User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2020

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

← Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 →

Category:Interwar_tanks_in_museums

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Interwar tanks in museums 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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 ∙ +/−

Josh (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Destructor Bridge, Bath

[edit]

Hi. The replacement Destructor Bridge, Bath has been given the same name, so we need to distinguish the category somehow. I wonder about 2 new sub-cats "Destructor Bridge (1905)" and "Destructor Bridge (2017)" - note no ", Bath". Do you have a strong opinion on this? Rwendland (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flat lists

[edit]

Thanks for the recovery of the Van Duinen category. Could you do the same for the photographs of Willem van de Poll -a much more important photographer? Vysotsky (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MacKintosh Chair

[edit]

I'm a new editor here, so working on my learning curve. This said--you just reverted my edit of this chair, so help me understand here. The chair's description reads, "Chair by Charles Rennie Mackintosh, from 1917."

Now, to me, that says that the chair is... by Charles Rennie Mackintosh. But the revert reads, "This isn't Mackintosh..." which appears to contradict the uploader's description.

On a second point, you argue "...and it's already in his furniture category."

Help me understand what the policy is here. To myself, it would seem that, as in Biological Categorization, it makes sense to categorize each species fairly far back on the tree, because, particularly in an encyclopedic sense, it is not possible to predict the level of a person's knowledge when they are researching a subject in so basic a source as an encyclopedia. Therefore, it would make most sense to say that a dog was both a canine and a mammal. Similarly, it makes most sense to categorize a piece of artwork by Mackintosh as both a piece of furniture associated with Mackintosh and to categorize it as related to the man himself. So--while you, as an editor, can make the assumption that the single categorization is logical... that is not true for someone who just started looking at Mackintosh and thought that Mackintosh only did stained glass.

What is the take here at Wikimedia Commons? Sicklemoon (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just had a look at your user page. As someone who has just started to work on WP, I can only gasp at your perserverence and patience in uploading all those photos. 100% a noble effort. --K Sicklemoon (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a policy COM:OVERCAT which says "only put them in the single, most-specific, category" and also "don't put them in a parent category if they're already in sub-category". We might well put them in multiple categories which are related, such as "chair by Mackintosh" and "1900s works by Mackintosh".
That said, I don't always follow OVERCAT to the simple letter of it. Many editors here are much stricter on it. I only impose OVERCAT if (and only if) the parent category is completely implied by the sub-category. This might even be true for some items in that cat, but not all of them. If we had a more-specific "chairs" cat, I'd put chairs into it and not put them into "furniture" any more. I wouldn't put them into Mackintosh either. But if it was a photo of Mackintosh sitting on one of his chairs, then I'd put it in both – the chair implies one, Mackintosh would imply the other, and that would be something beyond what's meant by being in "chairs", even if the chair alone would be amply covered by that much. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, excellent, so there's invisible/background uber-category structure that I'm not seeing.

Now, I know this sort of comment must be diresomely repetitive from your end... but I am having an interesting time learning the navigation here, and piecing through the sensical policy elements and the ones that appear bot driven to a fault is a complex business, especially to someone who is striving for a standard of "increase knowledge" over... peacocking. Using that last word in a not entirely WP technical sense!

Thanks for your response. The work & thought is appreciated. --K Sicklemoon (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome. This stuff is complex and there's a lot of it which is either undocumented, or (commonly!) documented in the simplest of terms, so that the more complex cases run outside that. Many editors, sadly, then turn to dogma and insist "policy says this!" rather than thinking about the implications and effects of how they use it. Mediawiki categorization isn't a powerful mechanism: it's mostly useful for navigation, not definition. It has something of a directed graph structure to it, which most users use as a single-rooted, single-direction branching tree. But we always have to base definitions on something else, the categorization isn't powerful enough. We can say "this category holds stuff about Mackintosh furniture, such that it's useful to a student of Mackintosh furniture" but no stronger than that – it could easily hold an image of a brochure or program for sales of furniture or exhibitions of it. We can't go so far as, "everything in here is a piece of furniture". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hydraulic accumulator

