User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Welcome to the Commons, Mike Peel/Archive 1!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, it makes this: `Image:Foo.jpg` If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: `{{bad name\|Correct name}}` For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Image:VSA_spectra_3.png

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 03:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. License now added. Mike Peel 06:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice

Just to say how much I like Image:London Eye at night 4.jpg! Man vyi 11:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Mike Peel 18:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: London Eye at night

Hi Mike,

First, I hope my comment wasn't too harsh. I don't know how you took your picture, but usually, I took them using a tripod. This allows me to use longer exposure times. This in turn allows you to use the lower ISO. Since you have no longer limitation with exposure time, you can use smaller aperture. There will be less light entering the lense, but you'll get more DOF and usually, lenses perform better at around f/8 - f/10 (this depends though).

Hence my comment :)

Hope this helps. Benh 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

Sorry, I didn't know you wanted to freeze the wheel. That's a more tricky thing... and I don't know how I'd have achieved it. Certainly you used right settings actually (large aperture and focusing to infinite is enough I think to get acceptable DOF) but have a bad lens (18-55 doesn't perform well at max aperture).

I've found that a topnotch tripod won't dramatically improve your pictures, if at all. If you are careful enough, it certainly won't move in most cases. I shot very sharp pictures with a 30€ tripod. The only good points with my new tripod is height and more flexible head, allowing me to shot in much more situations.

back to your London eye, isn't there a moment where the wheel stops to allow people to get in and out ? Also, I'd like to point you to Image:London_Eye_Twilight_April_2006.jpg, which is a tough comparison since Diliff is to me one of the best photographers on wikipedia. Benh 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moons_vs_time.SVG

Image deletion warning

Image:Moons_vs_time.SVG 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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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 ∙ +/−

Erik Baas 01:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token f57204f2a8d04b5c23ecd3a8a0915037

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! (hopefully...) Mike Peel 18:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notification

Hello, just letting you know that we are using your image, Image:Ariane 5 at Cite de l'Espace 5.jpg in Wikinews' article Ariane 5 rocket launches Superbird 7 and AMC-21 satellites. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Nice article. Mike Peel (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Toulouse

Deleted the images as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/Toulouse -- Chris 73 (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, too. Cheers -- Chris 73 (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Carnaby_Street_sign.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Carnaby_Street_sign.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnes Hospital

Mike, Just to let you know that I have featured your photo of Brnes Hospital on one of my family history pages. It is at http://www.rhodesfamily.org.uk/shorrocks/index.htm

Ian Rhodes

Thanks for letting me know. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your picture of Colin Pillinger

Hello Mike. I've used your photo of Dr Pillinger on his author page at LibraryThing (http://www.librarything.com/author/pillingercolin). Please let me know if there's anything you'd like added to the attribution. - Gimboid13 (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thank you for letting me know. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Mike Peel!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WLA vanda Pyx silver partly gilt by Willem Gerverts.jpg was uncategorized on 21 November 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated License

It has been found that Image:Moon.Archimedes.jpg has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted! Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CopyrightedFreeUseProvided is a deprecated license, you have to choose a new one. What's the problem? --Filnik^{\b[Rr]ock\b!?} 13:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. So the image will be deleted, sorry.
Read the template's page: Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided.

--Filnik^{\b[Rr]ock\b!?} 14:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I would like to add that {{Attribution}} would be as good as the current template also if you're not the uploader (but for this time, we can also accept it :P :-) --Filnik^{\b[Rr]ock\b!?} 14:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to this image, we received the statement from the copyright holders allowing the use of any Moon images from http://www.not.iac.es/general/photos/astronomical/moon/ under CC-BY-SA-3.0. The attribution should credit M. Gålfalk, G. Olofsson and H-G Florén and their camera SIRCA. They also suggested that the description include the mention that these are IR images in the L band, centred on 3.75 micrometres. The permission is noted in Template:OTRS ticket. Thanks for helping sort this out. Shell ^babelfish 07:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 15.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 10:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 14.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 10:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 13.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 10:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/File Upload Bot (Mike Peel)

Hi there. Could you please update us on the status of this request? Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superb picture...

Of the hoard box - well done Victuallers (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike Peel/License

I appeal to you to not use this template and to substitute it in order to downgrade your "custom filedescription" to a custom attribution template.

This means, that the {{Information}} template is written on the file page in order to standardize Commons, Commons is not a project to build own designs and transclude it from your user namespace, we try to maintain our content and templates like this undercut this efforts and make it significantly harder for people to edit the file description.
This also means that the license is written on the file description, in fact the license should be written on the file description and sooner or later someone will substitute the template with this argumentation making your all-custom template all-useless.

My proposal is, that we prepare the template for substitution so that the use with subst: will result in a clear and correct file description with some individual parts conserved. This means that yor custom white box (This photo was taken with...) will stay as a template in your usernamespace but that all other parts of the file description are in the standard form. See for example File:Khlong Saen Saeb.JPG (the brown box equivalent to your white box). In order to do this we should move the white box to another user subpage like User:Mike Peel/Credits and transclude it into User:Mike Peel/License, then prepare the template that it will substiute into a clean filedescription.

== {{int:filedesc}} ==

{{information|Permission={{User:Mike Peel/Credits}}}}

== {{int:license}} ==

Thanks for taking this changes into consideration. --Martin H. (talk)

Thanks for the message. My rationale for using this custom template is that it makes it much easier for me during the upload process - as I only need to call the template, specify the description, date and camera, and everything else is sorted out for me. Bear in mind that I upload a lot of photographs. It also means that it is easier to update the contents in bulk - for example, if I want to add a license to all of the images (at some point I'll add CC-BY-SA 3.0 in addition to the current 2.5).

Does the custom template really make it more difficult to edit the descriptions? I would have thought it makes it easier - it's obvious that you add things to the "desc" section.

I understand the benefits of standardization in the layout of the page (e.g. for automated gathering of metadata), hence why the template calls {{Information}}, but are there benefits to having this standardization in the wikicode as well?

Bear in mind that my custom template has been in use since November 2007, and I've yet to encounter a problem with using it...

I'm happy to be persuaded that it's a bad idea to use the custom template - but I haven't seen a solid argument against it yet, and have only encountered the upsides... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a custom template makes it difficult. If I try to edit File:Jodrell Bank Polar Axis.JPG for example I will be surprised that the wiki text looks completely different to what I expect from other file description, technically unaware I will posibly not be able to find out what to do. The template is incompletely used (where should I add other versions?) Soneone who not know the template and the location paramter will not be able to add a location between the metadata and the license as people usually do, if I click the Licensing sections sectionedit button to e.g. edit a category I will come to your template instead of the section... and so on. The suggested change will not change your ability to use the template, the template will still exist but used with "subst" it will lead to a complete file description with variant part, the white box including the boxes parameters (camera, hdr). If you want to add a license or a license version or update e.g. the attribution information in future this can be done with bot assistance, there are many people here who will help you. I only appealed and offer my help hereby if you consider to change it. The file namespace is our main content (ok, the main namespace is gallery, but judging by the number of edits and the importance it is the file namespace), similar to articles in Wikipedia iwth ever file representing one article. That content should not depend on transcluded userpages. --Martin H. (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make good points. If it's OK with you, I'll think it through and get back to you about it soon. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image reuse

