User talk:DanTD/Archive 4
|This is a Wikimedia Commons user page.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at .
Counties in/of Texas
Saw that you changed the supercategory for "NRHP in Texas by county" from "Counties in Texas" to "Counties of Texas", thus eliminating a red link.
Texas is the only state for which the category is "of" rather than "in". I'd planned to go through the "of" category and change it to "in". However, if you're not bothered by the anomaly, I can live with it. Thoughts? Ammodramus (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't particularly bother me—I just wanted to call it to your attention. I actually don't mind not going through 254 Texas counties and changing "of" to "in". I'm more or less through with Texas for now, anyhow; I just wanted to set up enough county categories that people uploading files and nervous about creating new categories would have a place for them. Ammodramus (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Forklift trucks, backhoe loaders, wheeled loaders ≠ tractors
Hi DanTD, please do not categorize forklift trucks, backhoe loaders and wheeled loaders as tractors as you repeatedly did at ,  and . That's wrong and misleading. If you really want to classify all types of construction vehicles as tractors you should probably start a centralized discussion before as this would affect thousands of images. --:bdk: 11:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not wrong, because the each of the vehicles are tractors. Backhoe loaders, and "wheeled loaders" in general are construction tractors, and the Ford forklift is built on the body of a Ford constrruction tractor. In fact, if you look at some of the old brochures of N-Series, and later tractors, you'll find that forkifts are one of the attachments that were offered for them. So if you removed the tractor category from them a second time, I'm putting them back. ----DanTD (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC) – comment moved from  to keep the discussion in one place --:bdk: 20:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- This gets interesting. You really claim "ALL loaders are tractors" and "Alll backhoe loaders are tractors as well".
- It would really be helpful to know the tractor definition you use, because it's obviously different from the common one, which is used on en.wikipedia as well as (nearly globally) elsewhere since ages (except e.g. Russia and some adjacent countries, where often tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles are also called tractors, and Japan, where a lot of "hauling units", e.g. locomotives, are generally called tractors; but these are all language/translation problems, not problems of different definitions). Well, the core and most relevant aspect of the common definition of "tractor" (aka farm tractor) is that it's able to pull (lat. trahere) heavy material/machines and that it's predominantly designed/used for corresponding tasks (hauling). Some people therefore state that trucks virtually should be called tractors too (cf. the term "tractor unit"), but normally trucks are regarded as an indepent vehicle class.
- In regard to the tree vehicle types:
- Of course, the first backhoe loaders (JCB) were built using standard farm tractors, but they quickly developed into a separate type of construction vehicle, and are not any more designed to pull machinery. None of the known manufacturers would call them tractors. (Note: backhoe loaders are not to be confused with standard tractors fitted with backhoe attachments and front loaders.)
- Wheeled loaders, usually articulated like this Ford loader, are a seperate type of vehicle, too (mainly used for loading, not for hauling).
- Forklift trucks are different from tractors in many aspects, even if this precise one is an adapted Ford tractor.
- So the problem now is that we have a pretty well established category scheme here on Commons regarding agricultural/construction vehicles/machines. And it's still unclear to me, what you want to achieve with this turnaround (sorting forklift trucks, backhoe loaders and wheeled loaders as tractors, not as seperate types of vehicles, or – more precise – construction vehicles). As said before, if you want to change this fundamental categorization scheme, then please start a centralized discussion before. A different categorization for one make/brand only doesn't make sense, is counterproductive, and only reduces usability for users/visitors who search for something and don't find anything at the otherwise familiar places. Cheers --:bdk: 21:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Take off the attachments, whether on the front or the back, and they're just bare tractors. And this includes JCB. The only real difference is that those are designed specifically for construction. Forklift tractors aren't that much different. Tney're just standard tractors, with the seats and instruments reversed and the forklift attachments mounted on the back. Genuine forklift trucks, such as those made by Hyster, Grove, Toyota, Nissan, etc., aren't built that way. As far as I can recall, Ford never made a forklift truck. They've made driveable lawn mowers though, and those can be considered tractors.
- As far as trucks being called "tractors," it's only the tractor units that are given that name. As for the wikipedia definition of Loaders:
English: A loader, also called a front loader, front end loader, bucket loader, scoop loader or shovel, is a type of tractor, usually wheeled, that uses a wide square tilting bucket on the end of movable arms to lift and move material.
- Sounds like the inclusion as a tractor is clear to me. ----DanTD (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
|File:R160B Barcode.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.
Freeport, NY, redux
- Fine with me. One of the years I drove up to New York, I tried to get an image of the old Brooklyn Water Works building. Man, did that turn out like crap. ----DanTD (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
|Hello, DanTD. You have new messages at Jmabel's talk page.
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 please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 11:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you re-added the Conrail category to File:Conrail Lcomotive No.3070.JPG. My feeling is that only actual Conrail locomotives ought to be in that category, and that all the NS locomotives in the throwback Conrail livery don't belong there. Maybe we need a separate category for Norfolk Southern locomotives in Conrail livery? What do you think? Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
NR and HD categories
- I already spent over an hour going through every single Detroit locality, adding NR categories to the NR-listed HDs and keeping them off the non-NR, such as Category:Hubbard Farms Historical District. "NR in __" is never appropriate for "HDs in __", because any part of the country can have non-NR HDs. Even if all HDs currently in an "HDs in __" category are NR-listed, it's still inappropriate because non-NR HDs can still exist. Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
|The Categorization Barnstar|
|In appreciation of the many categories you've created. INeverCry 04:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)|