[edit]

This was a simplified representation of the type of hydraulic accumulator used for a water pump where the design considerations are a little different. The type used on power hydraulics or for water hammer mitigation are more optimised for shock damping and so need a wider neck. The membrane-type with the rubber fixed to the equator seems to be common for small spherical accumulators, the cost of making a large equatorial seal at high pressure had made them less common in the past but I wasn't aware they were currently being produced with welded construction, it's actually quite impressive that they are welded so close to the diaphragm without damaging it (image).

It seems that more description of the designs for different applications needs to be added to the page, I'll add some descriptions of the types tomorrow, the ambiguity of "hydraulic" is a little problematic here too. And I might make a new image that shows some more features like the air valve, it's honestly a pretty hasty construction, and it might be worth showing the design of a hydraulic type too.MasterTriangle12 (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herculaneum is not in Pompeii !

[edit]

Hi Andy. This rollback you made is a nonsense. The old Roman city of Herculaneum is not located in the old city of Pompeii! They are 20 km away from each other. I don't know why over 50% of the photos taken by Van de Poll in Herculaneum have in their name the inscription Pompeii and not Herculaneum. Obviously it is a mistake that I corrected by putting the files from Pompeii to Herculaneum. Now you make the category of the photograph of Herculaneum a sub-cat of the photos of Pompeii, i.e. you put the category of these photos of Herculaneum in the category of the photos of Pompeii. This is nonsense and it is wrong! Please correct this nonsense or I will do it. Thanks. --DenghiùComm (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your large moves of those images from Pompeii into Herculaneum; is that just an old naming error and we can be sure now that the locations are right? We could even rename the files here? Or at least add a note to the description – otherwise we have files with one name in the other category, which will just be confusing in the future (and likely to get reverted on that basis).
My point for the sub-categorisation is that we need to preserve the "Pompeii and Herculaneum" group. Maybe this make no sense to a Roman, but to a modern tourist the two sites are usually visited together. Would you be happy with a link between them instead? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When there are errors in the files, they must be corrected, not perpetrated in the categories, even adapting the categories to them. In the meantime, I have seen that the solution that I wanted to propose to you has already been applied, that is, to create reciprocal links with "cat see also". The problem remains with the wrong names of the files that could cause someone to move the files back to the wrong category. I am a file-mover so I can change the names of the files, so I can correct the names. You could correct the descriptions of each file. This morning I identified for each photograph the exact place that is shown, and I assigned the relative categories of houses and streets (cardo or decumanus), so it is enough that you report this information in the descriptions of each file. Is this solution good for you? Thanks. Best regards --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Pottery

[edit]

Hi Andy! We chatted a week back or so when I mistook a Mackintosh table for... Mackintosh.

I am (marginally) more cognisant of how the categories work here on Wikimedia, and... I am trying to sort out the Pottery category tree. I am trying to move the category Shipibo-Conibo pottery‎ to be a subcategory of Pottery in Peru.

Have I done this? I'm trying to have the Shipibo-Conibo pottery not show up as a subcategory of pottery. Because that should be nested (not the right word, sorry) within the Peru category (as a parent category) automatically, right?

Thanks, Sicklemoon (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC) (trying to wreak order, not havoc)[reply]

Also--what's the difference between a subcategory and a subclass? Pottery is a subcategory of Ceramics, but Porcelain is a subclass. What's the significance of the distinction? Sicklemoon (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a different material. Pottery is purified clay; when it is not purified it is called terracotta or pottery. Porcelain is not clay: it is made with kaolin. --DenghiùComm (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2020 (UtTC)

That was not my question, though, yes, many who have uploaded images have had that confusion so there are a number of porcelain items categorised as pottery. There is a massive amount of material, much of it not very well categorized, which makes it difficult to find things. This said, if I am putting time in to sort things, I want to have a clear understanding of how the category tree has been set up, and not do work that others will end up undoing.

