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.
a true cabriolet, fixed cantrailsa true (expensive) cabriolet with folding cantrails - see the dumb irons and mohair bulk behind the back seat
English wikipedia uses en:Convertible for both Cabriolet and Convertible, and doesn't seem to indicate a difference. The category description here seems to indicate a difference, but I don't totally understand what it is. At any rate, the fact that a) Cabriolet is singular here, and b) the term can also refer to furniture or a horse-drawn carriage suggests that, at very least, a name change is required. Category:Cabriolets should probably be a disambiguation page. Themightyquill (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A convertible, no folding cantrails, no dumb irons and no clutter above and behind the back seat
Keep
Within the last 50 years the distinction has been lost because no true cabriolets are now made and young editors have chosen to (incorrectly) merge cabriolets into convertibles and that is indeed as the words are currently used. Nevertheless an encyclopaedia by its nature must forget this recentest attitude and make the distinction clear. A cabriolet has cantrails over the windows. The side windows roll up and make a firm closure against the cantrail. With expensive cars these cant rails may usually be folded but the result is a lot of bulky top-hamper behind and above the rear seat and on each side the hood irons needed to support the folding cantrails while they are erected. The link to a (horse drawn=US English) carriage is direct and very clear. The name cabriolet comes from the shape (a goat's hind leg) of the hood irons needed to support the folding cantrails and such a distinctive shape is useful for other purpose such as describing furniture.
en:Convertible should indicate the change in meaning of the last half century. Those editors seem to have considered the distinction a technicality of no interest to them.
Thanks for your information, Eddaido. I plead total ignorance on this subject. I don't have any problem with making this distinction between images (even though a brief search didn't yield any evidence to support your argument) but it should definitely be made more clearly. I wonder, since the word cabriolet is at least partially ambiguous, if we could instead use category names like Category:Convertibles with folding canrails and Category:Convertibles with fixed cantrails as a compromise to satisfy everyone and ensure clarity? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is an extremely bad idea. Major over-kill. And anyway you seem to think cantrails (the distinguishing feature) are on convertibles! I acknowledge that cabriolets are no longer made just like (I suppose, well not for commercial use) steam locomotives are no longer made
Cabriolets are not convertibles, they are cabriolets. Recently cabriolet is used (sloppily by those who know no better) to describe convertibles. That does not stop cabriolet meaning cabriolet. Please let me know if you don't understand that vital distinction. Steam locomotives are fortunate in so far as most people recognise the vapour of steam as it seeps through joints and things. If the difference was not easily distinguishable would you run all locomotives together as just ... locomotives? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I was under the impression that cabriolets are one type of convertible. That's partly because they share some basic similarities and partly because Category:Cabriolet is currently a sub-category of Category:Convertibles. In fact, that's literally it's only parent category. Your comparison with Category:Steam locomotives is irrelevant. It's not that cabriolets are no longer made that is the problem, it's the fact that - rightly or wrongly - the meaning of the word has largely changed in common usage. I accept that you believe the two have nothing in common, buy you still haven't provided any actual sourced evidence of this, nor does (as I mentioned) the wikipedia article support your argument. Now, I'm trying to find an amicable solution that makes your distinction clear to everyone, because it isn't currently clear. My suggestion as just that - an idea - so please tone down the hostility a notch. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The car on the right in the photo to the right is a convertible. Like its neighbour it has no cant rail and so no hood iron to support the cant rail. The cant rail is a heavy piece of metal or timber to which the windows wind up and seal onto. As can be seen from the car on the left there is no proper seal, merely a loose flap of the roofing material falling on the inside of the wound-up window. Eddaido (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be talking past each other. I have understood your argument. That's no long the problem. What I don't see is any other source on the internet that agrees with you. I can't find a single source that makes the same definitional distinction between cabriolet and convertible that you do. I'm not saying you are wrong - this is not my field of expertise - but I am saying that I can't find anyone that agrees with you. English wikipedia disagrees with you. Any dictionary definitions that I can find disagree with you. Even wikipedia commons' category structure disagrees with you because Category:Cabriolet is a sub-category of Category:Convertibles. If you want to move Category:Cabriolet so that it's no longer a type of convertible, I think you should provide some written evidence for your argument.
Yes, you are uncomprehending aren't you. What you find does depend on where you look. I've uploaded some more images that might please you. Antiquated because of copyright restrictions. By all means change the category name to Cabriolets. After that all your muddled plans just leave me confused. Furniture??? Wouldn't it be better for you to just leave well alone? Eddaido (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You are uncomprehending aren't you" sounds insulting, but I'm just going to assume English is not your first language. As for the content of our discussion:
Please provide written evidence (to be clear, I mean written by someone other than you) of your argument about the distinction between cabriolets and convertibles. I'm not interesting in hearing you repeat yourself and post additional images.
Hostility again? Now why not have a category for furniture if you wish and clearly carriage is intended to be the related but two-wheeled object. Have a look at the current collection of images and please do not write to me like that. Eddaido (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the texts that you uploaded do not make a distinction between convertible and cabriolet. They do not use the word convertible at all, and seem to simply describe technology as it was in 1914. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you define a convertible? When were they developed? (1920s?) Which nation? (USA?) The equivalent of your convertible was an all-weather body, the same name was used in Germany, in France I think décapotable but I do not know the French language. Do you wish to collapse all terminology into the current (always vague) US terminology? You would see no distinction between one European and another? Eddaido (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How *I* define convertible is irrelevant. What matters is what published sources indicate, and I can find no sources that make the distinction that you make. Yes, of course, terminology should be collapsed into the current usage. Should we have different categories like Category:X (as it was used in the 18th century), Category:X (as it was used in the 19th century), etc? There's no reason to use the American term if the contemporary British terminology is different, but you haven't provided any evidence that such a distinction is made by anyone other than yourself. Foreign languages are irrelevant, because Commons uses English names for categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