Mike -- I am using your picture of the Gilbert Bayes repro sculpture of Robert Owen (from Balloon St., Manchester) in my dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2010. I have a similar picture but yours is much nicer. I am attributing it to you, using both your name and website. Thank you! -- Cornelia Lambert, Oklahoma USA

I'm glad you found it useful, and thanks for letting me know. Best of luck with the dissertation! Mike Peel (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoxne tigress

Hi, just letting you know that your lovely pic will be used in The Signpost next week. [1]. Cheers, Tony1 (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. :-) Thanks for letting me know. Mike Peel (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Cobb memorial

Hello. I tried to correct the perspective of your pic in QI candidates. It makes it a bit little "flat" and less artistic, but maybe more useful in "Commons" IMO. I hope you'll enjoy ! You may re-upload the first file if not !--Jebulon (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Personally, I prefer the original version, but I accept that the crop makes it more useful on Commons/Wikimedia. Would you mind if I re-uploaded the original version, and uploaded your version to a different filename, however? That way makes it easier for people to find the original if they want something a bit more artistic. Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agree with you, "artistically", I prefer the original version too !! It was a just a challenge because the other reviewer said that it was impossible to correct the perspective. Do what you want, it is not a problem. Greetings from Paris.--Jebulon (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, I see. :-) I've uploaded the original to File:Memorial to John Cobb 3.jpg. Putting an image through QI was a sort of test for me - as I've not seen the system in progress before - so I don't mind which version ends up as a QI. ;-) Merci beaucoup. Mike Peel (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Memorial to John Cobb 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Comment Not bad and interesting, but could be better if perspective corrected, IMO --Jebulon 23:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHard to impossible to correct this perspective. Perhaps you should nominate another shot with different perspective. --Nevit 09:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWell, it is surely not perfect, especially about the scale I'm not sure, but I tried to do this. I put it in CR now. Thoughts ?--Jebulon 17:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAt least for your hard effort to correct distortion. --Nevit 19:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The perspective choice was deliberate. ;) But kudos to Jebulon on his impressive perspective correction. I've reuploaded the original to File:Memorial to John Cobb 3.jpg. Thanks. Mike Peel 10:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Throne_of_Weapons,_British_Museum.jpg

File:Throne_of_Weapons,_British_Museum.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 ∙ +/−

Sandstein (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ToC and anchors - I'm planning to undo your edit.

This edit of yours: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Copyright_tags&diff=32532376&oldid=32460073 breaks a bunch of anchor links. I'm planning to undo it. Yeah, instead, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Section#Limiting_the_depth_of_the_TOC. Arrgh; all the intermediate edits make it a bit difficult. Hmm.. --Elvey (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - I didn't know that you could limit the depth of the toc that way. So long as the result is something useable rather than being as unmanageable as before, I'm happy. ;-) Mike Peel (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I welcome you to take a look at it now and see my comments on the talk page. Feel free to cut back to level 3, but I think it is it OK now that it's on the right at level 4 or even untruncated. --Elvey (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I still prefer the version at [2] - simply because it's a lot easier to jump to e.g. the GNU licenses section if you're after them rather than public domain. Although the TOC being on the right makes it easier to get to the first part of the content, it's still a usability nightmare to get further down the page using the TOC, unless you're after the first few items in the public domain section.

We might be approaching this from the wrong angle, though. Should the PD templates be moved off onto their own page? There's certainly enough of them to warrant that... Mike Peel (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back onto the left, with limit=3, and it seems to be somewhat more usable now. Hope that's OK. Mike Peel (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos it being a 'usability nightmare to get further down the page using the TOC' - yeah, we could move 'em to their own page, or to the bottom of the page. I do really think the TOC looked better on the right though.--Elvey (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may look better if you know it's there, but otherwise it's much more likely to get ignored as being an infobox or similar. The convention - and hence people's expectations - are for it to be on the left hand side. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need opinions for British Museum object captions

Mike,

As you have seen, I have changed the description of File:Zhou ritual vessel, British Museum.jpg (sorry for having removed your MikePeel/box by the way). I thought these changes were a clear improvement and did not seek prior consensus. But actually it seems that some users don't like to see {{British-Museum-object}} replaced by {{Artwork}} (artwork is essentially the first box that you see in File:Zhou ritual vessel, British Museum.jpg. If you have any thought about it, please leave a message at template talk:British-Museum-object.--Zolo (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, if you are interested in commenting, please note the background discussion at User_talk:Zolo#Blanking_of_information. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have two comments. 1) information in general here should be preserved and added to, rather than removed (unless it's wrong, obviously). 2) having a more general template that can be applied to content from/about many different museums is better than having something that can only apply to one museum (but I'm not sure whether "artwork" is the best template name to use in that case - perhaps "MuseumObject" would be better?). Hope this is useful input. Mike Peel (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. We had setlled for the word "artwork" because of its simplicity - though I am beginning to think we should have tried "object": it is rather ambiguous but much more neutral.

Fæ was concerned that {{Artwork}} does not render the registration number and the database link in a satisfying way. Do you think that pages like File:British Museum Hoxne Hoard Tigress.jpg are okay or is there something we need to change ?--Zolo (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming ships

I think you gave the answer to the question I asked User:Beria. Am I correct? Besides: On Commons we are working on renaming all ships by their official names, to avoid prefixes as SS, S/S, MS, M/S, DS and so on. Adding the year of completion we also get rid of not-official numbering of ships by name. The Rotterdam I, II, III and so on. The official name is used and that makes life a lot easier if you want to find more information on the internet. Best way is to add the IMO number to a ship or an ENI number to a European barge, as these numbers never change, even when a ship changes name or nationality. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't mind what the categories are called, so long as the category names and URLs are stable or redirects are in place to the new locations (so that links from enwp, or from elsewhere on the internet, aren't randomly broken). It makes sense to me to name the categories as simply as possible, as extra information is added by the categories - it doesn't need to be duplicated in the name - so long as the names are unique. Mike Peel (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video upload

Hello,

How did you upload a file that is larger than 100MB? I did a search and came across File:GLAMWIKI UK Keynote, Sue Gardner, Part 4.ogv. I've been working on transcribing films at wikisource (like this this one) and I started working on The Lost World (1925 film), which is at Archive.org I made a request at the Help desk but no one seems to know - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at Commons:Help_desk#Max_file_size_limit. (so that others can hopefully find the solution easier). Mike Peel (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisage

We are using your image on nl.wikisage.org, Kind regards, --Rodejong (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for letting me know. :-) I'm curious to know what Wikisage is - could you give me a link to an english-language summary of the project please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City Buildings, Manchester

Hi Mike,

I'm planning on using your City Buildings Manchester photo as a part of a cutscene for a game I'm developing. I cropped it and made a few edits to it, but I plan on crediting you, of course.

I was curious if it's all right if I do so in the credits of the game, rather than during the display of the image itself.

Thanks.

Matt G.

Cool, thanks for letting me know. :-) I'm not actually too sure whether attribution needs to be provided when the image is displayed, or in the credits to the game - you'd have to check the full legal code to know for sure. But in this case I'm happy for the attribution to be given in the credits. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. I'll post up a link when it's all finished.

Using London Eye at night 2.jpg in a textbook

Hi Mike,

Just to let you know that we're planning to use the above photo in a textbook. It's a great picture! Thanks.