It looks to me like this area hasn't had attention for awhile, so things are a bit disorderly. Pottery, as it stands, appears to be categorised as an activity, whereas ceramics is characterised as objects. But the people who have uploaded images have not attended to this distinction. And there are many items in pottery that should... be in porcelain.

Sicklemoon (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several issues there!
The MediaWiki (both Commons and the Wikipedias) syntax for categories is simple, but not well explained, and so is often not understood. There are two forms:
[[Category:Pottery]]
does two things: it places that page into the category (i.e. the page will appear on the category page) and it makes the category linked from the bottom of the page.
[[:Category:Pottery]] (there's a colon prefix there)
does just the one thing, it places an inline link to the category page onto the article page. It doesn't place the page into the category.
That's the lot. Everything is built from that.
If you want to edit a lot of categories, then investigate the editing Gadgets (from your Preferences tab) for HotCat and Cat-A-Lot. Also there's a 'Batch task' thing on the LHS column, which is powerful, although somewhat slow and complicated to use.
For Category:Shipibo-Conibo pottery, I think you've already worked this out for yourself and removed the [[Category:Pottery]] from it. There's no magic definition to the category structure, it's just done link by link, from each of the sub-categories, with that syntax.
I'm not sure what you mean by "class" rather than "category"? MediaWiki has categories, not classes. We might have "class" as a concept in ontology or taxonomy, but MediaWiki doesn't do that and what it does do isn't powerful or rigorous enough to really allow such definitions to be made or implied.
I don't know what the difference between "Pottery" and "Ceramics" is, in Commons terms, or how this was arrived at (I can see several potential structures for them, but have no idea as to which was selected). You could try going to a high-level category within this and raising a "Categories for Discussion" request - however this almost never works! The discussions are ignored, so there are only a handful of editors who join in. Usually any such discussion gets dominated by one of the same handful of names, who simply shout louder and longer until they get their way (it is a mistake to take this futile situation too seriously, or to waste too much of your time on it). Commons typically copies a structure or definition from en:WP, but then expresses it in German (the most active editors in this are German, and don't have half the English language skills they think they do), badly transliterated to pidgin-English. It barely works. If the category for discussion is too high, not enough people notice (they don't watchlist high-level categories as they're "obvious" and "stable"). If the category is too low, then few people see such a narrow corner. I suggest nominating any category you like, but then pasting the notification message onto some other related categories to broaden the exposure. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Category:Monochrome pictures Kurpark Bad Mergentheim

[edit]

Hi, you started a discussion at March 8th. There have been no more contributions in the discussion since March 9th. Everything necessary is said. It's required, to get a clear state. You initiated the discussion, it's still your turn! HubiB (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not really how Commons DRs work. There's no time limit, thus they tend to wander on aimlessly for years. If no others, or no admins, happen to take a passing interest. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's obviously an easy way to disturb and and run off, not caring about your own action leading to an unresolved state. No, that's not how Commons DRs works, it's maybe how you work without following the obligation of a user feeling responsible for his results! HubiB (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the discussion seems to be ended without further comments. This should be a reason for you to remove your "needs discussion" entry from the category to avoid this blocking like item from existing needlessly over time. Otherwise: It's you who intended to rename, I agreed. So do it! HubiB (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gongs

[edit]

