User talk:PhilipTerryGraham/Archive 1

Archive 1

(29 April 2016) Comment: File:Amazon Reef.png

Thanks for the better Amazon Reef map. I added country names and black borders (so they won't look like rivers) to the version I put in eowiki. --Haruo (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

(31 January 2017) Comment: Category:Photos by FC

Hey there Philip! I've been noticing your work categorising images by spacecraft instrument, and I'm a big fan of this. However, may I suggest that categories like Category:Photos by FC and its tree aren't very descriptive. I don't know if its a matter of trying to keep the category names sort or something else, but I'd encourage you to spell out the instrument names unless the acronym is very common (like Rosetta's NAVCAM or MRO's HiRISE). Length isn't an issue, and can potentially help end users more quickly recognise things. I would even suggest a category name like "Photos by the Dawn framing camera", similar to how categories are named in the Category:Photos by the Opportunity rover and related category trees. Anyway, just a suggestion, as my first reaction when seeing that category was to scratch my head and wonder what it was. Take care! — Huntster (t @ c) 00:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The acronymns for each instrument are detailed in the name of each root category. For example, everything under Category:Framing camera (FC) has "Framing camera" acronymnised to FC, with the acronymn spelled out in parentheses in the root category. Same goes for categories such as Category:High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE), where the name of the instrument is referred to as simply HiRISE, an acronymn explained in the root category's name. I recognize the issue of the obscurity of the names, but I'm sure this can be resolved by category descriptions, which I have admittedly forgotten to write. Philip Terry Graham 00:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

(16 March 2017) Comment: Commons:Valued image candidates

Hey, just wondering, why did you remove my current nom? Happened by accident, I guess... Thanks, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Martin Falbisoner: Oh. Shit. I'm extremely sorry for that! I must've accidentally saved on an old revision of the page. I had two tabs open - the current revision of the page of the time, and a previous version, to copy+paste something over. I guess it's really easy to confuse the pages. Again, I'm really sorry. :( Philip Terry Graham (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

No biggie --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

(28 March 2017) Comment: Category:Cyclone Debbie (2017)

Can’t you just use a simple filename to the images you upload, like what we use ([name] YYYY-MM-DD HHMMZ)? What you uploaded are very inconvenient to order, and there are lots of people who cannot understand English worldwide. Moreover, your filenames are too long. -- Meow 13:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Wow, you're quite rude. I simply only named it that way, because that's how they were named on the LANCE Rapid Response MODIS images gallery, where I sourced these images from, with duplicate names being suffixed with its date. If you want, I'll rename them, since I now have filemover permissions, but next time you can at least ask nicely. I'm starting to get really impatient with people on here who think they can just talk down to people like me every time I make simple, honest mistakes. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you point out why I was quite rude to you? I only gave you the facts and suggestions without any emotional word, so I really cannot understand why I angered you. -- Meow 13:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Well it's simple, you made no attempt to strike a more welcome tone. You don't know me, and I don't know you, so laying down something to the equivalent of "Hey, I'm upset with you, you did this, this, and this wrong." is not gonna elicit a welcome response in return. Hell, you didn't even say anything that resembles "Hey" either. Opening up with an obviously passive-agressive question most certainly didn't help. Not a single part of your statement was anything but a criticism, as well. The least you could've done is be nice to someone you've never communicated with before. Saying something along the lines of "Hey there! I'm not sure if you're familiar with our standards, but this is usually how we do it, ect., ect. Can you please rename it?" is more likely to make a fellow editor feel "Ahh okay, sorry. My bad.", than "Wow. Rude." The two editors who have previously left messages on this page above you are fine examples of good mannerism. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I only wanted to make my statement simple and direct so people can get what I attempted to express faster. For being a non-native speaker, if you believe what I said made you uncomfortable, I apologise. -- Meow 14:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: All I can say is that simple and quick is usually never the way to go when trying to communicate with someone, especially on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I accept your apology. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have put too much effort into paragraphs and pictures, so that should be the reason I overlooked the manners of communications. -- Meow 14:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(1 April 2017) Comment: Commons:Valued image candidates/Donald Tusk

When an image is closed the vote is vested. Bot only saves it. The changes you have made are not allowed. We must wait until the end of the process to ask for a revision of the vote. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus: I apologize for jumping the gun. I'll redo it now that the process for the initial review has gone through completely. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I understood that you did not want to cheat, we all made mistakes at the beginning. I still do.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

(6 April 2017) Comment: Commons:Quality images

Hi! I saw your troubles at QIC. Unfortunately a jargon of abbreviations and terms has developed over the years here. We are currently working on a small "dictionary" with some tips and explanations. Even though it is not finished, you may find it useful: Commons:Photography terms. All the best, --cart-Talk 08:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@W.carter: Ayy! Thanks for the heads up, 'cart! I'll be sure to study it! :) —Philip Terry Graham (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

