Would I rather I had named this category "poorly described poor quality images nominaly taken in the science museum in london but no one is ever actualty going to use"? I'm trying to clean up Category:Science Museum (London) and ppart of that is getting these images out of the way.Geni (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many images are poor quality, but we use them because they're all we have on an obscure subject. If they're truly too bad to keep, then delete them, but hiding them serves no-one.
I recently wrote Old Bess (beam engine), which is an article on one of the biggest and best-known exhibits in the Science Museum. Yet we don't have one image of it! Maybe it's just too big and obvious for anyone to bother. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy it's possition makes it near impossible to photograph. It is not only dark but behind a bunch of other stuff. see for yourself.
Someone looking for an obscue subject isn't going to have much luck with the Gürkan Sengün pics since they are unlabled and most of the indentifable stuff is stuff that is already well documented.
Deleting them would be hiding them where as dumping them in a sub cat means they are still there if anyone wants to search through them.Geni (talk)
Hey, thanks for that - I've added it to the article.
It's a while since I've been there, but I thought they used to have it in a whitewashed brick half-engine house.
This is a user category. So would we start by ignoring existing practice on user categories by making it visible, and tied into the Science Museum categories? (I have no problem with ignoring that rule, if it is indeed the best option.) The alternative would be disconnect the images entirely from the Science Museum, making them effectively uncategorized.
There are 19 images at present. They cover a range of exhibits at the Science Museum. Presumably (as few editors are unique) this situation could arise again, and we'll see Category:Unsorted Andy Dingley images of the Science Museum (London) that contains File:Waxwing upper stage.jpg and File:South-pointing chariot (Science Museum model).jpg, two terrible photos that are in use wiki-wide (world-wide for the chariot) because their topic is of interest, they're hard to photograph, and we seem to have nothing better. (The lesson is to carry a tripod and polarising filter at all times, even when not otherwise planning to have a cancelled meeting and spend a whole day in the Science Museum instead!) If we extend this process to its logical conclusion, we end up with our Science Museum content categorized by the unimportant dimension of authorship, rather than its topic. This just isn't a helpful change.
I've no problem with adding the category, or even stretching a user category in ways that strict policy says it shouldn't. However I am against the removal of the subject categorization we'd normally use as well, even when this is only at the broad "Science Museum" level and the image is not of great quality. Really though these images, like the other Science Museum ones, should be categorised to topics. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please can we have some consistancy here! why not also put the other LNWR locos that wewre used by LMS also in the LMS cat? if that is your stance why treat this cat differently from them? Oxyman (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point isn't that these were just one of the many classes that the LMS inherited from the LNWR (you'd be right here), but that they were an LMS design.
The Claughtons were LNWR. Your point would apply. The Enlarged or Rebuilt Claughtons though were substantially an LMS design, at least their boilers and they were then sufficiently different to be regarded as LMS influence, not LNWR. If we had split classes for original and rebuilt, I'd suggest categorizing only the Enlarged as LMS. However we just have one cat, and our few images are no need to split it. I thought this much should have been clear from my edit summary.
If you disagree with this, then please discuss it. I don't have a terribly strong attachment to this if it particularly offends you, or if you have some reason to see the rebuilding as a plan dating from LNWR times. I certainly make no suggestion that we should regard Coal Tanks or Ds as LMS engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just the cat looks a bit odd in the LMS cat' Ill just have to learn to live with the inconsistances of this place but I find it frustrating. BR rebuilt Merchant Navy's and light pacifics come under SR cat tree such as Category:BR rebuilt Merchant Navy class 35028 Clan Line this probably needs to be looked at but it all gets a bit complex. LNER pre grouping classes are listed under LNER's clasification which is usefull and I wouldn't want to change that, there is scope for treating other cats similarly but it all gets a bit of a headache Oxyman (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Bulleids were simplified when they were rebuilt, so there's less originality involved. I wouldn't advocate describing them as BR designs, but nor would I be terribly against it.
The LNER classes are doubled for the only practical way of sorting their class names. We might build a full double hierarchy of "by design" and "by code", but that would be pointless for the benefit it would convey.
There are probably some L&Y Hughes designs were there's an overlap with the LMS too.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)