Dear Andy Dingley, Today you changed Category:Gongs of the Netherlands to Gongs in the Netherlands. That seems odd, because there are 8 similar categories Gongs of [country name], and because of your reason for renaming: "They're located in the Netherlands, but they have no distinct origin, nor cultural connection there." That's simply not true. One of the gongs is used at the Tata Steel Chess Tournament. There is a Tata Steel plant in the same city, Wijk aan Zee. The other 3 photographs are depicting a modern gong, and the photos were made in the Netherlands in 1965. Do you have any evidence to link these two gongs to other countries? If not, I would like to keep both categories as separate entities, and move these 4 photographs back to the old category. Vysotsky (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are 8 similar categories That's not how MediaWiki categorization works, by pattern matching. It works by parent categories, which these categories all have in common.
You might also note that the other countries have specific national types of gong, often with specific subcategories, because they each have a long and distinct tradition of using gongs. The Netherlands do not. If we had images of the Rank Pictures gongman Bombardier Billy Wells, or of Pink Floyd's Nick Mason, then they too (famous gongs though they are) would be "gongs in the United Kingdom" rather than of. The UK has no gong tradition either. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Informative. I am glad you're an expert on Dutch gongs. I didn't know the Netherlands had no tradition on using gongs. Thanks! Vysotsky (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not equating or comparing. This is not about the quality of gong traditions. I'm quoting: "They're located in the Netherlands, but they have no distinct origin, nor cultural connection there" -which is simply not true. I just wonder why you ever started to make a difference between of and in. And I will stop banging on this gong. Vysotsky (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "of" / "in" distinction is a perennial issue. Typically for cars and the like, where there's a clear and obvious distinction between origin and present location. DAF vehicles (as a group) are car makers of the Netherlands, but a photograph of a single DAF in Warsaw is a car in Poland. If I eat haggis in Antwerp, that doesn't make it Belgian. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. So a gong made in the Netherlands, located in the Netherlands, would be a gong of the Netherlands? (Last time I ate haggis was in Edinburgh, 2019.) Vysotsky (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See you're from Cymru. Love Blaenau Ffestiniog! Vysotsky (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might depend. If we associate "of" with a concept of "origin" (this is largely supported on Commons), then what does "origin" mean? And does that change with the nature of the object? Is a Volkswagen car still German if it's a Czech design, built in Spain? Do the Netherlands have vast gong factories? Turkey does, because they might not have them as part of their musical tradition, but they do have a considerable manufacturing history for hand-worked cuprous alloys (most of the world's cymbal makers are in Turkey, or have their origins in Turkey). But in this case, I know of the Netherlands neither having a musical tradition based on gongs, nor a tradition of making them, so neither would apply. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:EAW plug wiring teatowel.jpg

[edit]
العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:EAW plug wiring teatowel.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:EAW plug wiring teatowel.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Roy17 (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please

[edit]

Do not consider my reverts as edit war or any kind of confrontation. If you open Category:Iron beam bridges, in the "blank area" you'll see iron beam bridges sorted by country‎, function and type. The "A-Z area" is for named bridges, hence, Cast-iron beam bridges should go in the middle (at least temporarily). The same principle exists in tens of other similar cases related to the categorization of bridges. If you have any objections or suggestions, please just leave me message instead of making improvisations which make things messy. I'm doing it for days and it's not easy at all, and I don't say everything I did is without a mistake. --Orijentolog (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was already sorted to the start (had you not looked and seen this?) Cast iron is not spelled with an asterisk.
Also please don't change the name of template parameters to non-existent values. Even if that value "makes more sense", it's not what the template uses. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"photographs of Netherlands"

[edit]

Dear Andy Dingley, Six newly constructed categories have a red link Category:Historical photographs of Netherlands. I'd rather not clean it up, because you constructed it in a very elaborate way. See Category:Photographs by Bert Verhoeff in the Netherlands etc. Could you have a look at it and improve the build-up? Vysotsky (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a caching issue. If you go to Category:Photographs by Herbert Behrens in the Netherlands you'll see that it links (correctly) to Category:Historical photographs of the Netherlands, even though the (non-existent) category Category:Historical photographs of Netherlands shows it as if there's a link. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Kirilloparma

[edit]