Ben (Botb75)

Hi Ben. That's fantastic - thanks for letting me know. :-) It would be great to know which textbook you'll be using it in, if possible! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using one of your pictures in a textbook

I am thinking of using one of your Payava tomb pictures (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tomb_of_Payava_3.jpg) in a textbook --this is a commented and expanded Spanish edition of a classic German architecture textbook ('Semper: El estilo', www.semper-estilo.blogspot.com), which should be out in a matter of weeks. It will show at about 7 cm high and be credited in the legend immediately below to your name and web address. Thanks for sharing that picture, which is perfect for the book. Iiiiaaaa (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for letting me know. :-) I'd encourage you to get in touch with the British Museum, though, as they may be able to provide you with an official image that will doubtless be better quality than the one I've taken. I'd also encourage you or the publishers to donate to the British Museum to support their work. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg

I would like to comment that I feel it is entirely appropriate that when searching for a toothbrush, one finds a picture of a toothbrush. Commons is not for children. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Commons is not for children" - why on earth not? Wikimedia projects are there for everyone. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Cylinder Photo

Thanks for your great photo of the Cyrus Cylinder. I'll probably use it in a scrapbook history of Israel that I'm making. I haven't decided yet, but by the time I get to that page I will have forgotten about letting you know, so i thought I'd do it now.

Cool, thanks for letting me know. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! London Eye at night 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me --Haneburger 08:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

using one of your photos on a Hub Page

Not yet published, just getting the hub together. Should be published shortly. http://dreamermeg.hubpages.com/hub/brainstorming-techniques

Cool, thanks for letting me know. :-) What's a hub page? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ursa Minor Dwarf.jpg

File:Ursa Minor Dwarf.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 ∙ +/−

Bulwersator (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southwark engraving about the River Thames frost fairs 1.jpg

File:Southwark engraving about the River Thames frost fairs 1.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 ∙ +/−

84user (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southwark engraving about the River Thames frost fairs 3.jpg

File:Southwark engraving about the River Thames frost fairs 3.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 ∙ +/−

84user (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Naval Temple, at The Kymin, Monmouth 3.jpg

The file was lost due to an server bug. Recovering is very expensive or even impossible. Please reupload this image if the source is still accessible to you. Yours sincerely McZusatz (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; I've re-uploaded the image. Mike Peel (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. --McZusatz (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License conflict

I received the permission statement from the engraver and have added the OTRS template to: File:Southwark engraving about the River Thames frost fairs 3.jpg File:Southwark engraving about the River Thames frost fairs 1.jpg

However, you used a template to add a 2.5 license, while the engraver used a 3.0. I added the 3.0 template, but the page looks confusing with both. I think I could edit your template, but I'd prefer that you do it, if only because it wouldn't be right for me to edit your template without letting you know.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for getting the permission from the engraver. :-) I've updated the license on the pages to 3.0 with a joint attribution statement, hope that's OK. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 11:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings

I have responded to the comment you left on the above-named discussion page. In case you weren't planning to revisit that page, I'll reïterate here that nothing on that page was intended to apply to media of demolitions in progress, which I understand as belonging on the "Demolitions" pages -- in your case, "Demolition in the United Kingdom." We are discussing media of intact buildings which were later demolished. You are most welcome to join the discussion there. Hamblin (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of your photo

Hope it's ok, but I have just used the photo on our church newsletter: http://us6.campaign-archive2.com/?u=2cf7b999fce7737dc66ef38ce&id=52b8306e50 but unfortunately, the link I put from your photo did not work! Apologies for that, but I will add it on our webpage - http://surehopechurch.co.uk - next week after we visit Southport. Thank You.

Thanks for letting me know. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo use

Hi. Just letting you know that we'll be using your photo of the railway map in Manchester Victoria on the Ola Nordmann Goes West blog soon. Thanks for making it available. L. Sorensen -- 26 September, 2013.

Cool, thanks for letting me know. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Model Plans

Hi Mike,

     Im U.S. Submarine Veteran looking to build a model Submarine float for the USSVI. how did you get the plans for this boat?

Hello. I'm not sure what you mean - which plans/submarine are you referring to? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rhuddlan Castle 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Dust spot in the sky, close to the right margin. Otherwise good. --Cayambe 07:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an insect. Mattbuck 10:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using Freud Statue Image

I am planning to use your image of the Freud statue in London in a lesson about Sigmund Freud in our high school world history textbook.

Thank you!

Alfred899 (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks for letting me know. :-) Please could you let me know the ISBN or title/publisher of the book for my records? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using your photo of a Dublin tram

Dear Mike,

I have taken the liberty of posting your photo of a Dublin tram (which I found on the Wikipedia) on my web site, in order to illustrate my newly-posted map and history of the Dublin tram system as it was in 1938. You can find the page here: http://www.tundria.com/trams/IRL/Dublin-1938.shtml

Your photo was the only copyright-free photo of a traditional Dublin tram I could find.

If you click on the photo, you will find I have attributed the photo to you. I hope the way I made the attribution corresponds to your wishes.

I plan to use the same photo on at least one more page (assuming you agree), illustrating the Dublin tram system as it was sometime in the 1940s.

I couldn't help noticing that you are an astronomer, astronomy being another of my favourite topics, although I have not posted any pages on my site concerning astronomy as yet. My main interest is in the field of exoplanets, a burgeoning area right now.

On a beautiful summer day sometime in the 1990s, I combined my love of trams and astronomy by visiting, on the same day, the tram museum in Crich (Derbyshire) and the Jodrell Bank Radio Observatory, where I believe you study and work.

With my very best wishes,

Gabor Sandi Vancouver BC Canada

Hi Gabor. Thanks for your message - it made my day when I received it! Please accept my apologies for not replying sooner. I'm glad you found the photo useful, and thank you for attributing it properly! (Although note that technically, it's not copyright-free but copyleft) I'm more than happy for you to use it on other pages on your site. I hope you enjoyed your visits to Crich and Jodrell Bank; trams and astronomy are both fantastic. :-) Could I encourage you to share your own photos on Commons (particularly of Crich and Jodrell Bank if you have them!) so others can make use of them as you have my photo? If you're interested, please have a look at Commons:First steps. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trams_of_Hong_Kong_Tramways_Limited

Trams of Hong Kong Tramways Limited 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 ∙ +/−

This is regarding the categorisation by numbers you did a couple of months ago. Liamdavies (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know - I've left a comment at the CfD page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hyakutake seen by SOHO.gif

File:Hyakutake seen by SOHO.gif 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 ∙ +/−

St1995 19:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WLM

العربية ∙ català ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ română ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Dear Mike Peel,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Bot (talk • contribs) 23:23, 25 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear Mike Peel,

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

File:GLAM-WIKI 2013 068.jpg

Hi, this photo is a derivative work. The exhibited and displayed original works need credits (author, licences, and titles if given at the description pages). Please add these credits to avoid deletion requests. Thank you. --Martina talk 17:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message - you're right that the derivative works need crediting here. I'm working on doing this now. I'm not sure of the best formatting to do this, though - can you provide any pointers towards best practice here please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is now done as best as I can. Please let me know if this can be done better! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I added the legalcodes. Should be fine now I think. Cheers --Martina talk 04:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cromford mill pond 1.jpg

