User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2019

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

← Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 →

Your recent uncommented reverts...

[edit]

...of edits done by me (eg [1]) require further explanation, I think. regards --Jotzet (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to these categories are what can best be described as thoroughly disastrous. I've not seen anything yet that's an improvement, many are seriously wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[2]
Who do you think designed Garratt locomotives? It wasn't Garratt! These (and one example of several) are a type of locomotive, where that original type might have been one designer's inspiration, but the broad type continued in widespread use for years afterwards, with many designers. It is quite wrong (miles away from the Category:Locomotives designed by Francis Webb etc.) that this sub-tree is intended for. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you German? Or German-speaking? These edits are characteristic of a style of editing that's very common amongst German speakers on Commons – a blind faith assumption that the wording of a category name, as a list of nouns, is also a canonical definition of its contents (a typical construction with German compound nouns). However that's not how English works, that's not how MediaWiki works, that's not how Commons works. Definitions here are often much more vague, and often need clarification with a paragraph of text on a page, not just a couple of words of title. You interpreted Category:Overtype steam locomotives to mean "railway locomotives", clearly without having looked at its contents: it includes Category:Overtype steam wagons (which are road vehicles) and also Category:Overtype steam railway locomotives‎ (which was already categorised with railways).
To make changes like this without any knowledge of the subject is not a workable approach. These weren't badly structured categories to begin with, but they're a right mess now! Also, if it were possible to infer categorisation by naming as simply as you have been doing, we could have a very simple shell script do that, we wouldn't need human editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My question related to the change at “Crampton locomotive”. In this regard, I asked you for an explanation, not for an evaluation of my editorial work or for prejudiced assumptions about my person. BTW: Categories and categorizations must be created, named and classified in such a way that their use can be derived logically. If additional explanations seem necessary, this goal is already missed. Also, the demand for in-depth knowledge of any language in an international project like ours would at least be narrow-minded. Thank you, I'll be gone by then - and in return and in our mutual interest please refrain from tinkering with my non-railway edits. --Jotzet (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Crampton didn't design the Cramptons either. He held a patent (for a while) on the design, but they were designed and built worldwide. Most of them also deviated from his original design and what we regard as "a Crampton" now is broader than his patent. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contact

[edit]

Good evening Andy, how would it be possible to contact you in regards to the question on Admin notice board? It is possible to present you with secondary evidence, however, it must be done in a way where documents shared may not be copied or re-distributed (by the wrong people) as well as to preserve and protect the privacy of the living person and for those who may be interested in copying and forging such documents to impersonate legit person. Please let me know and I will try to arrange something for you to be able to see the secondary evidence. With best wishes --JinxAndTonic (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Free energy nonsense

[edit]

I believe I've deleted all of the free energy nonsense. If I missed anything, or he comes back, please let me know. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can't see anything else. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very amusing that a 1st class simulator is considered nonsense. Hope whatever faculty uses it stop, immediately, lest they embark on bench testing nonsensical tests. Wow... What drawing board is worthy of falling back onto? Vinyasi (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gauges in mm

[edit]

Where’s the discussion for this move? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've gone over this dozens of times. These categories should be in their canonical units. Irish gauge is 5 ft 3 in in origin, even if it's coincidentally a round number in cm. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs by Willem van de Poll

[edit]

The templates added are used incorrectly (See Special:Diff/341693659) and I think they can be eliminated.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the templates are used correctly and they provide a navigation bar by year. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The categories that appear in the list (the difference is above) need to be fixed ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But rather than fix it, you're just bulk-deleting everything? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I told you, I think they can be eliminated so please fix them or delete them.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Categories still self-categorized so please fix them or delete them.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned in Commons:Database reports/Self-categorized categories since 6 March ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So which ones? Not which ones, a month ago. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Disputed territories

[edit]

Hello,

Concerning the renamings made by Huldra (palestine instead of Israel), could this be remembered :

Djampa (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djampa, you were invited to contribute to the discussion at Category talk:Photographs by Willem van de Poll#Israel. You chose to ignore this, then simply edit-warred to impose your own changes again. Please join that discussion and make your case for your favoured version there. Otherwise you are simply edit-warring against other editors, and you are likely to end up blocked for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1973 in Westmorland

[edit]
Category:1973 in Westmorland 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 category, 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.

