was before changes which you, Ingolfson, have made without a previous discussion and consensus. There is no need to create any new category schema, if the current was suitable in principle. It is enough to include into the prevalent schema few of categories which are deviated from this commonly used principles. If I mentioned that some of new categories are "half-empty", this fact was mentioned as a sign that such a category deviates from a groove.
If any category is defined by a small company which operate one or several railway lines and the railway line(s) have an identical name as the company, such a category should be included concurrently into category of companies and into category of railway lines. It's unreasonably to found any new categories for such railways. Especially when such new categories aren't switched through sufficently with the current categories. If any group of railway lines has a joint name, it groups with railway lines still. Railway lines used formerly to have generally an identical name as the operating company. Groups of the railway lines which have some common attribute (as an operator) are ranked sub a higher category of railway lines too.
If existed the category Category:Railways by function (perceived as Category:Railway lines by function), then is very questionable, whether should exist the Category:Rail transport by function in additon, as it was founded by Ingolfson without a previous discussion. The purpose of such a category was to have been more considered than it was. For example "industrial railways" is a term for special light narrow gauge railways, but "industrial rail transport" is a vague and unused conception which is distinguishable hardly from the freight transport generally. The category Category:Railways by function have to contain only subcategories, which contain only subcategories and images which relate to such a type of railways (railway lines). Category Category:Railways by function pertain at the top of the category Railway lines or of the category Rail transport. There is no occasion to keep the redundant category Railways. --ŠJů (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Make Category:Railways in Germany sub to Category:Rail transport in Germany and note it refers to anything styled as a railway/bahn, include cross references to railway operating companies & railway line cats. Make it a meta category so it should only contain other categories and not any files.
Make Category:Railways in France sub to Category:Rail transport in France and note it refers to anything styled as a railway, include cross references to railway operating companies & railway line cats. Make it a meta category so it should only contain other categories and not any files.
Make Category:Railways in Austria sub to Category:Rail transport in Austria and note it refers to anything styled as a railway/bahn, include cross references to railway operating companies & railway line cats. Make it a meta category so it should only contain other categories and not any files.
Ad 1-st suggestion: the whole content of the discussed categories should be categorized concurrently by all of the established categorisation criterions: by railway line, by type of depicted object (bridge, train, station...), by region etc. There's no doubt. We accord that the categories which are called "railways" are redundant toward the established categorization system.
Categories Heritage railways and Miniature railways contains subcategories and images classified by railway lines. That is why they pertain to Railway lines category, not directly to Rail transport category. The contained images are classified by type of object in other branches of categorization tree (Miniature locomotives → Locomotives, fitting subcategories of Rail transport infrastructure etc.).
Ad 2-nd suggestion: As i can see, the main change which is contained in your suggestion is, that should be created categories „Current Railway Operations in x“. I don't consider such a idea as efficacious. The subcategories like "miniature railways" or "light rails" or "railway museums" contain also former railways and former museums. It would be difficult and anomalous to detach the current items into separate categories. You omited categories of rail transport companies. Do you try to come out from the existing category structura and to improve it step by step. There is no occasion to hatch any quit new schema. --ŠJů (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heritage and miniature railways are not railways lines they are railways and therefore belong to Railway operations in x. Parts of them may relate to railway lines but there are very few UK Heritage railways which are the complete original railway line, they are almost always a subset of it. I expect the position to be the same elsewhere.
All "former" railways go in the history category. All museums go in the history category. Rail companies are in "Rail transport companies of x".
There's no point in starting on a journey unless you can see the goal. Step by step is fine but lets know where we are heading.
ŠJů, excuse me, but you are missing the point. When I say "let's create a rail transport category scheme", I am:
Not doing something alone. Railwayfan2005 and Foroa both agree that we should have a category scheme to prevent us from having the same discussions over and over again
Not doing anything new. Category schemes have been around for years. There just hasn't been one for rail transport yet. Instead of "just keep it as it is", we will look at what is there and clarify and codify it
Not "making anything up" - the basic category scheme will be 75-95% exactly the same as what is there now
Not riding roughshod over your opinions - where the first draft of the category scheme is either different from what exists now OR is against what you feel is best, you will be able to make your case as to why the category scheme should be different. So will all the others. So will I, when I propose changing something from the current status quo.