Hi, Mike. The perspective problem was mentionned by User:Everypicture. As for me, it's a minor problem, unavoidable with panos (I like them a lot) but, looking again at your good picture, I think you can apply two corrections : one on the very right (the gutter isn't perfectly straight !) and another one on the left part of the pano : from the white walls behind the trees to the wheel and wall of the mill itself, vertical lines seem slightly leaning outside. Both corrections are, of course, easy to fix. Last point : I'd have cloned out the smallest ducks swimming on the pond because they don't really look like ducks :)... but this is a personnal point of view. -- Of course, it's always easier to notice defaults on somenone else's picture than on ours, especially on panos, but I hope these few words will help you. -- Sorry for my English. Best regards. --JLPC (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cromford mill pond.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --EveryPicture 20:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cromford - water wheel 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Helmsley Castle - East Tower.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality --Halavar 17:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cromford mill pond 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Please apply perspective correction --EveryPicture 20:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... and fix the stiching error, please (see note : easy to fix). Nice mood anyway. --JLPC 22:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGood quality now. Sorry for the delay. --JLPC 09:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egg Vorbis file

Many thanks Mike. A new version (containing 2013) has now been uploaded. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lusitania propeller picture on Wiki is incorrect!

Mike, I was just looking at your picture of what is claimed to be one of the propellers from the Lusitania ship, now on display in Liverpool. The propeller pictured shows a four (4) bladed propeller, while the Lusitania had three (3) bladed propellers! You can confirm this by looking at the pictures on Wiki of the ship being launched, clearly showing it's 3 bladed propellers.

Launch picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LusitaniaSrews.jpg

Your picture which is incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lusitania_Propeller,_Liverpool.jpg

Hi there. You're right, Lusitania was launched with three-bladed propellers. However, they were swapped out in 1909 with four-bladed ones, and I understand that it's one of these that is displayed in Liverpool and is the focus of my picture. Have a read of the last paragraph of the construction and trials section of the enwp article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
St Nicholas' church, Uphill, Somerset south east view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
West gatehouse, Rhuddlan Castle east view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement

Golden Hinde

I am thinking of building a model of the Golden Hinde and wanted to have a view of her to help with getting a "feel" for the size of it. Nice picture buy the way. Got any of the Red Lion?? That is the other I am thinking of as a model. I think the Red Lion is bigger though...maby too big?

Thanks,

Tom

Hello. Sorry, I'm not sure how I can help you here. Which ship do you mean by the 'Red Lion'? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shared your Mollosion Hound on Facebook

Seagulls at Conwy Castle

Dear Mike

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seagulls_nesting_at_Conwy_Castle.jpg

Thanks for making this image available on Wikimedia Commons. We have used a cropped version of it in the magazine 'Natur Cymru - Nature of Wales', in an article by Cadw about the symbiosis of protecting wildlife and ancient monuments. If you'd like to see a copy please send me your postal address at <email address redacted>

Best wishes Mandy Marsh

Thanks Mandy. :-) I've sent you an email. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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:

File:Reichstag dome tour, Berlin, 2014-30.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, LGA _talk^edits 05:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Short Tucano ZF-209 in Blackpool 1.jpg

Hi there. Do you remember where in Blackpool you took these photos? Apparently it was some sort of airshow so I guess it would've been right at the airport. I'm asking because I'd like to categorise them a bit deeper than just Category:Blackpool. De728631 (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi De728631. I photographed them from the promenade - the planes were doing loop-the-loops along the coast. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Keep up the good work! :) De728631 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plaque noting the site of the Upholders' Hall.jpg

Bonjour, j'étais en train de vérifier le téléchargement d'un document dont je venais de corriger les perspectives, lorsque j'ai vu votre photographie. J'ai redressé les perspectives, en espèrant que cela vous conviendra. Sinon j’annulerai cette modification. Cordialement. François de Dijon (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merci boucoup! :-) Mike Peel (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At your service. François de Dijon (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plaque noting the site of the Upholders' Hall.jpg

File:Austin Sixteen Ambulance 5107772190.jpg (but also File:JV 4936 - 1936 Austin 18 Saloon.jpg)

Hi Michael, I know the file name says Sixteen but it is an Eighteen. Just like in your picture of a magnificent 16 with an 18 engine the photographer got the description wrong. In 1936 you could have your sixteen with an 18hp engine at no extra charge. The next model with a different shaped body was only available as an 18. I'm very pleased to talk about it if you wish. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddaido. Thanks for the message. I'm no expert with classic cars - I just like photographing them when I see them - so I'll take your word on this. :-) I've moved the files to say 18 and 16 in their filenames respectively - please let me know if I've misunderstood you here! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that (in case someone else comes along and makes the same changes) otherwise I'm inclined to think of a file name as just that and follow the description. I do admit its very true that the 1936 car can properly be described as an 18, because it was. I do wish that the publicity departments or whatever of car firms considered the problems of posterity but I guess we were the least of their concerns. Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category Unidentified Insects

Hello, I think this cat : Category:Unidentified Insects is not a good idea. Now we have the category in double in HotCat tool. - Goudron92 (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. :-( Doesn't HotCat automatically deal with category redirects? Or is there a way of tagging the category as a capitalisation duplicate that would mean that HotCat ignores it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, HotCat automatically deals with category redirect. But when I saw : "Unidentified Insects" and "Unidentified insects", I wondered for a while where is the difference. It's not a big deal - Goudron92 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered something similar when I tried to access "Unidentified Insects" and couldn't find the page, and then discovered "Unidentified insects" existed, hence why I created the category redirect. I dunno what the best solution is here. :-( Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ok so Let's keep going that way. :=) - Goudron92 (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photogram

I used your photograph of the war memorial on Facebook and gave you the credit and your web address. Thank you

Thanks for letting me know, and attributing the image. :-) Which war memorial photo did you use? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flood Tablet Photo

Hi Mike,

I used your photo of the British Museum Flood Tablet for a flash card for college students on Cerego.com. I included your name and website. Thanks!

Cool, thanks for letting me know. Is there a direct link at all? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Library entrance photo

Hi, I plan to include your photo of the British Library entry plaza in an upcoming book, Cotton's Library. It is a history of the collection of Sir Robert Cotton, most of which is today part of the BL. Your photo will, of course, be attributed as you asked. I would like to thank you in particular for sharing it in this way, in contrast with how the BL aspires to restrict and charge for the use of every image it can… Details about Cotton's Library will be available at my web site, www.mattkuhns.com in the coming months; the book will be released in November.