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） ∙ +/−

JuTa 20:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to

as well. regards --JuTa 20:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset Limited on the train-ferry at Port Costa, San Francisco (CJ Allen, Steel Highway, 1928).jpg

[edit]

Are you sure that this train was identified as the Sunset Limited in the book? The Sunset Limited was always an LA-New Orleans train, with a San Francisco section running along the California coast - it would never have used the Port Costa Ferry. The westbound-only Sunset Express did use the ferry. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the book calls it. But then it's just some foreign railway from half a world away. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd mis-titled it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I greatly appreciate all the effort you've put into getting these high-quality scans uploaded and categorized. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There used to be a few thousand more of them, but their deletion is what drove me off Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Roy17 (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Packard categories

[edit]

Thanks for your answer in this request. I still apologize for this wheel war. I see you don't understand either these informations - obviously - but I hope we have some explanations from Eddaido later.

By the way, I'm quiet surprised by the intervention fo Tuvalkin, who talk about "toxic", "vandalism", "destruction", "infamous", etc. and accuses me of having "powerful allies". I hope it's not his normal behavior.

All the best. Sammyday (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Roy17 (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete my photo

[edit]

Yes I understand that it is not my work and after that will not do the same mistake Jku456 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Andy Dingley/Archive 2019,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Andy Dingley/Archive 2019,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COM:AN/U

[edit]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Incnis Mrsi has been indefblocked by 1989. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Andy Dingley/Archive 2019,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs by Willem van de Poll in various places

[edit]

A category like Category:Photographs by Willem van de Poll in Europe is not limited to categories. If you want to encourage categorization, you can put the {{Categorise}} template on it, but not {{Catcat}}. If you want to enforce categorization, then the category should be named something like "Photographs by Willem van de Poll in Europe by location", assuming you want the subcategories to be for specific places, or "Photographs by Willem van de Poll in Europe by location", if you want them to be for individual years, etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no valid reason for putting files into these categories directly. Anywhere in Europe can be placed instead in their appropriate country category. Now stop edit-warring over these. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs by Rob Mieremet

[edit]

If you want the photographer by year templates on this category, that's fine, but it's adding Category:Photographs by Rob Mieremet by year, which shouldn't be a parent category here. In addition, adding that category is causing recursion, where each of these categories is its own grandchild. Maybe something like a NOCAT parameter can be added to the template? --Auntof6 (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rail_vehicles_of_Great_Britain

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Rail vehicles of Great Britain 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 ∙ +/−

Roy17 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1947 in Coenhaven and Category:1955 in Coenhaven

[edit]

From what I can tell, Coenhaven is a port in Amsterdam so rather than have Coenhaven as a subcategory of the Netherlands generally, wouldn't the images be better as a subcategory of Amsterdam such as Category:1947 in Amsterdam? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. It's typical with these vast photo archives that you don't know what's in them until you start looking. But to start anywhere you have to make an initial decision, then see how it works out. How does SMALLCAT affect this? Does categorization of a 10,000+ archive start out with photos on an obscure Caribbean island, which then grows into hundreds of images on an obscure, but detailed, significant record, or does it just stick with two or three images and you wonder afterwards how that one outlier ended up in the set? If Coenhaven doesn't work, we can always merge it in later.
Coenhaven is a notable topic, see nl:Coenhaven. So I think this is justified, at least so far. It should be separate, very likely a sub category of an overall Amsterdam catagory. Daan Noske seems to have more photos of it from 1955, as yet uncategorized. I've already created Category:Photographs by Bram Wisman in Coenhaven (1947) for Bram Wisman, but hadn't done Category:Photographs by Daan Noske in Coenhaven (1955) yet and at the time I tagged those two 1955 images, I hadn't even done Category:Photographs by Daan Noske in Amsterdam. Daan Noske is barely started so far
I've certainly no objection to moving Coenhaven to be a sub-cat of Amsterdam. But it should probably exist, and should probably be separate. If you have any local knowledge of obscure local geography in the Netherlands, that's always very welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I'm just interested in the subcategory idea not its removal. I support it existing as a separate category but could Category:Photographs by Bram Wisman in Coenhaven (1947) just be a category of Category:1947 in Amsterdam, Category:Photographs by Bram Wisman in Amsterdam (1947) and Category:Photographs by Bram Wisman in Coenhaven? Either way, up to you. Whatever you like for categorization. I don't think those 'harbor by year' categories will do much but hold the photographer subcats but just trying to get your opinion. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Photographs by Daan Noske in Coenhaven (1955) is already under Category:Photographs by Daan Noske in Amsterdam (1955). I'm happy to do likewise with Bram Wisman's. Sub-dividing Amsterdam is useful anyway, as that tends to be huge otherwise.
There isn't a Category:Photographs by Bram Wisman in Coenhaven, because I'm only creating these as the dated ones and making them a direct child of the photographer. I only create the undated one, once we have multiple dates (or for Amsterdam, Schiphol etc., where it's inevitable). Otherwise it's just two layers of empty nav and a bit pointless. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important message for file movers