The only difference is that after we have agreed (or at least formed a consensus of most participants) on a category scheme, we then have a guideline to work with. People will not be able to move categories (and will not get into unneeded disagreements) unless they have first proposed a change on the category scheme and gotten consensus (i.e. no sudden changes from you, not from someone who hasn't taken part in this discussion - and not from me either!). In short, it is moving all this discussion out in the open, hammering out something, and then documenting it in one central place. Ingolfson (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmh, regarding the suggestions made above, and after thinking some more - I think I could move a little in ŠJů's direction:
Regarding the railways/railway lines issue - it seems that we all could potentially agree on abolishing "railways" totally, and instead have only "railway lines of X" and, separate and parallel to that, "rail transport companies of x". A heritage railway company that operates only on one railway line could then be placed into both categories. While a railway line that is operated by many operators would only be sorted into "railway lines". While a company that operates many lines and is not specific to one railwayline is only sorted into "Rail transport companies". That should do.
The two above would be the sorting branches for the GEOGRAPHICAL (railway lines) and the ORGANISATIONAL (rail transport companies) aspects. But it still needs a TYPE/FUNCTION part of the category tree (rail transport by function).
Otherwise we have no way of organising, say agricultural or mining rail operations and separating them from other types like passenger rail operations or military rail operations. That is what we need a further branch for. BTW: Contrary to ŠJů's claim, I have not changed that structure in that regard, I have introduced this branch as new. Adding new ways of sorting things is standard Commons procedure, and the Wiki way. As is finding ways of how such a new branch fits into the existing structure, which is part of what we are discussing here, and what I am trying to document in the first draft of the category scheme. Ingolfson (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll buying into the operational types. What high-level functions are there? I've got Passenger Transport, Freight/Goods/Cargo Transport, Infrastructure Maintainence, Pleasure/Heritage/Tourism, Research & Development as starting points. Below these sit the operators and types of operation: International Passenger, Inter City/High Speed, Regional, Local, Commuter; Container, Coal, Ore, Stone, Automotive, Oil/Gas, Chemicals etc; OTP; Miniature, Narrow Gauge, etc; Test Tracks. Into these go the images. All of these need to be qualified by country and have "by country" versions. They'll all need something to indicate they are rail related when there's scope for confusion.
Here's the tree:
Railway operations in x by function
Passenger train operations in x
International passenger train operations in/of x
Inter City/High Speed passenger train operations in/of x
Regional passenger train operations in/of x
Local passenger train operations in/of x
Commuter passenger train operations in/of x
Freight train operations in x
Container train operations in/of x
Coal train operations in/of x
Ore train operations in/of x
Stone train operations in/of x
Automotive train operations in/of x
(something to go with steel & aluminum ingot/slab/billet trains)
Chemical train operations in/of x
Oil train operations in/of x
Gas train operations in/of x
Infrastructure/maintainence of way train operations in x
There is no clear borderline between passenger transport (as a means to get from A to B) and touristic or heritage rail operation. Look at all the narrow gauge railways in the Alps. They are a bit of all. And the trains often also convey freight... I wouldn't be able to categorize my photos according to your scheme! Please don't forget reality besides the theory! Gürbetaler (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gürbetaler - why would you be unable to sort images like this? The examples you gave would simply fit into multiple categories. Surely that is a rather common thing on commons (so many images could/are logically be sorted into three, four, five or more categories - yet the fact that some very similar images are only sorted into the one or two most important categories does not mean the other categories should not exist). In your example, you would simply place the image both into heritage and passenger transport. Or only in heritage transport, if that is clearly the dominant use according to your call. A train bringing some small amount of freight to a mountain village is not a freight train, so likely you would not sort it into "freight rail transport". If it served a still-operating sawmill, you might. The call would be on the individual person sorting (as it is anywhere on Commons).
