User talk:Oneblackline

Canvey Photos

Hello, I believe I have some aerial photos showing at least part of Canvey I'll go through my photos and have a look.

I can always go up and take one if not.

Terryjoyce (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... that would be excellent. The flatness of the area makes it quite difficult to produce a descriptive photograph from the ground. I had in mind something vaguely like this image? Also, if you have many good aerial shots and wish to donate them; then please do. I suppose those that illustrate towns, villages, landmarks would be most useful. Oneblackline (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've not got any like that, I'll see what I can do. I've got these two [1] [2] and a couple of similar photos.

I have started to upload some of my aerial photos for other articles.

Terryjoyce (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the image of the creeks at Canvey. This image is the closest to showing the island, but is not of the same quality as the Benfleet Creek shot, so I'd probably withhold it for the moment. The other aerial shots you've uploaded are great, particularly Southend, although maybe the sea should be shown?... anyway, I think it's good enough for the leading/infobox shot at the article, so I'll try and edit the article accordingly... but please feel free to do this yourself if you wish. Oneblackline (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Geograph is they limit the photo size therefore the quality. Canvey 191007.jpg The original is slightly better.

Terryjoyce (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I see.. that would explain the apparent proportional compression. I think for the Canvey article; an image showing less than about 75% of the island would be unnecessarily discriminatory - or as in the case of 588766, the image shows the petrochemical facility in the foreground; therefore imo (if the image is used for the lead/infobox) prioritising that element of all elements of the island. I'd really like to avoid continuing the idea (in these parts, Essex) that Canvey is a petrochemical site (or Coryton, or Shell Haven) and not much else. However, it does indeed describe a section of the island, and that quality is self-evidently useful, so perhaps adding it to the Canvey category would be of benefit. I'll leave it to you.

Also, the aerial image of Southend is now in the article's infobox. Looks pretty good... (see here). Oneblackline 11:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I need to get an hours flying in this month, if I pick a good day and can get a co pilot, I'll try to take a picture. I'll have a look at Southend. I've added a few more photos to the aerial photos of essex.

91.104.159.183 16:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think one more aerial image of Canvey (perhaps approaching from the east?) would complete the article. I'll have a look at the new images in the next few days. Much appreciation. Oneblackline (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Derbyshire

I'm not sure that would fix the problem as their are dozens in Derbyshire already. Is there a way of bulk moving them? Victuallers (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved them earlier this week... however, there may be a delay in it appearing so. The remaining cats are of the hamlets, but I'm not sure the best course of action here as there is no parent category (ie Hamlets in England) and the "Villages in England" is depreciated in favour of "Towns and villages in England". Oneblackline (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, well done. I have started to clean up some of the minor stuff but your contribution is appreciated. It looks much better Victuallers (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bus stops

Hi. I noticed you have created Category:Bus stops in England. Are you planning on correctly categorising all the images in Category:Bus stops in the United Kingdom in the future, to avoid the confusion created? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Populating the cat is one of many tasks I'd like to complete, but I quickly created it while I was sorting files in the "Essex", and "Buildings in England" category and have moved onto other things. What do you think about it?... is it an over categorisation to separate the UK stops into the constituent countries? oneblackline (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If you could do it it would probably be better in the long term, but at the moment most images in the category (by a long way), are in England, so I'm not sure sorting out is worth it yet. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ok... I've completed the task anyway - It was less painful than I anticipated. oneblackline (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done, it looks pretty tiresome to me judging by my watchlist! It's probably best in the long run if more picture get uploaded. (and also, there would be more English ones to sort!) Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 11:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

England

Thanks, I coppied the layout from the France page so some of the translations still need doing, but its a start. - Thomas Gun (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

1558 = 1801 ?