Thanks for letting me know! Mike Peel (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Gracias a usted, merci à vous. --Parair (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, keep up the good work! Mike Peel (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait full body.jpg

Hello, and welcome! Thanks for editing Wikimedia Commons. I'm afraid that you've chosen a somewhat difficult issue to start with, though. Under US copyright law, animals cannot own copyright for any photographs that they take. Also, the owners of the photographic equipment cannot claim copyright for photographs taken using that equipment (exactly the same as if you borrowed my camera to take a photo, you would own the copyright of the photo you took, and I wouldn't). So in this case, any copyright of the photo would belong to the monkey, who can't legally own copyright, which means that the image must be in the public domain. I appreciate that you've been to a school that purports to have taught this issue - but it sounds like they have mislead you on this issue. 503.03(a) doesn't come into the debate here at all, since that's a documentation issue not a copyright issue. Simply put: copyright belongs to the photographer, not the person that owns the equipment. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of the legal claims you're making here, Mike. However, we're not talking about stock equipment simply owned by Mike Peel— we're talking about at least a lens choice, exposure settings, autofocus settings chosen specifically for shooting shots of monkeys in the jungle at that time of day at that location, and after being shot minimally (considering that David Slater is a professional photographer) white balance temperature/tint adjustments, exposure/recovery/fill light/blacks adjustments, brightness contract adjustments, tone curve adjustments, sharpening/noise reduction adjustment, and cropping. To claim that the monkey did all the work that it is '“exactly the same as if you borrowed my camera to take a photo”' is insulting and shows little understanding of what makes photography an art, what makes a photo good, and what professional photographers are paid to do. To claim that I've been to a school that '“purports to have taught this issue”' is further insulting, and ignorant of long-established legal precedent on issues such as this (a trained photographer sets up for a photos; someone else presses the button and then claims copyright). Mike, for the sake of logical discussion, please cut the insults.

I'm impressed. How did he anticipate all of these factors in advance of the monkeys running off with his equipment, and set everything just right? Mike Peel (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for the tone of my replies - I was having a bad eve and should probably have stayed away from Commons for the eve. I understand your points, but I'm afraid I still partially disagree with them. Yes, it takes work to set up a camera, identifying the right lens, and setting the optimal manual settings for the situation. Doing that doesn't give you copyright over an image, though - the act of taking the photo does, and in this case the monkey did that not the owner of the equipment. You have a good point with the later adjustments made by David, though - if they were creative then they probably would confer a copyright for that work (in contrast to the arguments about sweat of the brow when doing a digital reproduction of a public domain work, where the work isn't creative). I don't know how much of that type of work has gone on here, though, or whether the photos might be as-shot without any later changes... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the issue of post-processing giving rise to copyright in these images was discussed at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait.jpg (see the first discussion). The question is how much post-processing was done, and whether that was sufficient to create a copyright or not (simple things like rotation/cropping don't count)... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't over-categorize!

Hi Mike Peel, please don't over-categorize your image. For instance in your image File:Toruń at night 2011 42.jpg (and many more)

Category:Night shots of Toruń is ok.
Category:Toruń as additional category is wrong as this is already parent category of Category:Night shots of Toruń.

Please read Commons:Categories for further explanations! -- Ies (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ies. Thanks for the message. I put them in Category:Toruń as a placeholder, not a permanent location, since they ideally need to go into the other sub-categories of that category. I'll work on diffusing them into those sub-categories now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pictures, Mike

Thanks for the nice pictures, Mike! —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :-) Thanks for the nice talk! Mike Peel (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikimania 2012 - Building a Visual Editor for Wikipedia.pdf

File:Wikimania 2012 - Building a Visual Editor for Wikipedia.pdf 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 ∙ +/−

Denniss (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Code issues in User:Mike Peel/common.js

Hi Mike Peel, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Mike Peel/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new jshint issue — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ISSUE: line 99 character 92: Script URL. - Evidence: mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:importScript("MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js");', 'Perform batch task', 't-AjaxQuickDeleteOnDemand');

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 18:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom

Hi Mike. I'm not sure what your current thinking is, but based on a few recent moves I've seen you make, can I please ask you to think a bit more about what you want categories like 'SELNEC bus 7001 (VNB 101L)' to be for. If they are for images of the bus throughout its life with that identity (i.e. both in service and in preservation), they shouldn't be in the Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom tree (because that's only for images of preserved buses). If it's only for images of it in that preserved identitity (which is what the use of museum collection cats suggests), then please think about using a more specific naming convention, such as 'SELNEC bus 7001 in preservation (standard livery)', and then either apply that in parallel with, or underneath, the 'Preserved bus in the UK (VNB 101L), cat (the latter is the current convention I believe). Either way, I would very much like to retain the current convention of 'Preserved bus in the UK (reg)', because for all its faults, it is also extremely simple to remember, and also indexes itself naturally, without needing to resort to awkward sort indexes. For the time being I will recreate the ones I think have been moved/redirected, and copy them back onto the affected images, while leaving your creations intact as parallel instances.

As far as I can tell, this only affects (but let me know if there were more):

Ultra7 (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm really not clear what your intent is, you seem to be doing both - you're creating cats like 'Category:Leigh Corporation bus 15 (PTC 114C)' and putting them in the preserved tree, while also using the 'preserved bus' cats in other instances. Ultra7 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ultra7. There are a few more categories than that - see the subcats of Category:Collections of the Museum of Transport, Greater Manchester. Basically, my thinking is 'one bus, one category' (unless there are sufficient images to justify subcategories). I view the "Preserved buses" tree as being for buses that were preserved, not necessarily just images of the bus post-preservation. I think it's better to have more specific category names than abstract ones (i.e. giving the bus type/company name in the category name, not just the registration number). I've stopped moving categories, as there seem to be too many of them and my time is limited, but where I'm creating new categories I'm doing so according to what I would view as best practice.

I don't think it's helpful to have two categories containing the same images, so if you're insistent on copying them back then let's just go back to the original category names. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think I've redirected all of the categories that you duplicated back to your preferred category name - please let me know if I've missed any. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can all disagree on how to do things (and there are a number of reasons why your approach is actually worse than the current system), but it's not best practice to ignore how a category is already defined and being used by multiple users and just go your own way - you're going to get push back, as it will cause problems for others, for reasons which you probably haven't even realised yet. Category schemas have to be universal, so if you don't intend on creating a proposal at Category talk:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom to change the current system, then I see no option but to remove your categories from it, and create parallel 'preserved bus in the UK (reg)' cats for them all. At best, your categories are only suited for a branch like Category:Buses in the United Kingdom by transient identity, as no one bus can ever be defined by a single operator/fleetno/reg for its entire life, as all three can and do change for the vast majority of vehicles over their lifetime, some even while in preservation. Ultra7 (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In all of the cases that I've seen, the buses have had a single operator / fleet number / registration number, so it does make sense to have a single category for those. Where they do have multiple IDs (and we have photos of those multiple IDs), then I'd have thought it best to create multiple subcategories inside a main category. So I still think that my approach is the better one to take. I'm happy to draft a wider proposal, if it would be useful, although I don't like regimenting things.