While I agree with you that we should not make the structure too complex, we should also ALLOW more complex sorting (and provide for it in the category scheme, or the "by function" sorting will have no overarching logic). If the person sorting images / new categories is not willing to do more, he can always just sort it under "rail transport in X-country" as they do now. Borderline cases (as you noted) will always exist. But that shouldn't be an argument to prevent categorisation where people DO know what more specific categories it falls under. Ingolfson (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First answer (more to come). When I look at the category tree you set up I realize that my "railway thinking" is different. Distinguishing history of rail transport and rail operation is not useful as any picture taken today will be history tomorrow. So you will send a bot every night to exchange operation by history? I know, I exaggerate a bit... I prefer a structure dealing with the contents of a picture and there I see infrastructure, rolling stock, staff as the main aspects. Rolling stock describes single type of vehicles like "steam locomotives of Paraguay" and/or train consists and there we could add aspects to the tree. I will make a proposition soon.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add an example which I find very odd. What is "heritage rail transport"? That's nonsense. Heritage trains, heritage operation are aspects of rail transport as a whole. And also miniature railways. But nobody will understand what "miniature rail transport" means. A linguistic concept that works for the big rail world can not always be translated to every detail aspect of rail. When we come to specialized enclosed rail systems like rack railway, miniature railway, military railway, mining railway, forestry railway etc., we should stick to this wording. And also heavy rapid transit is a specialized system (for passenger transport). So rail transport is good for the big categories, the big world, but we should keep "railway" for the distinct systems.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Category:People associated with rail transport. What should homeless people, living on railway ground, have in common with people working for the railway? If you put all that together you can also put the passengers there and as most Swiss people are also rail passengers you can put any Swiss person into the category "associated with rail transport". Sorry, but your approach is far too theoretic. Please try thinking like most Wiki commons users do. Thank you. Gürbetaler (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gürbetaler, maybe we can distinguish between naming and structure here? I am also confused, seeing that exactly one section down, you seem to argue for the removal of the "railways" branch structure. More to the point, so have multiple others here, and I have changed my mind to agree with them. I do not understand why your sudden shift to retain "railways"? Especially as I am not proposing to abolish railways where it is part of a proper name, such as in Category:Brecon Mountain Railway.
Also, I obviously disagree with your comment on "heritage rail transport" being nonsense. Since we cannot simply call it "heritage", we need to append something that clarifies we are talking about rail. Since "railways" has created severe disambiguation difficulties regarding what it really means - you yourself said it can mean everything and nothing, we others had long discussions whether it means a company, a railway line, or both or nothing - we are now looking for a different way of an appendix to the "heritage" or "military" or whatever rail function we are discussing, which is also internally consistent - and "FUNCTION rail transport" has that option, because it is generic enough. It can include a a photo of a military rail track, as well as a video of a military guard watching on a train, a scan of a military train timetable, as well as a category for a military railway (i.e. one with a proper name). Whereas "Military railways" can be argued to be much more limited/ambiguous.
The category scheme in this instance is to avoid a wild mix of "Military rail transport" here, "Freight rail operations" there, and "Heritage railways" in another case, with everybody doing as he likes because he can argue there is no standard. Ingolfson (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also add that at the end of the day I wouldn't CARE if instead of a "FUNCTION rail transport" logic we instead agreed on a "FUNCTION railways" logic - no matter what I said above about it being a bit ambiguous. But I am trying hard here to find consensus, and as I noted, I have been told by many people that they would like the "railways" cat branch to go except for proper names. So that is what I am proposing in my category scheme. Can I ask you to consider the issue on those grounds as well? Ingolfson (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even more so, I have even tried to create a structure where "FUNCTION rail transport" can logically COEXIST with "FUNCTION railways" - but the fact that a user has vehemently opposed THAT approach as well is what started this whole long discussion, and made me realise that however long it takes, we NEED a category structure. Consistency, if for no other reason than to have 10 fights now, so we don't have 100 fights in the next ten years. Ingolfson (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hope there's sufficient files (it's not just photos on Commons despite what it may seem like) to justify having a category for each operator, from SBB/CFF/FFS through BLS down to DVZO (and beyond). Then the operator can be categorised accordingly. This then makes it easy to consign defunct operators to the history category. The heritage railways debate can wait. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I wanted to say is this: Railway as a main category for rail transport is a duplication and not a better wording than rail transport. On the other hand, rail transport is too generic for smaller integrated "rail transport systems". Rail transport of the United States is a very appropriate category. But Miniature rail transport of Germany sounds very odd to me and I think Miniature railways of Germany is more appropriate in this case.
