User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2016

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

← Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 →

File:CVR(T) Scimitar In Latvia.jpg[edit]

No doubt, the picture is taken in 2014 IN Latvia but it can't be a 'Military vehicles OF Latvia', because the latvian army doesn't had any CVR(T)s in 2014. *SGR* (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think they kept this one, so now it _is_ a military vehicle of Latvia.
Also, as always, categories are primarily navigational, not defining. There is clearly value to our readers in associating this event with Latvia, yet I doubt it's worth going so far as to create a more specific sub-cat just for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could discuss some more hours if categories are defined three- or four-dimensional (i.e. if it matters, that the picture is taken in 2014) ... at least it would be a waste of the forth dimension. :-) I can stay with the way it is now - although I think it's not right. *SGR* (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Veteran_cars[edit]

Category discussion warning

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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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

Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vintage_cars[edit]

Category discussion warning

Vintage cars 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 ∙ +/−

Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2016 (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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Selfie Deletion Request closure[edit]

Hi

Thanks for your support / opinion. What is taking place is absurd and outrageous. On 6 Aug 2014 a DR was started. On 7 Aug 2014 Slater gives a press conference threatening to sue WMF. Immediately Commons administrator Yann closes the Deletion Request (without waiting 7 days) without stating a valid reason, and other admins hastily replace the uploaded image (containing the creator and copyright details in the EXIF) with an EXIF stripped version to protect another Admin Sandstein who overrode another Admin Genii who had deleted it at OTRS and refused to undelete it when requested by Sandstein. The best way now is for WMF LEGAL to intervene. 16:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of the Commons project. You seem to think that it's some form of media repository, with strict policies as to its behaviour. It's actually more of a social club, but sadly you joined too late to become one of the anointed. If you look at the "acceptable" use of this selfie (try the Wikimania photos) you'll get the point: they're there to make it just clear that uppity photographers don't get to mess with The Wikipedia!
Thanks for highlighting Odder's blanking of the EXIF though. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:TecTile and Galaxy SIII.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that Vandalism[edit]

I just wanted to say thanks for fixing the vandalism that Favonian restored here. Reguyla (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Open_spandrel_bridges[edit]

Category discussion warning

Open spandrel bridges 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 ∙ +/−

Choess (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Windermere steamers[edit]

Sorry Andy, I don't understand your reverting my edit of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Windermere_steamers. If all the steamers belong to category "Ships of Windermere Lake Cruises", why the seperate category "Windemere"? Did the steamers run on other lakes as well? --Judithcomm (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the Windermere steamers were part of the Lake Cruises company fleet, only three of the five. Or v.v. (for the small boats). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships of Isambard Kingdom Brunel[edit]

You are overcategorising these ships, as the are already categorised by ship as Category:Ships of the United Kingdom. Please revert. --Stunteltje (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brunel was a noted UK naval architect, he built some notable ships, they are all ships of the UK. As such a group, they belong within it.
If Brunel was a member of Category:Marine engineers and naval architects of the United Kingdom it might be a different matter, but he is not. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see the point. Every ship he built, is already in the Category:Ships of the United Kingdom on her own. It is overcategorising to categorise this group of ships, being built bij the famous naval architect, in the same category. As you can see, we don't even categorise all other ships built in the United Kingdom in Category:Ships of the United Kingdom. It is sufficient to categorise this group of Brunel ships in Category:Ships by designer, as it is now. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Anglican Cathedral[edit]

Hi Andy. You reverted my edit, saying "Hope Street is here, why not the cathedral?". My reason was that it is also in cat "Buildings in Liverpool City Centre". Why this double categorisation? --Judithcomm (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd not noticed that. I thought you were removing it as too far out of the centre to be "central". I'd agree that the Anglican is probably the limit of how far "central" should go, but it is just within it.
Hope Street, of course, famously runs between the two cathedrals. So if one is in, the other ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the info. I evidently don't know Liverpool the way you do. Just getting to know it a little as a filming location for many Sherlock Holmes tv episodes starring Jeremy Brett. --Judithcomm (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was at what was nominally the cathedral choir school. In a non-singing part though. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monobloc engines[edit]

Why do you think this category requires {{CatCat}}? The name indicates a general category for that type of engine, and such a category could contain files. Maybe it should be named something like "Monobloc engines by part". --Auntof6 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is explained thoroughly by the tag itself, and in the WP article. It was also explained to you a year ago, when you last went through the process of trying to remove the categorisation from this. This is a category requiring permanent diffusion to zero. No files should be added to this: not "no files should be left in here if added", but no files should be added in the first place. There is no useful categorisation of "monobloc engines" because there is no useful or consistent definiton of "monobloc engines": the term is multiply and conflictingly defined. Its purpose is to be a container for the set of sub-categories which do have workable definitions. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shiplifts[edit]

Category discussion warning

Shiplifts 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 ∙ +/−

Geo Swan (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2016&oldid=242733423"