User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2017

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

← Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 →

Categorisation question

[edit]

Hi Andy, while trying to fix the double categorisations in

it seems that Cat-a-lot has a problem to recognise the cats that are added via Template:Scans from 'Rankin Kennedy, Electrical Installations', 1903 (took a while for me to understand that, too). Why did you see the need to double-categorise those files in a redundant (only differently styled) category? And if you still think it's needed, how would you ensure the number of files in both categories be kept at par? --.js 09:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC) PS. Some of those files are also in Category:Electromechanical indicators & Category:Medical electrics & Category:Early telephone instruments, do you want to create the cats or remove the files from them? Also the above mentioned template has a code issue with displaying the "|other_version=" parameter, could you fix that? (see here). I don't find where the bug is. BTW: Thank you for contributing all those great scans! :-) --.js 09:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of those scans. There used to be more, but after I had thousands deleted just to annoy me, I no longer contribute here. As there are so many, they aren't catagorized manually, it's done through the template.
The template uses parameters (set on each upload) to get the year and volume right. If there is no other description, they're categorized into /undescribed as well. That's a workflow category, just to see which images still need descriptions adding.
As to the other descriptive categories, then these are appropriate descriptive categories and should be created. But that can take some effort for a large number of files.
You can do what you want with these categories and images, even delete them. I will not let myself worry about what happens to them, otherwise I have let the trolls win. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brede Waterworks

[edit]

Hi Andy

I am not sure what your problem is with the removal of Category:Water supply infrastructure in England from Category:Brede Waterworks. The Brede category is already a subcategory of Category:Water pumping stations in England, which in turn is a subcategory of Category:Water supply infrastructure in England. To place it in both categories constitutes overcategorisation.

You seem to be suggesting that Category:Water pumping stations in England also covers sewage and land drainage. However, it doesn't: they are covered by different categories at Category:Sewage pumping stations in England and Category:Land drainage pumping stations in England. Am I missing something here? Skinsmoke (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last time I looked at this, "water pumping stations" was for stations that pumped water (as either water supply, sewerage, land drainage or canal supply). It now seems to have become only for "water supply" (in which case the supercat would indeed be implicit) but that's the wrong name for it. "Pumping stations" now seems to have taken over as the three water categories (and again, that's the wrong name) and I've no idea where the oil pipeline, gas pipeline or salt brine stations have disappeared to.
Water pumping should be about pumping water, and pumping should be about pumping. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why is File:Western Sewage Pumping Station, Grosvenor Road - geograph.org.uk - 1162540.jpg (as an example that's obvious even from the filename) under Water pumping stations in England if it's not water supply? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you expect me to answer that one! Presumably, either because it was miscategorised by someone, or because the category has subsequently changed and it was missed when the images not related to water supply were removed. It's hardly the only file on Wikimedia Commons miscategorised is it? In any case, I've moved it to Category:Sewage pumping stations in England.
I can't find the oil or gas pumping stations either. I've found Category:Petrol stations under Category:Pumping stations, which seems correct, and where you would expect to find the others. However, three images of the brine pumping station at Droitwich seem to have turned up at Category:Brine pumps.
I'm not sure that pumping sewage is really "water pumping". There's a hell of a lot more than water in sewage (as I can vouch having been down an active sewer!), so I suppose that it is only correct that it has been removed from the category.
As for canal pumping stations, they should surely come within the remit of "water supply infrastructure". They may not be supplying drinking water, but they are supplying water to canals. And, they have (correctly?) remained in Category:Water pumping stations in England.
So what are we left with? It seems to me that your objection is to the name of Category:Water pumping stations in England. Should the category be renamed? Or should Category:Land drainage pumping stations in England also be included, and the link to Category:Water supply infrastructure in England removed, and added to the appropriate subcategories instead? This would also need to be done at the United Kingdom and global levels as well. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have a historical and tourist industry interest in Victorian water (broadly) pumping stations. These were large impressive buildings, full of large impressive machinery. Unsurprisingly, some have been preserved. Many impending visitors have no idea what it was that Kew, Hove or Abbey handled, they're just going to visit some big iron. There is clearly scope for an overall categorisation of these, and conveniently as "water pumping".
I see your point about sewerage as being distinct to "water". But I'm not planning to drink canal water, or a drained railway tunnel either. And it is broadly aqueous. At present we have Shore Road Pumping Station (railway drainage) under "Water pumping stations", which you tell me is for water supply, yet Kew is only under "pumping stations", despite being water supply. This is inconsistent, and making it consistent should begin by having "water pumping" under "water pumping". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be assuming that "water supply" means "drinking water supply", which doesn't necessarily follow. Category:Water supply appears to include all reservoirs, no matter what their purpose. In any case, the scheme as it stands is not my design (I was simply making an amendment to avoid what looked like a pretty obvious case of overcategorisation), and if you want to see major changes then I think you need to go down the categories for discussion route and involve far more people than just us two (not that the Cfd route ever seems to manage to resolve anything). Skinsmoke (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Locks of love 9.jpg