We have to face two problems: The complexity and diversity of rail transport and railways. And on the other hand the fact, that Wikicommons categories must be used not not only by native English speakers but by anybody wanting to categorize media. I think this requires some sort of "simple language". I know, this isn't a simple task to find a good solution but now we are in this dicsussion and should continue it to find a theoretically acceptable and at the same time broadly understandable structure.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add a word about distinguishing naming and structure: I think, the two are related. A complex multi-function rail system can't be categorized in the same way as integrated single-function miniature or logging railways.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a category "Railways" besides the existing categories. Railways stands for a system, so everything is Railways - and nothing. A distinct phisical plant with rolling stock and its operation and a unique company to operate it can be called "a railway". Miniature railways, narrow gauge railways, rack railways or funiculars may operate like this. But the normal "railway" we see today is an "assemblage" of trains on railway lines often belonging to diferent rail transport companies. Thus, "Railways" could replace "Rail transport" as a main category but isn't helpful for the rest. Gürbetaler (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed above, I by now agree that "railways" can be abolished / should stay abolished as a part of the category tree. "Rail transport" should be used consistently instead, such as in "Rail transport company" or "Rail transport in X-country" (though some subcategories like "Rail lines" and "Rail bridges" would be an exception to the strict rule to avoid cumbersome long constructs like "Rail transport lines" or "Rail transport bridges"). Ingolfson (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all - I have been working recently on the draft of the category scheme, and I have almost finished it. However, I still need to tweak it a little more, before "publicising" it on the "rail transport" category itself. As I am quite busy in my offline life, and as I expect quite a bit of comment both from you and others once it "goes live for discussion", I then at that stafe need to be available to give it more attention than I can right now. I hope you can all bear with this a little longer, and promise that I'll be back soon (likely in a week or so) and will then continue with trying to find / helping to forge an agreement between all of us. Ingolfson (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, that such changes are necessary. To date I have seen overmany controversial changes among the done improvements. When some of railway lines ceased to be included and findable in categories of railway lines, this is change to worse. Some few other deviations from established categorization principles was done thereat. Plese let us do no any extensive changes, which prove no an obvious betterment. --ŠJů (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is very obvious, that we should be able to categorize rail related media after
6) propulsion (steam, electricity, horses, linear motor, magnetic
7) transported goods/passenger
8) other aspects around rail transport (people, art, modelling etc.)
While we have no problem in the first four groups, number 5, 6 and 7 were a bit underdeveloped and also cause some problems with understandable terms. And then, there are some relations between these groups. Catenary is infrastructure but only needed with electric propulsion. Plattforms are also part of infrastructure but related to passenger transport only.
I see, that many new categories ... by function were created and other proposed to be renamed. Infrastructure and rolling stock do not neccessarily have a single function. I can meet the same flat car in a railway station in a function as "military rail transport" one day and as "transport of timber by rail" the next day. Perhaps we should merge "trains" and what I listed as number 7.Gürbetaler (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) infrastructure = physical plant
2) rolling stock, sorted by type, by technology, by propulsion
Category:Train stations: Interestingly for the UK the term Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom was chosen! I think this to be more correct. But then we are once again back on the rail transport vs. railway discussion. Rail transport station sounds very synthetic, that's not "real language". Usability would dictate to use Railway stations, I think.
Category:Rail transport by type can easily be misunderstood. Logging railway is also a type of railway but this category is meant for different technologies, mostly. Rack railway, monorail etc. are o.k. here, but what is a narrow gauge railway? It just has a different gauge. And Rapid transit is a distinct form of a passenger railway but does not necessarily use a different technology. We should find a better distinction here.
