User talk:Scillystuff

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Scillystuff!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

TUSC token 6cafa2722c0ed5f63f20fa31db54487f[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

K&A Canal[edit]

I've been adding categories to pictures from Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing categories by grid square as part of trying to get the en wp article about the Kennet and Avon Canal through FAC - where a question was asked about the quality of the "pre-restoration" pic used. I didn't intent to put them in child & parent cats, so apologise. Those that already had locks etc cats were in Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing category review, but others weren't & I may have wrongly added the K&A cat. Basically it all seems to be a bit of a mess & I don't have the knowledge of Commons Cats to sort it out.Rodw (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Canal bridges[edit]

You appear to have moved a large number of images from Bridges over canals in foo to Canal bridges in foo. The problem with this is that "Bridges over canals" is specific whereas "Canal bridges" is ambiguous -- do you mean bridges which go over canals or bridges that carry canals (ie an aqueduct)? If you mean bridges which go over canals, then the former category was correct. --JD554 (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bridges over canals in the United Kingdom was the odd one out amongst the other UK bridge categories, such as Category:Railway bridges in England and Category:Road bridges in England and so on in their child categories. Bridges which carry a canal or river over something already had their own categorisation - Category:Aqueducts in the United Kingdom. Some Canal bridges in foo already existed, so I chose to add the images to that hierarchy and move the others, most of which were geographically uncategorised in the top level. I had left the old categories (I think there were only eight in the UK, UK, Manchester, and a couple of canals in Shropshire) as redirects but I see an administrator has removed three of them this morning. I apologise if I am out of step with an established commons naming convention, but didn't see one when I searched within bridge categories in the UK. I am trying to help categorise thousands of railway and canal images from the UK Geograph project, partly as support for a featured article proposal for w:Kennet and Avon Canal. Scillystuff (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The trouble is that a bridge which goes over a canal can still be a road bridge or a railway bridge, etc. There is no such thing as a canal bridge as that would be an aqueduct. So the images you've moved should really be "bridges over canals" (as well as road bridge etc if necessary) as that is more accurate as to what they are. A good example is File:Boat under Horse Close Bridge - - 1283005.jpg -- the bridge in that picture is not a canal bridge, it is a road bridge which goes over a canal. So it should be categorized as such. --JD554 (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
See Category:Bridges in England by river (and parent/sub categories) for precedents. --JD554 (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
However, another bridge naming example is File:Railway Bridge at Escuan, Tywyn - - 199901.jpg which is a road bridge over a gap which used to be a railway and is in Category:Railway bridges in the United Kingdom. Google lists 1.5m hits for "canal bridge", 0.5m for "bridge over canal". Even the BBC list a road bridge over a canal as a canal bridge - However, life is too short to argue about categories on commons. Please feel free to categorise them as you wish, I will be happy to follow your lead on new ones. You may need administrator help to move some back, as previous categories were deleted (not at my request). And should it be "bridges over canals" as Category:Bridges in England by river are mostly "bridges across the river foo"? Scillystuff (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Church stuff[edit]