What are your thoughts on this user. Drive-by-speedy-tagging disruptively for invalid reasons. Wasting community time at deletion discussions for confirmed free-use-licensed images. Removing whole entire comments from deletion discussions. What can be done? Right cite (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This sort of unsigned "dire warning" threatening a block should have no place here, especially not used by someone with so little idea. I'm also deeply unimpressed with the block-on-request behaviour that followed, done less than an hour after an undiscussed post on CON:AN/U. Even if an editor had uploaded copyvios as claimed, there is no rationale given beyond CSD#F1 (which tells us nothing) and no attempt to discuss the issue.
What's to be done? Not much you can do, this is Commons. No-one cares. Andy Dingley (talk)
Ah, okay, thanks, I guess. Gulp. Any advice at all, of what I should do, what is best practice in this situation? Was it okay of me to take it to Village Pump for additional eyes from the community? Right cite (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Village Pump is certainly "the route" to follow, with AN/U as a next step. Just don't expect much. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you very much! Right cite (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Tm#Gatling_gun

[edit]

From what was being discussed User_talk:Tm#Gatling_gun, and partially copied from there, i never said that this wasn't an gatling gun, and i knew that this was never a maxim gun. Now i agree with your assessment of this being a gatling gun.

What i asked was if you knew what model of gatling gun this was, as from what i "researched" and from what you wrote in Category:Accles drum i´am tentatively saying that this is probably an 6 barreled Colt M1883, based in what you agreeing that the drum was an accles drum and what you wrote in Category:Accles drum.

Also the other question was is if the two images depict the 3rd Batallion , shouldn't they be in Category:3rd Battalion, London Regiment instead of Category:7th Battalion, London Regiment. Good edits. Tm (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were no "models" of Gatling at this time. At most there were "patterns", but these were sets of innovations, not a rigid design. Also the Gatling was manufactured in the US and support in the UK was at somewhat of a distance - so various features were swapped around by local armourers, the magazines and feeds in particular. The idea of models and M numbers came in from the US Army, and later on with the M1893 and the standardisation on the .30-40 Krag cartridge (albeit short-lived). The 1883 pattern Gatling introduced the Accles drum magazine. I think the one here is the 1887 pattern, with the straight axle carriage (I'm not an expert on the carriages used). The UK stuck with the Broadwell magazine for a long time, but found it to not work outside England, as sand got onto the rounds. The Accles was enclosed and kept dirt out, but tended to jam if it was dropped or trodden on. Allegedly the brass Accles drums were OK, but they were cheapened and made from tinplate later on. The US gave up on the lot and went back to the Bruce long hopper.
As to the unit, then of course it's the 3rd Batt (there are many copies of this photo set around - try Ian Beckett's book Riflemen Form on the volunteer rifles). However they were reorganised as the 11th (but kept their red uniforms) and in the great 1908 reorganisation under Haldane they became the 7th. WP's coverage is at the 7th article, but this isn't made clear enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:A framework for collaborative Quadrotor - ground robot missions (IA aframeworkforcol1094510654).pdf

[edit]

If you feel strongly that items like this , are in fact PD-US-GOV-Navy (There being no specifc tag for the Naval Postgraduate School itself) then I would suggest you also file an undeletion review on other similar items that were removed on a precautionary basis previously.