[edit]

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

  • To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
  • To perform file name swaps.
  • When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting up categories

[edit]

Dear Andy Dingley, You are very active in splitting up categories. Could I ask you not to split up relatively small categories? Splitting up four layers deep makes it impossible to get a complete overview of usage of the photos made by some of the Anefo photographers. Also: choosing a photo by a photographer or a photo of a person is much harder when a relatively small group of photos (<200) is split up, and hinders oversight. To give an example: I really hope the photographs by Emmy Andriesse will not be split up in categories like "Photographs by Emmy Andriesse in Volendam/Amsterdam etc" or "Photographs by Emmy Andriesse in 1945". Vysotsky (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you think categories with >10,000 members are at all useful? My target has been to get each one down to a page or two (200-600), as the maximum for a usefully navigable category. Obviously some are less than that, and a few are tiny. But if a photographer's work breaks down to clear groups of hundreds in Amsterdam and Rotterdam, then a handful in Marken, it's still better to split this than to let the Markens get lost in the bulk. And of course, this then allows those Marken images to be sub-categorized, as a coherent group (most of the groups in this context are not merely the same subject, they were taken together as specific projects) as a sub-category for Category:Marken.
There are no perfect solutions. But it's much easier to go from a rational structure of small groups to the desired result (whatever that is) using tools like Petscan, than it is to try and split a large category up automatically. We have no tools which can do that, we frequently have nothing other than embedded text descriptions to go on, and sometimes we don't even have that much and have to go by recognising landmarks in photographs. The depth of the categories has absolutely zero influence: MediaWiki just doesn't work that way.
As Category:photographs by Emmy Andriesse has 119 images, 108 in Volendam and a handful in Amsterdam, then I will of course split that down into the relevant two as you request. AFAIK they're all in 1945, so I don't know what other split you're talking about.
If you have confused categorization with tagging, then I refer you to Rodhullandemu's explanation at Commons:Village pump#Technical Issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Andy Dingley, I tend to disagree. Back to the example: all photos by Emmy Andriesse already also have either a Volendam or a Rijksmuseum category, so in my view there's no need to double that. But feel free to do what you can't resist. I personally really dislike categories like Photographs by Wim van Rossem in Curaçao containing three (3) files -even more so when these photographs were made in the Amsterdam harbour. Vysotsky (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

[edit]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at Wikimedia Commons.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Delft_by_Marion_Golsteijn

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Delft by Marion Golsteijn 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 ∙ +/−

Tukka (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tanks FT-17

[edit]

