User talk:Andy Dingley

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Information icon.svg
This user is, of their own volition, no longer active on Wikimedia Commons.
This is not indicative of breaking any Wikimedia policies.

2007 2008 October, 2009 April, October, November, December, 2010 January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2011 2011 January, 2011 February, 2011 March, 2011 May, 2011 June 2011 2012 2013

TUSC token: a8da1de46b656525564eef5673644a79[edit]

/*Locomotives on preserved lines*/ consistency needed[edit]


Please read this instead of engaging in pointless edit wars (against an administrator, further). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

So administrators are again playing the "we're the arbiters of content decisions" and "edit warring is OK if admins do it" cards?
You're claiming that bridge engineers are not civil engineers. Now go away and have a think about that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Also describing other edits as "vandalism" and then locking your preferred version is blatant INVOLVED. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Bridge engineers ARE civil engineers. But they are already categorized under "structural engineers" that in turn are categorized under "civil engineers". If you read about COM:OVERCAT you'd realize that's pointless categorize an item in two different points of the same tree. Confirm me that you've read and metabolized COM:OVERCAT and I will remove the protection. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The question is: have you read COM:OVERCAT and understood it? You can complain as long as you want, you're wrong anyway. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
OVERCAT is a simplistic policy which simplistic minds are forever falling foul of.
There is no reason to remove a parent category simply because it is also a grandparent.
If (and only if) that parent category implies membership of the grandparent category, then OVERCAT might apply.
If there is a high-level navigational structure which would be damaged by removing grandchildren from it as direct children (see the battery category above), then that's also a reason to leave them in place.
In this case, structural engineers and bridge engineers are both significant and recognised disciplines within civil engineering. That alone might justify inclusion as a navigational matter. However there is no relationship of implication between bridge engineers and structural engineers. Both are civil engineers, but not all bridge engineers are structural engineers in this sense. Thus it is wrong to remove bridge engineers as a subcategory of civil engineers. This is basic Mediawiki stuff and you ought to know it already, along with policies against 3RR edit-warring and INVOLVED. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, then open a discussion for changing the policy. I am afraid that you haven't convinced me. My mind is too simplicistic for understanding such elaborate reasonment :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Facebook & Wikidata Infobox[edit]

Hi Andy. Your post on Wikipedia Weekly was pointed out to me. I'm not a member of that group (I think that discussions about Wikimedia should take place on Wikimedia talk pages, not on Facebook), so I can't comment there. In the case of Category:James Watt, I think adding the infobox has mostly made a big improvement - the info about the topic went from a set of numbers to a decent amount of context - and the infobox is inherently multilingual so that context will be shown to anyone in their preferred language. Wikidata does contain mistakes, and showing the data to more people/editors helps to catch those mistakes and fix them, which is what happened in this case. It's not the only case where the data is shown - various other Wikipedias, and external sites, also use the Wikidata information - so we help those other places by spotting errors here, and likewise they can spot and fix errors as well. You can watch the edits to the Wikidata entry on Wikidata (ideally also here, but that's been turned off for performance reasons at the moment). We haven't managed to build an equivalent of this set of info here on Commons over the last decade+, so this is a good shortcut to expanding the info Commons has on each topic. Hope that helps explain some of the background from my perspective here, and if you want to copy this over to Facebook then you're free to do so. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC) (P.S. if you spot any technical bugs with the infobox, please mention them at Template talk:Wikidata Infobox)

/* Category:Diaphragm arches */ require to close the discussion[edit]

Could you have a look at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Diaphragm arches, please ?--Pimprenel (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

diaphragm arches[edit]

Hello Andy, Could you please (or can I) change the image of the category : diaphragm arches' infobox because even if it shows a real diaphragm arch which used to support a disappeared ceiling , it gives a wrong idea of what a diaphragm arch is and can induce people to insert pictures of "Schwibbogen" again in the category. Cordialement, --Pimprenel (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Those images are automatic now and are derived from Wikidata. That's outside my control. So is arguing definitions of English language terms with Germans on Commons. Life's too short to waste it here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


Themightyquill (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)