Category:Rail transport by freight and Category:Rail transport by function are very difficult to work with. "Military rail transport" can include passengers or freight and it can be a train on a public railway or distinct railway systems. And is Heritage rail transport a function? But why isn't Transport of Post in this category? Like other industries. And then, bicycles aren't considered to be freight but belong (legally) to passenger transport. Same thing for car shuttles, at least in Switzerland, where several such operations can be found. Thus Transport of vehicles is wrong under freight. And, as I said above, Rapid transit should be included here. I'm not happy with the term "by function" but I can't find a better one.
Concerning "train stations", the official term in the Czech Republic (and maybe it is likewise in major part of Europe) is "železniční stanice" (a railway station etc.). Rarely is used "vlaková stanice" (train station), but is perceived as unusual and unofficial. Majority of countries and languages used such names as "railway station": almost all except US. See interwikis of en:Train station. The birthplace of rail transport is England: I support the English term usance. --ŠJů (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right that many stations started as railway stations, but due to the many types of stations, I think that it evolved to train, tram, bus, post, tank, caddy, fuel, gaz, ... stations. --Foroa (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rail transport by type is really very ambiguous. "Type" can mean track gauge, type of traction, type of transported goods or passengers, type of drive of train movement and organising of transportation, type of a place (a city, intercity, a mine etc.), type of an owner (state/private railways) etc. It's no reasonable to mix all criteria in one category "by type". By the way: can exist two railway, that one of them belongs to a different type technically, but the rail transport in itself is absolutely equal at both of them. For example some narrow gauge railway can be a integral part of regional standard railway system. "Type of railway" is not equal to "type of rail transport". "Narrow gauge railway" (compared to "standard gauge railways") is a type of railways (and narrow gauge track and narrow gauge rolling stock belong into category "narrow gauge railways"), but "narrow gauge rail transport" is more likely a nonsense or a dubious term. --ŠJů (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems to diverge into way too much detail. A category scheme / general discussion need only cover the main, "top" categories. I don't think we should go into detail below that, or we will never get anywhere. Where names are considered wrong (but the location in the structure is considered okay), lets keep the discussion there in the category itself. 125.236.217.14523:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see one main problem here - there seems little consensus on many matters. Gürbetaler for example goes into a quite different direction with his attempt to recategorise the category than I am with "my" category scheme, while ŠJů seems to prefer no change at all on most things. Add on top that it looks like I will still be unable to give this full attention for many weeks yet (re putting up a Category scheme and then wrangling over it until we have consensus), and we are a bit stuck.
Can we therefore shelve the "big discussion" for a while (or continue it, by all means, not my business to stop discussion, but see below for what we should do HERE...)
Resolve the original intent by ŠJů to discuss Category:Railways - proposal to remove this category branch
Support As I have noted, I since agree with ŠJů that we should remove "Railways" as a category branch. The limited number of cats in there should be moved to the corresponding "rail transport in X-country" or "rail transport companies" or "railway lines" categories. Ingolfson (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gürbetaler - thank you for your large amounts of work in the railway cats - but can I ask you please to not remove preempt sorting? There are a few types of subcategories that are intentionally at the very front of any category. These include mainly "Category:X by Y" "Categoy:X in X", where this category using the "by" or "in" descriptor is moved to the very start of the category listing - i.e. "Category:Rail transport by motive power" goes to the start of "Category rail transport". As you can see, this is not an arbitrary choice, but a relatively simply rule for the "in" and by" subcategories.
This is used everywhere on Commons (just look at the "by country" categories, or the subcategories of "vehicles" - so please do not undo these. This should be consistent to help users find the most important subcategories. Thank you. Ingolfson (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't find time for Commons a few days. I am very much aware of the usefulness of preempt sorting and I have done it in many places. But in the Rail transport category we have a total of only 28 categories but you have put 9 or one third before the A. We have 26 letters and the letters do help finding categories. But having one third before the alphabetical sort and only two thirds within doesn't help the user. Furthermore, your choice isn't logic, why should "Rail transport in art" be a more important category than Rolling stock? I think preempt sorting should only be used when it really helps to structure and in Rail transport it doesn't.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to comb the subcategories but couldn't find a suitable category for railway crossings. Many are including under Category:Level crossings, but that's not specifically about railway. Have I missed something or is it actually missing? --Ehitaja (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