You've probably notice the discussion at User talk:WereSpielChequers#Naming of church categories is probably of interest to you. Also had to changed one of your recent edits here, I suspect there may be similar problems with other common Saint names. I can easily see other Thomas a Becket churches being placed incorrectly with the ones for Thomas the Apostle.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just been diffusing existing category placement, so Devon churches in Category:Saint Thomas churches in England would diffuse into Category:Saint Thomas churches in Devon. If they were wrongly in Category:Saint Thomas churches in England, then I would perpetuate the error. In other cases such as Mary, Category:Saint Mary the Virgin churches in England is also a sub category of Category:Saint Mary churches in England. Is this also wrong, or are these the same Mary whereas there were many Thomases? I must admit I am missing the theological background to make the distinction. Scillystuff (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The distinction here is there are (more than) two Saints called Thomas see w:Saint Thomas#Christian saints, one church to Thomas the Apostle and one to Thomas a Becket are dedicated to different people. As for the various St Mary dedications: "St Mary", "St Mary the Virgin" "St Mary the Blessed Virgin", they are all dedicated to the same person (the mother of Jesus). That means its natural to include the virgin category in the whole. But of course, Mary Magdelene should be kept seperate (as Mary Magdelene isn't Jesus' mum :)
There is a problem with non-saint dedications, for instance Holy Trinity. A church dedicated to the Holy Trinity doesn't have a patron saint.
And fair enough on the specific issue, its probably just something to bear in mind when adding the patron saint category to another category or file.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I will just put them all in Category:All Saints churches in England :) Seriously though I did ascend the category hierarchy before I started the diffusion and any county level creations or linkages were based on precedent at the Category:Churches in the United Kingdom by patron saint level. I was aware that some dedications were not saints, indeed there are some particularly direct comments at the Category:Churches by patron saint top level about the unsuitability of including Jesus as a saint :) I will try to steer clear of the ambiguous categories - there are plenty of non ambiguous ones I can work on. I'm not sure I am up to splitting non-saint churches out into a parallel Category:Churches by name tree all the way down to county level. Scillystuff (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not sure what to do about non-saint dedications either. It does seem a bit pointless to have a second tree just because some are dedicated to saints and some dedicated to non-saints (Jesus, the Trinity and so on), but at same time it is more than a tad odd and needs revisiting at some point. I wouldn't worry about this when diffusing the England-level categories, so don't avoid Thomas (or Luke, Mark, John...) just because of this. The misplaced churches will need fixing whether its in a England-level or a county-level category, and its easier to make those fixes if we can properly identify them. Its probably easier to identify at the county-level (or better still the church-level) as instead of wading through thousands of images a systematic sweep is much more feasible.
Fixing misplaced files is seperate from diffusion, thankfully!--Nilfanion (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Isle of Wight[edit]

I've tweaked {{Counties of England}} to allow a different parameter for the Isle of Wight. As an example - see this. This at least allows new transclusions to point at "on" categories. Fixing the old transclusions will take a lot of work, as will a systemic replacement of the template with a better coded version.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that's neat, considering what you had to work with. I'll use it on new 'by county' categories. Or should that be in new 'by county' categories? :) Scillystuff (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Also fixing existing transclusions too, when the IOW category is correctly at "on" (see Special:Contributions/NilfaBot). It is a nasty hack, but works. A more comphrensive fix is possible, but will take much more work.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
You have your own bot too, that's handy. Thanks again for taking the time to explain and for trying to fix the problem, I didn't realise the template was used for so many categories. Scillystuff (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

West Yorkshire places[edit]

I got category "Places in Bradford" renamed to "Places in the City of Bradford" after your note on my talk page. I'm trying to understand this geography. Would it be proper/best to refer to the 5 metropolitan boroughs of West Yorkshire as follows?

  • City of Bradford (which contains a settlement named "Bradford")
  • Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale
  • Metropolitan Borough of Kirklees
  • City of Leeds (which contains a settlement named "Leeds")
  • City of Wakefield (which contains a settlement named "Wakefield")

Then, each of those 5 are subdivided into various numbers of rural districts, urban districts, municipal boroughs and county boroughs, yes?