Creating duplicate/parallel categories is pointless, so please don't do that. If you must, then please feel free to move the categories I've created to new category names instead of duplicating them - I won't object to you doing that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - try searching for a number plate of a vehicle in the 'preserved buses' category, and you'll likely find many more photos of it than are included in the 'preserved' category. That kinda implies that the current way of working isn't optimal, and isn't easy to find. However, it seems that cat-a-lot also works on search pages (which is a really cool function I didn't know about until today), so it's an easy way of finding the photos that aren't in the category and then adding them to it. From the categories that I've done this with today, I'd estimate that doing this for each vehicle would roughly quadruple the number of photos in the category structure, so there's a lot that could be gained by doing this more systematically. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look Mike, I don't want to sound patronising, but take it from me, my experience in this area seems to be far greater than yours - both in terms of experience with the tools and knowledge of the topic. If I say something is easier one way or something is going to cause an issue, it's a good bet I'm right, probably because I've tried it the other way or found out the hard way. I'm well aware of just how many images have yet to be sorted (as I uploaded a fair few of them), and it's got nothing to do with any supposed impracticality in the current system. Sorting into 'Preserved bus in the UK (reg)' is about as easy a task as it gets using HotCat, the only reason it's not done is that it still takes time. The simple facts are these - placing whole life cats under Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom as it is currently defined, regardless of what you call them individually, will cause a fundamental breakage in the schema, even if you rolled it out to the rest of the entire tree. It would not longer be possible to perform basic searches like 'list all preserved Leyland buses in the UK', because in your proposal, there's no separation between images of a specific bus in service or preservation, it would just return images of both. That's a big problem. There are countless other issues with it too, if for example, you're proposing to start putting one identity under another as the way to deal with transitions - searches for buses with just the second identity would always return images of both. Unless or until you can come up with a proposal which addresses these issues, then there's really no option but to retain the status quo for any preserved buses you categorise, and therefore these categories will have to conform to 'Preserved bus in the (UK)' to remain in that branch. There is scope for a whole life branch, but it needs more thought than this. Ultra7 (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you wanted some practical examples of what a nightmare identity changes can be (if you're proposing to deal with them via sub-catting), you need look no further than the humble Category:Bristol VR - it's not a stretch to say that most of the preserved examples of that type had been through four or five operators before retirement, and indeed many will have been rallied in preservation in at least two identities - their last, un-restored livery, and their restoration livery (which of course will usually be the first). Once you also factor in the fact that, due to their age, re-registrations to hide their age in service, and then of course re-registration back to the original in preservation, I can't even begin to figure out how you propose to create a whole life scheme that would be able to be placed underneath Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom, while still being searchable for example, for preserved VRs of xyz company - the results would just be flooded with irrelevant images. Ultra7 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken your silence as acceptance of the status quo - all bus categories in the Manchester collection cat are now in 'Preserved bus in the UK (reg)' format (I'm assuming you weren't working on any other museum). Please ensure any future creations are in this format, and their contents respect the established principle that the only images in Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom or its sub-cats should be of buses photographed while actually in preservation, as opposed to just all images of buses that have been preserved. I cannot stress enough how much of a disaster it would have been if you had not respected this convention and just carried on implementing it the way you saw fit - you would effectively have rendered the entire category useless for anyone searching for only preserved images - you might not realise this, but Commons has images of buses in service going back many decades (similarly, we have images of buses in preservation going back decades), so for certain operators/vehicles/manufacturers, this is not as small a problem as you might have assumed. Additionally, had you not respected the naming convention, it wouldn't have been long before duplicate categories started appearing - some in your format, others in the established format (because it has been accepted and used by several users for many years now - if it hadn't, we'd hardly have reached 1,600+ already) because as you've probably already realised, there's many more that still need to be created. I appreciate there are flaws in the current system, and you're more than welcome to propose a change if you think there's a better way to do it, but given the sheer amount of images and categories that already follow this convention, it's vital that you propose it first, so we can all agree on what the changes should be if there are to be any, so that as little time as possible is wasted changing it to whatever the new system would be, and no errors are created going forward (because everybody would know what system to use). Ultra7 (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My silence has been due to a lack of time to reply, not acceptance of your position. I'm busy with other things at the moment, but will get back to you soon. But for now, thank you for moving the categories rather than duplicating them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ultra7. Sorry for not replying sooner. I'm afraid that I think your position has a number of fallacies, which I'll try to highlight by asking you some questions:

You say that there is a naming convention that needs to be adhered to. Where can I find the description of this convention? How can someone looking at a 'preserved' category find it?
In which category should photographs of the buses in service go, such that they are easily locatable from the 'preserved' categories?
You say that there are buses in Category:Bristol VR that have had multiple operators and registrations. From a quick look, I can't find them - I can only find 'Preserved' subcategories of subcategories by acronym. How can I find photographs of a specific Bristol VR bus in service with the different operators and in preservation?
You've said that a bus can have multiple registrations, but the 'preserved' categories work by registration numbers. How do you distinguish this from the issue of different operators, and how do you link the same bus over multiple registrations?
What happens when a photo of a bus in service is added to a 'preserved' category? How do you spot this happening?
How does your indexing work in the case of 'preserved' categories with registrations '123 ABC', 'ABC 123A', 'A123 ABC', 'AB51 CDE'?

My suggestion would be to keep things as simple as possible. Thinking about this (and taking on board your very good points about changing operators/registrations), I'd suggest a category structure along the lines of:

Category:Manufacturer Model (A123 ABC) (Category redirect: Category:Manufacturer Model (987 CBA) Category:A123 ABC, Category:987 CBA; defaultsort: 1984)

Category:Manufacturer Model (A123 ABC) operated by Transport for London (subcat of Category:Transport for London (Route number) with sortcode 567)

Category:Manufacturer Model (A123 ABC) operated by Northwest Buses

Category:Manufacturer Model (987 CBA) operated by Scotland Buses

Category:Manufacturer Model (987 CBA) operated by Hong Kong Buses

Category:Manufacturer Model (987 CBA) in preservation (Scotland branding)

Category:Manufacturer Model (A123 ABC) in preservation (TfL branding)

with the basic category being Category:Manufacturer Model (A123 ABC), and the subdirectories and category redirects only being created if there's enough interest (or equivalently, number of photos) to justify them). This has the advantages that:

It keeps the main category simple and general, such that it's suitable for all photographs of that vehicle, and it's easily expandable without being outdated
There could be categories for each operator that photos can be moved into when appropriate (only if the vehicle has had multiple operators - otherwise the operator can be specified by the categorisation of the main category)
There could be categories for each type of branding that a preserved vehicle has had (or a single category for the vehicle in preservation otherwise), which can then be included in Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom. As this isn't the main category, it is much less likely to get polluted by the addition of any pictures of the vehicle in service (and there's an easy recat option available if they do). It also easily lends itself to vehicles that haven't been preserved.
Where the category for the (first/main) registration number doesn't exist, the photos can be put (naturally) into Category:Manufacturer Model or even Category:Manufacturer, and can easily be found when a subcategory is created.

What do you think - is this something that you think could work? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The convention isn't documented, but it's pretty obvious to anyone coming to the cat that it exists - it was chosen because it was the fastest and simplest way to sub-divide Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom, which was getting huge. Some people have decided since to start categorising those cats, such as by adding operator and make - that was never my intention, I never envisaged that's how they would be used, as I could see what issues it would cause, but we are where we are. The indexing is simply alphabetical - anyone wanting a more topical approach can choose one of the other branches under Category:Buses in the United Kingdom, presumably by registration or manufacturer/model. The system handles re-registration in preservation by making the newer one a sub-cat of the older, while also having both in the flat index. The system cannot handle different operators/identities beyond what already existed before it (categorising each individual image with the different identity, while also giving both the preserved reg cat), but that's because it never intended to in the first place (just like there's no equivalent system for in service buses - if we have images of the same bus in service with different operators, as we definitely do for models like the Bristol VR - please just take my word for it - it's not going to be apparent through the category tree). I did make a start trying to do this for London buses using a 'fleetnumber in xyz livery (preserved)', but it's by no means complete. The only way you could tell if someone put an in-service image into one of the preserved cats is by looking at it - that's precisely why it's a problem. All searches would assume it was preserved.

