Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/04/Category:Lakers (ships)
|
Category:Lakers (ships)[edit]
"Lakers" is a colloquial localism -- equivalent to "Lake freighter" for those in to the know. Laker is ambiguous -- also used for a major sports team. While "lake freighter" is not ambigous. In my opinion, ambiguous, colloquial localisms should be avoided when there is a an unambiguous term that can be used instead. There was a Category:Lake Freighter, stripped of members and redirected to this category, without prior discussion. I suggest both these categories should redirect to Category:Lake freighters. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is not obvious that "lake freighter" is any less of a localism than laker. So having either term used as the category seems equally valid. Searching google for the term lake freighter on .gov domains returns only 110 results. Boatnerd has very few mentions of the term "lake freighter", usually using the terms freighter, bulk freighter or Great Lakes freighter. Of those only Great Lakes freighter would serve our purpose but I would suggest just leaving it as is. The category and the gallery page with different names serves just like a redirect. Rmhermen (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just found - The Lake Carriers' Association, a U.S. industry group only uses the terms freighter and laker on their website and online reports, not lake freighter. Rmhermen (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Lake freighters is a term with only one possible meaning. Lakers is both ambiguous, and is a word whose meaning is only clear to insiders. It has no surface meaning. Its meaning is not clear to those who don't already know what it means. I regard these as strong reason not to use it. Geo Swan (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment - Both titles are ambiguous as either category could conceivably include freighters that ply lakes other than the Great Lakes. It doesn't help that the parent category is Category:Bulk carriers (ships) (or maybe it should beCategory:General cargo ships which is where Category:Freighters redirects), and the principle of universality requires that subcats wherever possible use the same terminology. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Lakers are a kind of bulk carrier, while bulk carriers are one type of general cargo ships. Rmhermen (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- From the roof of my building I can see freighters come and go from Toronto. Yes, today, they may all be bulk carriers, sugar, road salt, concrete. But, in the past, there have been lake freighters that carried other kinds of cargo. There were train ferries, for instance. Geo Swan (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem including lake freighters from other large lakes in this category -- if there are any. If I am not mistaken the African Great Lakes are not connected by navigable rivers or canals. I believe the same is true of Lake Titicaca. If so transport on the lake is intra-lake, not inter-lake.
I believe the River Niger that drains Lake Chad, is only navigable by shallow draft vessels. Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake are deep. But transport on them, and down the Mackenzie River is via barges pushed or towed by tugboats. Lake Maracaibo is not a real lake, it is a shallow, brackish estuary, and transport there is, again, barges towed by tugs. Lake Baikal has (had) steam powered vessels, I've seen old pictures, in the less than 1000 ton range. What kinds of water transport is there on the Yenisie? I don't know. Geo Swan (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Lakers are a kind of bulk carrier, while bulk carriers are one type of general cargo ships. Rmhermen (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Like many of the CfDs from 2010 that made it until now without being closed, there is a good deal of talking and very little that could be considered actionable. There's no consensus for a move, so closing as no action taken. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)