[edit]
File:Locks of love 9.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--Panam2014 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Woolpack Inn sign Beckinton.jpg

[edit]
File:Woolpack Inn sign Beckinton.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Hchc2009 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Hi I was surprised by the reverts opered by Yann because no rule prohibits notification. Also, I did not understand the purpose of the request. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bedgebury_Pinetum

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Bedgebury Pinetum has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Blythwood (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File

[edit]

Hi The file has been deleted without consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw. I haven't had time yet, but I intend to raise this (although Commons has no practical forum for doing so) Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To @Yann DO NOT DELETE THIS MESSAGE.
[edit]
Thanks for doing cleanup for me in the steam engine category! Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 12:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hacksaws

[edit]

Hey, actually the category is already categorised in Hand saws, so there is a problem if not all the files are hand saws. We should move those out or just make Hacksaws a parallel category wrt Hand saws. Your call. --Ruthven (msg) 13:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is absolutely no problem. The mistake is to see MediaWiki categorization as ontologically defining. It isn't, it doesn't have the sophistication for that. It's navigational, no more. There is no reason why paths within MediaWiki categories should be assumed to be single-rooted or without multiple paths (although things are simpler if we avoid that). All we do mandate is that we avoid cyclic paths.
There's room for a category for Powered hacksaws, but as yet there's only one image. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air pistol

[edit]

Why did u add again the cat pistol? Because a pistol is a firearm while in contrast an air pistol (as an air gun) is not a firearm see en:Air_gun.--Sanandros (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because an air pistol is a pistol.
Also some air weapons, those of high muzzle energies, are considered to be firearms in a legal sense, in some countries. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can u proof that? Cause Camprige says it's a gun.--Sanandros (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, a dictionary is not a reliable source for a definition of anything. A good dictionary may describe its etymology, but it does not define its technical details: they are written by lexicographers, not gunsmiths. Nor does "is a gun" in any way mean "is not a firearm". "Guns" and "firearms" are not disjoint sets.
For the legal definition, en:Air gun laws#United Kingdom, means that any air pistol over 6 ft.lbs energy is considered to be a firearm. Germany is similar, although the limit is lower and owing to a strange faith in labelling, almost all old air pistols (unlabelled) are considered to be firearms too. In a few countries, all air pistols are seen as firearms. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yea every firearm is a gun but not every gun is a firearm. Maybe air guns are sometimes legaly treated like firearms but technicaliy they differ a lot. Maybe user:Markscheider can explain it better. Btw de:Luftpistole is also not considered as pistol.--Sanandros (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well - no. The whole complex is a mix up from historical, technical and legal terms, and those differ from language to language. Luftpistolen in German(y) are considered Schusswaffen, wheras 'waffe' means weapon an Schuss means shot. Firearm on the other side means largely the same, bu not in every detail. The corresponding term in German is Feuerwaffe - lit. fire weapon, as arm would be translated into 'Bewaffnung' - closely related, but not identical. An air gun, be it a pisol or a rifle is always considered a Schusswaffe, but not a Feuerwaffe. And there are legal ones and not so legal ones, the latter exciding 7,5J muzzle energy. One could - with special permit - actually own such a weapon, but its not legal to produce, import or sell them. As for air pistol counts as as pistol or not: this is a technical term. Imho the answer is yes, because its a short projectil shooting weapon. YMMV, HTH. --Markscheider (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's divied the category and we introduce category:pistols (firearm) which is then a subcat of firearm while the original pistol cat is then nomore a firearm subcat.--Sanandros (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be a ridiculous idea. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Averof WWII.jpg