Also pinging @Fæ: as the uploader of this file. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spending a couple of minutes examining the PDF, it's hard to justify a deletion. The student appears unaffiliated with anyone but the NPS. As far as we have been able to tell so far, with many of these doctorate reports uploaded, the NPS itself probably is considered a Federal institution. Where a thesis has named non-Federal parties, such as research done as a multi-party project, or where the thesis appears to have been entirely done under the management of a non-Federal University, those cases a have clear COM:PRP deletion rationale.
This does not look like an especially unexpected precedent, though if there have been deletions where nobody but the NPS was the "publisher", it may be worth pinging the deleting admins to double check their decisions. As the DRs are not attractive for the average Commons contributor, it's no surprise that some deletions will go through as deleted, even when there are no clear grounds to doubt the (apparent) Dudley Knox library assessment of copyright.
Whether someone can establish a more obvious rule of thumb for these cases I don't know. I think we've struggled a bit over deciding what to do about these and whether DRs are the right path, versus, say, a VP/C or VP open discussion about what to do en-mass rather than one file at a time. --Fæ (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is all just a game of seeing how much you can get deleted for the lulz. Coming here and taunting people with "I had a bunch of the others deleted already, and I'm not even going to tell you what they were" is just more of the same. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You want a list? I'll have a look through the relevant categories, as all of the DR's should have been archived under Category:IA mirror related deletion requests/deleted if they were deleted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also accusing another editor (or admins) acting in good faith of "seeing how much you can get deleted for the lulz" given that a small number of the NPS files had an ambiguous status (or in some cases had a statement implying an actual copyright claim) is unreasonable. I'm quite prepared to file an undeletion request myself, if someone can get ONE definitive answer as to whether NPS thesis are compatible with Commons licensing rules regardless of the affiliations of the authors. The response when I asked several months ago was inconclusive.(Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/10#NPS_Thesis, Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/07#Internet_Archive_U.S._Federal_works_via_contract, Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/06#US_Naval_Postgraduate_School_-_Thesis_Submissions.,_&_by_extension_other_FEDLINK_works.. )

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:A_3D_spatial_channel_model_for_cellular_radio._(IA_3dspatialchannel00sasi).pdf Lets have one documented guideline to actually apply. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also https://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#41 and https://libguides.nps.edu/copyright/students - "International, non-federal CHDS, and contractor students enrolled at NPS are not necessarily US federal employees so their work may be copyrighted "(my emphasis). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zmf4

[edit]

Hi, I'm interested that you have been informed that User:Zmf4 is Adam Zamoyski. I think he is too, but can I ask if there is verification of this - because Zmf4 made extensive additions to the en Wikipedia article Adam Zamoyski without formally declaring an interest. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia needs to find a culture where we could simply ask him that, rather than our response being "We're deleting all your content, shall we ban you too?" Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lluniau Tudweiliog.jpg

[edit]

Hi there. I originally added this file to Category:Pre-Worboys road signs, but then had a change of heart as it looks suspiciously like a version of this sign (the one at the bottom, obviously!) done in Arial – which was designed in 1982. Now I see you've reverted the edit in which I removed the category. It's the 'R's in particular which have raised my suspicions. Happy to be proven wrong, though! Pinging the file's uploader, Marthuws, in case this is of interest. Ham II (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point! I think you might well be right. There are a few details, the roundness of the O, the length of the crossbars on the F, the slope on the upper stroke of the 5, and that R - they're all Arial like, rather than Helvetica or Futura, and especially not Transport or Old Road Sign.
The question is, what's a "pre-Worboys" sign? It's defined by what it isn't, rather than what it is. This one is in one of the styles used beforehand (see File:Carter Bar, 1960 - geograph.org.uk - 1279830.jpg) and also (what caught my eye) it seems to be made from pressed aluminium, with lettering in relief, which is very much the technique used for this group. I can only assume that it's a more modern sign, commissioned by the village in a traditional style (it's the Llŷn peninsula, they don't much hold with change).
What's to do? I'd still favour keeping it, because it does seem to be an attempt to match the pre-Worboys styles, even if it's modern. But I can't really claim it's of the period, for the reasons you give. If you want to remove it, go ahead. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

[edit]

Hi Andy,
My apologies. You are correct. I had originally set up the category "Images from the Minnesota Historical Society" when I first was on Wikipedia and have acted entitled and improperly when dealing with it currently. I have posted the following in the talk page and on my own user page on that category and I hope it helps explain things:
"This category was set up poorly as a holding category for images taken by the Minnesota Historical Society and put into creative commons. It now has become a slush bucket for all images relating to the Minnesota Historical Society. This category is now repurposed for just images (photographs, maps, documents, flat artworks) from the Minnesota Historical Society's collections. with the other images moved into other categories and away from this one."
Myotus (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2020&oldid=553857384"