(8 April 2017) Discussion: VICbot and Commons:Valued image candidates

The problem of closing promotions for your images is not resolute. I closed the first two by hand. Maybe you could learn to do it is not complicated there is a procedure explained in VI's help. Try with the one that was not promoted yesterday, if you have a problem called me. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus: I don't think you understand the problem. You can close the nominations and tag them, but they won't be valued images according to Wikimedia Commons' system. There won't be any certificate on my talk page, the images won't show up as Valued in FastCII search, and they won't be tagged as such, despite the file being tagged with {{Valued image}} and such. It's obvious that VICbot has the ability to do these things that you and I don't have, and that's why I want VICbot to do it, rather than somebody doing it manually. I think there's a lot of benefits to everybody if we can find the problem causing VICbot to break, rather than just leaving it broken and doing it ourselves. Either that, or find out a way to manually tag valued images in the system, without VICbot's help. PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

(13 December 2018) Comment: Category:Transport icons by Philip Terry Graham

Hello Philip. I am wondering have you created the Stylised M 'roundel' for the TfNSW Metro Service? Hawkeyebasil (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeyebasil: Hey there! I sincerely apologise for the unfathomably long time to reply, as I do not often check my Commons talk page! Unfortunately, I cannot create a vector image of the "M" roundel if there isn't a high quality image of the roundel to base it off. I am anticipating that Transport for New South Wales will have a new information page on the Metro such as this one for the trains, which will have a high quality "M" roundel at the top that I can rip. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(14 April 2019) Comment: Category:Pōwehi

Philip, do you really think we should be using a category like this, when it is a completely informal designation created by one group of scientists without input from any others involved in the EHT Collaboration? For that matter, shouldn't we be using "M87*" since that is a more widely used and is what the IAU considers its proper designation (per New Scientist)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntster (talk • contribs) 09:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Huntster: Hey there! I saw the recent controversy surrounding the name, and have opted to rename the category to a generic descriptor name in lieu of an official one, since both "Pōwehi" and "M87*" are both unofficial and have virtually equal notability. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(10 May 2019) Discussion: Category:Hubble Legacy Field

Hey Philip, out of curiosity, why did you remove the Fornax category from Category:Hubble Legacy Field? It does exist entirely within the bounds of the constellation. Additionally, what's up with Category:South Galactic Hole? There is literally nothing about this online that I can find (under that exact name) except for a mention in the paper The AXAF Deep Field. I understand conceptually what it is, of course, but not why we need a category of this nature. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Huntster: It seems like you’ve probably already surmised that I removed the category because it was redundant to Category:South Galactic Hole, which in itself is a location in Fornax. It was a way to group all the fields centred on this significant location in Fornax into a single category to a) conveniently group all photographs and categories on the location into one group and b) clarify any potential confusion about the Chandra Deep Field South, Hubble Ultra Deep Field, GOODS-S field, ect. being seperate locations when they are essentially the same location in the sky. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk)

I surmised that might be a possibility, but Fornax wasn't removed from any of the other applicable categories, nor was it added to the South Galactic Hole category, so I couldn't know what was going on. If you don't mind, would you add a description to the category page with some details on what it is, etc? I simply don't know enough to write anything myself. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Huntster: My apologises, it seems I had forgotten to add Category:Fornax (constellation) to Category:South Galactic Hole. I went ahead and added that, along with a description as you requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! — Huntster (t @ c) 05:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

(20 December 2019) Discussion: Category:AV-080

Philip, I'm curious why you are moving a trio of images from the Boeing test flight category to the AV-080 rocket category? In all three cases, the rocket is barely visible, and the spacecraft is the predominate focus. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Huntster: Because the rocket is visible in these images. The category ideally should collect all images of the launch vehicle. Ideally the image would be tagged with two categories, one for the launch vehicle, and one for the spacecraft. However, there isn't a category for the spacecraft, and since it doesn't have a name or serial number that I know of, I don't know what to call such a category. It shouldn't be in Boeing Orbital Flight Test, because ideally that category should be collecting images from the mission after which it is named, as in 20 December 11:36 UTC onwards, in my view. The current conventions surrounding these categories are confusing as hell, if you ask me. :/ – PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, the spacecraft does not have a name, at least not anything that has been announced. Of course, even SpaceX apparently doesn't name their capsules in any public-facing manner. Therefore, the mission would also collect images of the spacecraft in lieu of having a spacecraft designation. So, Boeing Orbital Flight Test would still be the most appropriate category. On that last part, however, I think we can definitely agree. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Huntster: SpaceX actually do at the very least have serial numbers for their capsules that we can use to identify them; there's currently categories for SpaceX Dragon C106 and SpaceX Dragon C108! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I was aware of that at some point, but I is/was/are tired and didn't brain. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

(17 March 2020) Comment: Template:NASA Photojournal/sandbox

Hi Philip. Regarding these edits, why has the Sandbox not simply been moved to the live version? People adding {{NASA Photojournal}} will continue, and, I am guessing, will require converting to the sandbox if that is the "correct" thing to use. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Huntster: If I transplanted all the code from {{NASA Photojournal/sandbox}} to {{NASA Photojournal}}, all uses of {{NASA Photojournal}} will break, so I'm going through the process of replacing all uses of {{NASA Photojournal}} with {{NASA Photojournal/sandbox}}, and when I'm eventually done, whenever that may be, I can then replace the {{NASA Photojournal}} code, and go through every entry and simply replace {{NASA Photojournal/sandbox with {{NASA Photojournal. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, just curious as to the thought process. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Huntster: No worries! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)