Now, on the issue of your proposed system, I'm OK with it in principle. It's not great from a naming perspective (an operator category could easily end up with lots of 'make model (reg)' cats, being a mix of in service and preserved buses), and the distinction wouldn't be obvious without a sub-division under the operator, but it would at least ensure they are in different trees at the global level. It also has the advantage of avoiding empty levels for those most common of cases where we either only have images of a bus in preservation in one identity or only have images of a bus in service with one operator, while also laying out the way a mix of images should be handled. A bigger issue is that I fear people won't even be aware that if they do end up with a mix of operators/uses, that they would then need to sub-cat them, but one hopes they could realise that by looking at the sub-cats of the 'make model (reg)' cat - i.e. if it's filed under 'operator x' they need to divide it into two sub-cats before adding images of it preserved in another operator's livery. It could do with some refinement regarding the naming, because we can and do have images of:

Make model (ABC 123) in an operators standard livery working for that operator
Make model (ABC 123) in an operators special livery working for that operator
Make model (ABC 123) in an operators standard livery working for a different operator (on loan or sold)
A bunch of other cases I've probably forgotten

And please note that 'branding' usually only refers to a minor addition to a livery - a livery is an overall paint scheme, which can be both standard, or tied to a particular use/event.

I also don't like the way you've handled re-registrations - these really shouldn't be re-directs, but separate cats. I suggest:

Make model (BB 1000, ex-ABC 123)
- Make model (ABC 123)
- Make model (BB 1000)

Also, if you weren't already aware of it, you should also give some thought as to whether or not 'make model' is going to include the body or not - see Category:Body on chassis buses in the United Kingdom (as opposed to Category:Integral buses in the United Kingdom). I guess it doesn't matter if it does or doesn't, but consistency is good.

Lastly, even if this system is adopted, I would still like to retain the 'Preserved bus in UK (reg)' categories. These would be applied as a parent cat of whichever of the above is the appropriate model cat (so they wouldn't be duplicates), and moved to a new 'preserved buses by registration branch' under Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom. This is for the following reasons:

I don't want to stop people categorising images by reg if they don't know the make/model - and if it exists, it can be descended, and if it doesn't, that can be detected. Likewise, new creations in this system without the meta cat are easily detected
As meta-cats they're always appropriate to create even if they only contain just one image, whereas I'm pretty sure you don't intend on creating sub-cats in your system if there are, for example, just two images of the same bus but in a different livery - they would presumably both stay in 'make model (reg)' (or sub), with the difference handled on the images themselves.

Hope all that made sense. Ultimately, I think the biggest issue is that any system is going to take years to roll out (especially if it relies on determining qualities not immediately visible, like make/model), and there are already thousands of images in the tree which don't even meet the current system, not comprehensively at least. But it can't be started at all if we don't know what it's supposed to be before hand. Ultra7 (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm going to take a few days to think about it, and will get back to you at the weekend. (In the meantime: back to what I was wanting to do before this conversation started - uploading photos of preserved buses I took over last weekend!) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't had chance to think about this this weekend - will get back to you soon. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might have come up with a category naming convention which addresses your desire for meaningful whole life cats, my desire for separation of preserved buses, as well as a whole load of other issues which I've been meaning to solve for ages now. Basically, all cats that get placed directly onto an image would be in one of two forms:

make/model (reg) (config) (fleetno) in livery (status) (place)
make/model (reg) (special use) (status)

where:

make/model details the integral or body/chassis names
(reg) is self-explanatory - changes of registrations can be accommodated as suggested above - two sub-cats for each reg, beneath a parent cat (reg, ex-reg)
(config) wouldn't usually be present, but will be there for noting things like open top conversions (which can then be sub-catted under the buses parent reg cat, allowing separation from images of it before the conversion, if they exist)
(fleetno) is self-explanatory - one should always be included if used (but not all buses have one)
livery is all encompassing, so it can be used to denote both the standard and special liveries, plus any brandings
(special use) - this is for all those cases where it doesn't really make sense to refer to liveries or operators - such as library buses, cafe buses, and the many many other wierd and quirky things buses can be used for
(status) is optional - if not present it can be assumed the bus is pictured in service with the operator whose livery the cat names, however, it can also be set to (preserved), and indeed any other appropriate term to cover some of the other situations that can occur which lead to a bus with a certain livery not being pictured in their ownership (loans, un-repainted sales/transfers, pre-delivery, secondment, etc, etc), and it also allows for those cases where the livery doesn't tie it to a particular operator, such as franchised operations or co-marketed services - in those cases, the operator can be added as the status field. Finally, it can even cater for things like heritage fleets - where preserved buses are still technically 'in service'
(place/route) is optional and unlikely to be used very often, but there will be times when it makes sense

I think the main difference to your proposal is that this will be the format used for all bottom level cats (i.e. those that end up directly on images), regardless of what other images exist - i.e. there wouldn't be any parent cats of simpler form unless they were required to group bottom level ones (which would only happen for individual buses when we have images of the same bus but with different regs and/or configs and/or liveries and/or statuses). I think this leads to less uncertainty over what the cat is for, and whether/when new ones need to be created. It also produces natural indexing/sub-indexing in various parent cats (model, livery, config, use etc), which is always good.

The system means that individual bus cats can be created if needed, or grouped along similar lines if there are too few images. It also means that these cats naturally fit into several parent trees as you would expect - make/model, operator, livery, config, status & special use. They should also find their natural place in Category:London buses by class, but exactly where will be case dependant.

The only issue I foresee is that, by not including an explicit status field for buses in service with the operator implied by the livery, we might still end up with preserved/second-hand images mixed in with them, but I see no way around that - I think using (in service) is too ambiguous and likely to confuse, and I can't think of any other more appropriate term that isn't also problematic. But it would at least be easier to detect in this system, given the more specific nature of the cats (bottom level and parent), and the fact the (preserved) cat, if it exists, would be just one level below, and more intuitively named. Ultra7 (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical example, take your recent upload of File:Greater Manchester Transport bus (B65 PJA).jpg. It's a good example as its relatively new, and the livery is a franchise one. In this system, it would have the single category Leyland Olympian Northern Counties (B65 PJA) 3065 in First Manchester Magic Bus livery (preserved), which itself would have the following parents:

Preserved bus in the UK (B65 PJA)
- B prefix registered buses
- Preserved buses in the UK by reg
Northern Counties on Leyland Olympian buses in the UK
- All the parents those have
Buses in Magic Bus livery (First Manchester)
- Magic Bus
- First Manchester
Collections of the Museum of Transport, Greater Manchester

Granted, as category names go, its a mouthful, but its way less ambiguous than either Leyland Olympian Northern Counties (B65 PJA) (which leaves doubt about both the operator and status) or Magic Bus bus 3065 (B65 PJA) (which leaves doubt over the status).

There's also probably scope for Leyland Olympian Northern Counties/Magic Bus/First Manchester intermediate cats, etc, but that depends on what's in there currently.

Then, if no other images of this bus ever turn up, that would be it, but if an in-service image turns up, we would create Leyland Olympian Northern Counties (B65 PJA) 3065 in First Manchester Magic Bus livery for the new image, and place Leyland Olympian Northern Counties (B65 PJA) 3065 in First Manchester Magic Bus livery (preserved) inside it. We would also then transfer the parent cats Northern Counties on Leyland Olympian buses in the UK and Buses in First Manchester Magic Bus livery up one level, to it, and transfer the B-prefix one too.