[edit]
File:Averof WWII.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Jcb (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Purton, Gloucestershire

[edit]

w:WP:NAMB the one in Wiltshire is not ambiguous with "Purton, Gloucestershire" like "Water (Wu Xing)" isn't with "Water". Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's ambiguous. Why else did I have to hand-sort all of those images when they were originally uploaded, and stuffed into the wrong categories? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The title "Purton, Gloucestershire" still isn't ambiguous with "Purton, Wiltshire" otherwise we could add the template to every case where names are ambiguous just because there may be incorrect images. Now that "Purton" is a DAB there shouldn't be incorrect images in either category anymore. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are already five images in that disambig category. Yet you say it's "not ambiguous"? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm saying that Category:Purton, Gloucestershire is not ambiguous as it includes ", Gloucestershire" on the end. So that category won't be mistaken for the one in Wiltshire for that reason. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would refer you to the past edit war here to put the Forest of Dean back into Wales, "because it's on the West of the Severn". Where Purton is is highly ambiguous, even if one does know where Gloucestershire is. For one thing, two of them are both in Gloucestershire - how does having 'Gloucestershire' in a disambig make that one any clearer? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it makes it clear that its not for the one in Wiltshire, the guideline at w:WP:NAMB makes this clear. Before the reason why was because it was a redirect to the one in Wiltshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also do we really need the Purton, Gloucestershire category anyway as they are 2 different places. I would also note that Category:Purton, Berkeley is in Category:Populated places in Gloucestershire as well as Category:Purton, Gloucestershire but not Category:Purton, Lydney. I would suggest turning Category:Purton, Gloucestershire into a DAB, do you object? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it had started out as a DAB anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have turned it into a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sort of nonsense you get when you combine a WP guideline which isn't adequate for the situation (is "Stroud" a town or a district?) with slavish adherence to that guideline by an editor obsessed with "correct" titling, and who appears unable to adapt in cases like this where the guidance isn't right. Stroud may be what the guideline suggests, but is not acceptable as Purton is not in the town of Stroud. Berkeley is not in the guideline, but is acceptable, as Purton is in that region. Berkeley is not the only option, and may not be the best one, but its clearly better than something dumb.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that region, Purton is over 3 miles from Berkeley. By that logic it should be Purton, Berkeley CP or Purton, Berkeley (CP) before 2012 the district on WP was just at Stroud (district) and pages aren't disambiguated twice because the qualifier term is. For example we don't have Category:Columbus, Georgia (U.S. state). Though the situation has been followed in other cases such as Category:Stanley, County Durham instead of Category:Stanley, Durham even though the county is officially called just "Durham". Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And it's 15 miles from Stroud. "Purton, Stroud" is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the same with Category:Middleton, Harrogate. "Purton, Stroud" is within the guideline, "Purton, Berkeley" isn't (as there isn't another in the Stroud district) Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be within the letter of the guideline, but it is clearly ridiculous. All I need to do is tweak the UKPLACE guidance to correct this anomaly, no-one on WP will object. Please work to find a sensible term instead of sticking to something useless and asserting we should follow a clearly incorrect rule blindy..--Nilfanion (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Track gauges

[edit]

Dear Andy Dingley, unlike the introduction to this page which says that you are inactive, I see you are moving track gauges to imperial measurements. [1] clearly says, that you created this page on October 20. I know that many track gauges had originally been defined in imperial measurements. However, today almost all countries are metric and these gauges are measured in mm and no longer in feet and inches. Thus a "normal" user searches for 1676 mm and not for 5' 6". This is why I proposed to put both figures to the category name, considering that this is the most helpful way. It seems that you are not happy with this solution but I don't know yet why. In any case I ask you not to open new imperial categories, as you have done.--Gürbetaler (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bot mess

[edit]

Hi Andy! If my bot ever screws up again, please have him blocked right away @ COM:AN. So sorry for the mess, I have no idea why AWB is behaving this way sometimes. The bot made over 200k edits with the same settings, no problems. Suddenly a bunch of files are getting screwed up and when you try to replicate the problem, e.g. let the bot work the same file again, it works just fine. I can't identify a pattern. I filed a bug report on phabricator. Nothing so far. Thanks again for helping me out! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2017&oldid=295797621"