User talk:Andy Dingley
2007 2008 October, 2009 April, October, November, December, 2010 January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2011 2011 January, 2011 February, 2011 March, 2011 May, 2011 June 2011 * 2012 * 2013 * 2014 * 2015 * 2016 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2020 * 2021 * 2022 * 2023
Wikidata
[edit]You spoke out about my harassment at Commons but the same person has just moved to Wikidata. As a disinterested third party, can you peek at Wikidata:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q125118469 and express your own opinion? RAN (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I just noticed your warning from last october in both files. I just wanted to point out that:
- The information, in both cases, has been obtained from the book 'Richard Trevithick, Giant of Steam,' by Anthony Burton, published by Aurum Press in 2000.
- The image File:Engine trevithick puffer.svg is based on the description on pages 59 and 60, where Trevithick's design of a machine is briefly described. As explained, the machine consisted of a small boiler to produce high-pressure steam, which then drove the cylinder. Trevithick disposed of the condenser (the steam escaped directly into the atmosphere, producing a sound that gave the machine the popular name of 'puffer').
- As for File:Engine threvithick plunger pole.svg, it represents a later machine by Trevithick (developed after his stay in Peru), called 'plunger and pole', for which a sketch by Trevithick himself appears on page 159 of the book; the image I uploaded is based on this sketch.
Please, let me know if you have other considerations regarding this. Thank you, MdeVicente (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know that book. But the Amazon blurb, "Richard Trevithick’ s ‘ Cornish engine’ was the world’ s first self-propelled steam vehicle." isn't encouraging.
- I'm not sure what either of these engines are meant to be, but they're not accurate representations of anything. To the point that they're failing to reach COM:SCOPE.
- The first drawing here has some sort of equilibrium valve, linking the two sides of the cylinder, so let's assume that this is the 1811 'first Cornish cycle' engine. An important engine, although there is some inconsistency in the recording of Trevithick's engines in 1811 & 1812 (see Barton's Cornish Beam Engine, and I've not taken the considerable time needed to track this through Farey's Treatise on the Steam Engine). But that's not a Trevithick 'puffer' engine, as Banfield described scaring the bullocks. This engine has an equilibrium valve, therefore it should also have a condenser. The defining aspects of the 'puffer' were high pressure steam and no condensing of the exhaust (the amount of expansion of this steam did vary). A condensing engine doesn't have the loud puffing that was distinctive to Trevithick's engines over Watt's. I know of no Cornish cycle engines (i.e. equilibrium valve) without condensing.
- The second drawing is presumed to be the 'plunger pole' engine of 1812 (Chapter XIX of Francis Trevithick's Life of Richard Trevithick [1]). But what on earth? This seems to be some sort of floating piston steam / water cylinder, driving the pump cylinder by separate hydraulics. Which makes absolutely no sense: there's no historical engine like this, the piston areas and thus relative pressures are wrong for anything to work.
- Most obviously though, what are those boilers? Those are early Watt boilers, for low pressure only. Not anything like Trevithick's higher pressure boilers. Also the arch heads in the first image aren't, they're just a simple chain attachment to a beam, which is not how it was done.
- I'm almost (but not very) curious to see the original images, if these were based on them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Tinsnips
[edit]Hello. Since you once complained that I did not know the correct name for a tool, I am surprised that you did not notice that I found a companion for your sole entry in category:Tinsnips! Best, Krok6kola (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Babel user information
[edit]Please consider to add Commons:Babel to your user page or talk page. That's sometimes important to know in this multilingual project. For example, I've just tried to check if you understand German or not. --Schlurcher (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Please leave the file alone. I left your self-referring category, if you need it have it this way have it, but you may not delete the other categories referring to Pompei and Italy. Your pic is not only a "Dutch" category, but also an "Italian" one. I'd appreciate you to leave the Italian categorization alone, as I leave the Dutch one. Thank you. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Hey Andy, I would have appreciated a reason for undoing my edit on the mentioned category. This category is a year-category. It cannot be ruled out that other photos by the photographer from that year exist that cannot be assigned to this category. This category is far too specific for a year-category, as it must be assumed that other photos could also be added. Kind regards, Fantaglobe11 (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- This is Commons. Categorization is primarily navigational. So our questions should be based on that: what leaves us with the most useful combination for the reader?
- You are of course right. The question is whether it matters. What do we lose, what do we gain? This is not a 'year' category. It's a one photographer in one location year category. It's already very, very narrow. Terneuzen in 1953 was much smaller than it is now and it's still focussed on shipping. If this was Amsterdam we wouldn't even be talking about this, but these are the only photos we have for Terneuzen in this context. We don't have many photographs by van Duinen: 5k total, 4k are already categorized and there's little chance of many others. If some additional Terneuzen content does turn up, then we can of course revisit this question.
- More to the point, what goes into Category:Ship launchings photographed by van Duinen? As a basic requirement, it should contain all the photographs by van Duinen of ship launchings! So why remove those launches for one location? We could, as always, construct an over-complex hierarchy of additional layers and contrived names, all just so that no-one can navigate it. How does that help? All in case so that if some most unlikely hypothetical other photos appear, we don't have to edit a wiki: the thing that wikis are most easy for doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comprehensive reaction.
- For me it is difficult to accept that we run the risk of the category being categorised with a parent category that does not apply to its files.
- Basically, I agree with you that the probability of undiscovered photos appearing here is relatively low. Nonetheless, I generally try to avoid files creeping in that do not fit the categorisation.
- When I take a look through the category Photographs by van Duinen, I am particularly struck by the diversity of the photographs. So, I think it is quite possible that there are photos of other motives from Terneuzen, for example.
- Of course, Terneuzen was much smaller than it is today, but there were certainly enough motives that could be relevant for this category.
- This is indeed a year category, as the focus here is on photos taken by a particular photographer in a particular place in a particular year. The subject is of secondary importance.
- However, I would suggest retaining the old status. This is really just a niche.
- Have a nice Sunday. Kind regards, Fantaglobe11 (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)