Similarly, if the museum one day ever decided to repaint this into its original GMT livery, then we would create Leyland Olympian Northern Counties (B65 PJA) 3065 in Greater Manchester Transport livery (preserved). It's only at this point do we need to create the parent Leyland Olympian Northern Counties (B65 PJA), and then do all the other cat creation/moving that requires.

On a minor note, the make model of this particular bus has a more specific name, being a so-called GM Standard, so there may be scope for using that instead of 'Leyland Olympian Northern Counties' (but it would be a sub-cat of it), but this is neither here nor there (except to illustrate that it would even help with bringing things like the GM standard cat into the fold, which is afaik currently a stand-alone cat. Ultra7 (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ultra7. Thanks for sharing your detailed thoughts on this topic. I think you've gone from being overly general to being overly specific, though, and I hope we can find a middle ground between the two.

A good rule for complex categorisation, from the categories I've seen thus far on Commons, seems to be to have around 4-5 key/changeable facts in a category name. That's what I was aiming for with my suggestion above. Yours seems to have around 8, though, which I think is being overly specific. I think we could cut some of those out from subcategories, and leave them to be implied by the categories that the categories are in.

Taking the Magic Bus example that you suggest, I'd prefer to see it categorised at First Manchester Magic Bus 3065 (or even just Magic Bus 3065). This could include photos of it both in service and in preservation. This category could then be subcategorised as:

Leyland Olympian Northern Counties (B65 PJA)
- B prefix registered buses
- Preserved buses in the UK by reg
Northern Counties on Leyland Olympian buses
Magic Buses
- First Manchester
Collections of the Museum of Transport, Greater Manchester

There's a number of points of contention here. To address them:

Including in-service and in-preservation photos in one category: unless it's been significantly restored, I don't see the point in differentiating between the two. I feel it might be better to have a 'restored' category structure in place of a 'preserved' one, though.
If it's repainted to GMT livery, then I'd prefer to see the category Greater Manchester Transport 3065 (restored) created, which could then be a subcat of Leyland Olympian Northern Counties (B65 PJA). It would make sense to me if that was then a different category from Greater Manchester Transport 3065, which would include pictures of the bus in service.
Dropping the 'Preserved bus in the UK (B65 PJA)' category. I think the population of "Preserved buses in the UK by reg" would be much better served by categories such as "Leyland Olympian Northern Counties (B65 PJA)", since that would make it easier to locate specific types of bus in preservation. Equally, subcats of each type of bus could be created where there are many of them in preservation. I think indexation by type makes more sense than indexation by registration number (particularly given the ordering issues with registration numbers that I mentioned above).
If I'm looking for a picture of a preserved bus, then I'd personally be more interested in seeing pictures of it at all stages of its existence, rather than just seeing it in a preserved state. As above, though, I would view 'restored' and 'in service' as different statuses that would be worth distinguishing.
Operator and status with the Leyland Olympian Northern Counties (B65 PJA) cat, and status with the Magic Bus bus 3065 (B65 PJA) cat: I think that's fine, as those only need to be defined in the subcategories.
I don't think having an operator category filled with lots of 'make model (reg)' cats is a problem - it's easy to create subcats for makes/models they have lots of, if need be, or to create 'Buses operated by Operator' categories should need be.
I think the base category to create is Leyland Olympian Northern Counties (B65 PJA), and I wouldn't have a problem with that being directly placed in the other subcategories above where the bus only has a single operator and livery (this may particularly be the case where the bus hasn't been preserved - which a categorisation model like this should also be able to take into account).
With registration number categories: wouldn't it be easier for people to find these via the registration number directly, rather than having to know that they're a preserved bus?
With re-registrations: why would you prefer them to be individual categories, rather than redirects? If they're for the same vehicle, why should it matter?

To be honest, I'm not sure how much time I want to spend on this. My interests are more in uploading new photos, working on Wikipedia articles, and improving subcategorisation here when I see the need to do so, rather than discussing wide-spread (but fairly narrowly focused) categorisation. I think that if we're going to continue this further, then we should move to a more general location and involve more people in the discussion (particularly if we're continuing to disagree on any fundamental issues). I'm also conscious that Wikidata is coming, which may render a lot of this moot. :-/

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's up to you. I'm definitely not really clear any more on what we do agree on, and what we don't. Any future discussion probably needs to get back to categorisation first principles for the topic, before moving onto naming issues. There's lots of reasons why many of your ideas & assumptions in this topic actually don't make sense, both from a Commons maintenance point of view and from a general topical point of view. They definitely need more discussion if you want them to be adopted across the board. If they don't make sense, they won't succeed, as there's only a few of use even actively curating this topic.

If you don't want to take the discussion further, then all I can do is repeat the central point - if you change an already well established and understood category tree like Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom for only a small amount of images, you're not improving anything, even if you think you're employing best practice. On the contrary, you're actually going to damage Commons - either by introducing doubt and uncertainty for users who will start to encounter illogical inconsistencies in trees that shouldn't really have any - or by making certain maintenance tasks unnecessarily hard, if not impossible.

I don't want to discourage anyone from making improvements to Commons as they see fit, but I see no hope for anyone trying to do so if they aren't really aware of the sorts of things that can occur in the topic they're seeking to improve. The few things we've discussed here really don't even come close to describing the true potential for complexity in this topic - consider for example the many different uses/statuses/liveries and registrations this bus has had, and also consider it's very likely to be preserved. And consider the fact that the category name 'London General bus DRM2516 (WLT 516)' can actually refer to two different chassis - both of the same make/model, and both in service with the same operator (for details, see Routemaster buses RML2516 / DRM2516 / RML2283). Because I work in the topic a lot, I come across stuff like this all the time, as well the simpler cases. Ultra7 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to let this topic drop (at least for now) then. I would strongly encourage you to raise a general discussion about this at some point, though, as I think it's a topic that does need to have a wider discussion. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 1

Welcome

Very nice

Re: London Eye at night

TUSC token f57204f2a8d04b5c23ecd3a8a0915037

Courtesy notification

Barnes Hospital

Your picture of Colin Pillinger

Tip: Categorizing images

Deprecated License

Superb picture...

Image reuse

Hoxne tigress

John Cobb memorial

Quality Image Promotion

ToC and anchors - I'm planning to undo your edit.

Need opinions for British Museum object captions

Renaming ships

Video upload

City Buildings, Manchester

Using London Eye at night 2.jpg in a textbook

Using one of your pictures in a textbook

Cyrus Cylinder Photo

Quality Image Promotion

using one of your photos on a Hub Page

License conflict

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Use of your photo

Photo use

Model Plans

Quality Image Promotion

Using Freud Statue Image

Using your photo of a Dublin tram

WLM

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

File:Cromford mill pond 1.jpg

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Egg Vorbis file

Lusitania propeller picture on Wiki is incorrect!

Valued Image Promotion

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement

Golden Hinde

Seagulls at Conwy Castle

Notification about possible deletion

ArchiveBot

File:Plaque noting the site of the Upholders' Hall.jpg

File:Austin Sixteen Ambulance 5107772190.jpg (but also File:JV 4936 - 1936 Austin 18 Saloon.jpg)

Category Unidentified Insects

Photogram

Flood Tablet Photo

British Library entrance photo

Thank you

Don't over-categorize!

Thanks for the pictures, Mike

Code issues in User:Mike Peel/common.js

Navigation menu

Search