Hello Andy Dingley
So that I can improve myself in the modifications and categorizations that I carry out on a daily basis.
Would you be able to tell me the nature of my error (link) with the indication of categorization : 1920 Renault vehicles, for the file Tanks FT-17.jpg categorized as : Renault FT in Polish service and whose description indicates : Battle of Warsaw 1920 ?
Your cancellation notice indicates : They're still not 1920. Personally, unless otherwise stated, there is nothing to confirm that the tanks are of a date other than that of 1920 which is indicated in the description.
Thank you in advance for bringing me your shared knowledge so that I don't make that kind of mistake again and to improve in the accuracy of the contributions that I make.
Regards, —— DePlusJean (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does "1920 Renault vehicles" mean? Does "2019 Renault vehicles" mean "any Renault photographed in 2019", such that if they were photographed in a museum today, we'd apply the same category?
These are Renault FT tanks. They're photographed in 1920. But as far as I know, Renault weren't building them in 1920 (there was plenty of war surplus from 1918). Certainly we can't say with any confidence that they're 1920 tanks. If we did have a build date confirmed, then we might be able to say "1918 Renault vehicles", maybe 1917 or 1919. But 1920? That's unsupportable. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your indications which allow me to understand my errors
The categorization indication "1920 Renault vehicles" makes it possible to link a progress report on the products produced by the manufacturer over time. In this present case, the date of the year 1920 makes it possible to confirm the presence of this vehicle which is mentioned in the description made by its author (Andros64).
For your other questioning, I bring to your attention that there are many categories allowing to classify the photographs by dates of shots (Categories : Photographs, Photographs by date …) and thus to be able to perfect the classification of documents.
So it is because of your personal convictions that you have twice canceled my contributions (link) because they do not go in the direction of your thoughts knowing that no mention is made in the description of the file allowing the knowledge of your position on the subject. If, in fact, the vehicles shown in the photograph are not from the year of the date of the latter. The date indicated serves as a reference in the absence of contrary mentions. Even if I can agree with the arguments you make, they are a non-factual personal interpretation. In the concrete relating to this time, one can well imagine the courage of the photographer to take pictures of testimonies and avoid him to take the dates of construction of the vehicles present.
I bring to your attention the presence of the identical file : Ft17 dyneburg8.jpg, imported by Liftarn, which mentions the same subjects for the same periods among the articles to which it refers. The categorization allows you to be able to reconcile these files in order to be able to offer a quality choice for Wikipedia articles, for example.
I allow myself to mention the user and administrator Jarekt to read this message, to the extent of its availability, and for contributing to the subject of photo rankings (Revision #9646780).
Whatever our differences on the subject, I allow myself to wish you a happy holiday season
Yours, —— DePlusJean (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "1920 Renault vehicles" mean?
This is not "Renault vehicles in 1920", it is (by our use elsewhere, throughout Commons and WP) "Renault vehicles of 1920", meaning that they are somehow connected themselves to 1920, i.e. built in 1920. This is more than simply an older vehicle being photographed in 1920.
As far as I know, Renault built no FT tanks in 1920. They had stopped by then. They had many of them, from WWI, and they (or the French government) were trying to sell them off as surplus. They are not "1920 tanks", they are not "1920 Renault vehicles".
Also, not all of the Renault FT were built by Renault. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the background of your logic Andy Dingley
The purpose of my approach, and I only have one, is that we are going in the same direction, by combining our talents, in the interest of the community !
When you state the value of the category "Renault vehicles in 1920" by "Renault vehicles of 1920" while she is named "1920 Renault vehicles". When you mention construction, sale or inventory status. We are off topic.
I hope you haven't canceled my changes because the name of the category (defined and accepted by the community) does not correspond to your convictions. With the experience of your 145000 contributions, since 27 April 2007, you must understand that I am not responsible for the naming of the category.
The questions that make up the nature of the present action are :
  • Does the photograph identify a Tank-FT ? The title of the photograph and the description mention : "Tanks FT-17".
    ✓ Done Yes, the photograph identifies a Tank-FT.
  • Does the photograph identify the year 1920 ? The description indicates the mention : "Battle of Warsaw 1920".
    ✓ Done Yes, the photograph identifies the year 1920.
  • Is the Tank-FT built by the manufacturer Renault ? Description and category mention : "Tanks Renault FT-17B" and "Renault FT in Polish service" respectively. The Wikidata Infobox template from the category "Renault FT" refers to the Wikipedia article : "Renault FT".
    ✓ Done Yes, the Tank-FT is built by the manufacturer Renault.
  • Is a Tank a vehicle ? Following Wikipedia's directions : "A vehicle is a machine that transports people or cargo".
    ✓ Done Yes, a Tank is a vehicle.
  • Do the indications provided by the photograph correspond to the category "1920 Renault vehicles" ? The year 1920 is indicated in the description. The name of Renault is mentioned in the description and in the category. A Tank represents a vehicle.
    ✓ Done Yes, the category "1920 Renault vehicles" corresponds to the criteria of the photograph.
I'm sorry, but at this level, there are no other possible interpretations.
Yours, —— DePlusJean (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this feedback
Having twice canceled my contributions on this subject and to no longer be bothered on this subject
Would it be possible for you to bring a notable source, for this photograph, allowing to validate the affirmation of your words ?
Thus, the action of providing a reference included in the page of the photograph would allow the community to avoid making the same mistake as myself and to continue to share educational content in the project. —— DePlusJean (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sea Alarm (tugboat, 1941)

[edit]

Not all the photos of this tugboat show it at the museum, hence the reason I removed the museum category. After all, it would have been a normal functioning tugboat for most of its existence. Sionk (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's mostly (if at all) known through its connection to the museum in Cardiff.
Secondly, if it can't be included in a museum cat unless it has spent all of its life there (which we don't follow for any other exhibits), then why is it in the "museum ships" cat?
Finally, where are the images where she's not at the museum?
MW categorization is not defining – it's not powerful enough. So we should aim for useful navigation, and that means including it in the specific museum cat. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About Shukhov Oka Towers

[edit]

«I don't believe that both towers were built on the same bank».

I have to object to your reply, my dear friend. They actually WERE built on the same bank! The proof is these photos:

And also:

And these are the real photos, not a montage or something. Дмитрий Сазанов (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2019&oldid=415283966"