The redirect Category:Built in the United Kingdom in 1558 to the 1801 category is highly confusing. The category can't be redirected this way. It would suggest that buildings built in 1558 were from 1801. Please undo these redirects. -- User:Docu at 13:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Category:Built in the United Kingdom in 1558 (redirect) points all users to the earliest instance in which it is sensible to use the term United Kingdom. I had the choice of either redirecting or deleting; considering that the same mistake has been made before - I opted for the redirect, but if you are confident that all the incorrect categories (that I've redirected as a solution to this problem) will not be used, then I don't mind if you tag them for deletion. oneblackline (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

They could redirect, but if they do, they should use a categories that relates to the year 1558, e.g. Category:Built in the United Kingdom in the 16th century. -- User:Docu at 04:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The redirects were made to prevent the "United Kingdom in the 16th century" misnomer occurring. Dates prior to the 19th century are subject to the "18th century in (the Kingdom of) Great Britain", and prior to that: the years in the constituent countries are simply placed in the "Country by year" category. oneblackline (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you fix the naming instead of redirecting them to another year? I just noticed that you created another one: Category:1558 in the United Kingdom. Please stop redirecting year category to years that don't match. People looking for media about 1801 will find things from 1558 due to media re-categorized through the redirect. -- User:Docu at 13:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page of jmabel who created the category. Maybe we can come up with a working solution together. -- User:Docu at 13:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me these categories should be allowed to exist, and should be applied "naively", classifying by present-day geography (or possibly even including all of Ireland in that period, since it was part of the original 1801 "United Kingdom"). We have similar categories like Category:United States in the 1640s. Obviously, there was no "United States" in the 1640s, but we don't have a convenient different way to talk about that geographical region.

Alternatively, we could either get rid of the category entirely, or rename it to something like Category:Built in the future United Kingdom in 1558, or Category:Built in the British Isles in 1558. But I agree that the year should never redirect to a different year, which is actively misleading. - Jmabel ! talk 22:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility could be to have them redirect to categories with another name for the geographic scope. Obviously, it's still somewhat anachronistic as it's unlikely that we will be using the name that was used in a given period of time for the same area. BTW, en:Category:Centuries in the United Kingdom starts in the 19th century. -- User:Docu at 17:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The notes on the "1707 in Great Britain" and "1801 in the United Kingdom" category pages should help anybody who may be unsure about where a file belongs. If the anachronistic cats are not redirected then they might as well be deleted - as they serve little purpose, except (perhaps?) to justify the necessary method for categorising relatively new countries like the US. If it's possible to create a culturally sensitive, correct and functional system, and it does not disrupt the other members in the upper/parent cat then why not do it? - the diversity (if correctly labelled) might be entirely correct as well as educational. oneblackline (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Gardens in Surrey

I have recently added a group of photos of Painshill Park which are currently on the Gardens in Surrey page. A subcategory needs to be created under Gardens of Surrey. There is already a group of photos under the title "Painshill Park" but they are subcategorised as buildings and "Follies" as the photos, unlike my recent additions, do not focus on the garden. I have no idea how to go about creating or tidying up categories, although I frequently see redundancies or over categorization in areas that I have expertise in.

Amandajm (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A page needs to be created before adding the files to the category. So, select a "Painshill Park" image, edit it, and at the bottom of the page replace the following string - [[Category:Gardens in Surrey]] with [[Category:Painshill Park (Gardens)]] (or whatever is more appropriate). Save, then view the page. Click the red link to Category:Painshill Park (Gardens) (at the bottom of the page), then edit the page. Add the string [[Category:Gardens in Surrey]], and save it. Then return to Category:Gardens in Surrey and edit all the the appropriate image files... replacing the [[Category:Gardens in Surrey]] string with [[Category:Painshill Park (Gardens)]]. This final task can be completed with the help of the Hot Cat tool that is available in My Preferences > Gadgets. oneblackline (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Venues_of_the_2012_Summer_Olympics

Category discussion notification

Category:Venues_of_the_2012_Summer_Olympics 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!

Good twins (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Walsall_Art_Gallery

Walsall Art Gallery 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!

Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Karachi Cinema.jpg

File:Karachi Cinema.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!

—LX (talk, contribs) 09:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sport_in_Surrey

Category:Sport_in_Surrey 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!

Adam37 (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:United Kingdom in the 1740s

It is not enough to make a redirecton, it needs emptying. Fix it, please.

Have a nice day :-) Wieralee (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Sculptures_in_England_by_locality

Sculptures in England by locality 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!

Themightyquill (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Buildings_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_year_of_completion

Buildings in the United Kingdom by year of completion 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!

Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)