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to keep in step with whatever is decided on wikipedia, which is (currently):
These names may change, as in the case of the City of Bradford (the metropolitan county) even the council themselves are ambiguous as to the official designation. Without a clear statement of name I suspect there will never be a consensus. Alas in the case of Leeds there is no corresponding commons category "City of Leeds" and just to complicate matters, the borough call themselves Leeds City Council. We are probably on safe ground to create and/or move categories to names that already exist as articles on wikipedia, so it's easy to explain the "why". If they ever reach a consensus on a move of name, then if the commons names alreeady match it will be easier to move them to match. Subdivisions are bonkers as well, as many (but not all) parishes were abolished in the years preceding the creation of the metropolitan boroughs, being merged into urban or rural districts and boroughs. Just to add to the fun, metropolitan council wards were created which in some cases match the boroughs they are named after, but are sometimes larger or smaller. So Todmorden (parish) is 50% bigger than Todmorden (ward). Brighouse (ward) is 50% bigger than the half of the borough of Brighouse that used to be the parish of Brighouse. I expect it all made sense to somebody once. It makes finding a location for geograph pictures interesting. One single location was originally in the parish of Fixby, which then became the parish of Rastrick, which then became the borough of Brighouse, which then became the metropolitan ward of Rastrick, which was then was moved into the metropolitan ward of Elland. And then they moved the boundary between Calderdale and Kirklees to align it with the M62 which changed it all again. Scillystuff (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in - one problem we do have to figure out is just what should, for example, Category:Bradford contain if its about the core settlement only? It has no independent political existence, as its local government is solely at district level. Because of that, it has no true political boundaries. Using an amalgamation of electoral wards is a poor substitute, not least because wards are just too unstable. Using the urban area may be a viable alternative.
It might be possible to construct a tree. The City of Bradford, contains the unparished area at its core as well as all the Civil Parishes. Some CPs, like Trident, are within Bradford and some are normal rural CPs. The unparished area plus CPs can then be used as the basis of a tree that parallels the CP-based scheme that works well for the non-met counties.
That still doesn't sort out Category:Bradford, the most important category, which could be based more loosely on either the electoral wards or the urban area itself.
I think the way to support Category:Bradford and the CP-based scheme is to provide ever more local categories. For instance, Category:Lidget Green would be subcategory of both Bradford's cat and the cat for the unparished area. This area-level categorisation ought to be done anyway as due to the sheer volume of imagery we have.
This ends up with a scheme that places all content of Bradford in subcategories of Bradford, and also in the correct CP (or the unparished area). We can, thankfully, ignore historic definitions and only give cursory attention to the wards (which are just too unstable).
What that means for Bradford, is it ends up containing something like Category:Districts of Plymouth, which are subjectively defined (especially the City Centre!). The same applies for the other areas too of course.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Wards are unstable, but they are one of the few metropolitan subdivisions which can be confirmed (by At least we could confirm at a ward level where each image was, as some aren't even in the right county. As an interim, should we put the mass of high level category images in an unsorted category, something like Category:Unsorted_UK_bus_images, as it is going to be months of work to categorise them? Scillystuff (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The instability of wards is the major reason to avoid them, as they get drastically redrawn on a regular basis and every time this happens we would have to check everything again. Its bad enough getting it categorised at all, never mind restarting every few years. More seriously, electoral wards do not mean that much to the inhabitants of the area (or others), if you ask someone where they live, they may tell you what district of a city they live in but may not even know what ward they are in. The fact they are verifiable doesn't offset these drawbacks.
The intermediate stage is possibly at minimum to dump the files in the relevant <subject> in <county (or city)> categories, when a precise location cat isn't available. After all - saying an image is of a building in Bradford is more helpful than saying its of City ward in Bradford.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I have shied away from this approach, as I was roundly critisied for it on wikipedia. In a nutshell, I was told it didn't matter where a resident _thought_ he lived, it only mattered where it could be _proved_ (with a reference) where he lived. Where the new wards are named after the old boroughs and the ward boundaries have been moved, the road signs (paid for by the metropolitan counties) have often been moved to match, especially where the boundary was also administrative (such as Bradford / Kirklees). I understand and support your reasoning above, I just think it will be hard to defend without a referenced map, and these usually only exist at ward level. Scillystuff (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Yep - and I understand the caution. The problem with wards are they are political, not geographic, entities and we want the underlying geographic entity. Even though we know the ward boundary, it would be wrong to say that it is also the boundary of the geographic location. At the pragmatic level, the district names are on the large scale maps. If the photo location is directly under the label, its safe to assume its of that location. We aren't WP so we shouldn't worry about same burden of proof.
County, district and parish boundaries get moved occasionally, and the signs move with them. Village signs are sometimes at the boundary of the civil parish, sometimes at the edge of the village itself. I haven't personally seen a ward signposted, rather the administrative entity its border coincides with.
If you are really that concerned skip the district entirely and just go to street-level data which can be trivially verified ;) I do think wards are best avoided, except for political contexts of course.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, suitable inspired, I will return to the 2.5k of images in Category:Kirklees, West Yorkshire and move them to my best guess of where they are, geographically. At least I will be able to put them in the right county :) Scillystuff (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

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:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Pghmills.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 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 | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Weatherman1126 (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Bootham Bar[edit]

Just a courtesy note to say I've proposed renaming Category:Bootham Bar, York, to Category:Bootham Bar, as the disambiguation is unnecessary.   An optimist on the run! 10:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)