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This user is, of their own volition, no longer active on Wikimedia Commons.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 consider adding iw-links in a different way here on Commons[edit]

Dear Andy Dingley,

Thanks for creating new categories here on Commons as you did recently e.g. for Category:D n2t locomotives. It would be great if you could add the interwiki-link to the corresponding page on en-wikipedia in a different way then you did for this category. Indeed by clicking here on Commons in the sidebar menu under 'In Wikipedia' on 'Add links' and then putting in the appearing pop-up box the link to the corresponding article on en-wikipedia. This will add a link to commons to all language versions of the corresponding article on en-wikipedia. Moreover this will avoid the corresponding article to be included in the maintenance category en:Category:Commons category template with no category set respectively on en:Category:Commons category without a link on Wikidata.

Many thanks if you could consider to do so, indeed this would reduce my efforts on adding these iterwiki-links later through patrolling the pages listed on the pre-mentioned category on en-wikipedia. I would like to thank you for all the great work you are realizing on en-wikipedia and here on Commons.

If you have any further questions on this do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards Robby (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

OK then, I'll stop. At least this might then avoid wikidata mangling the links, as they have been so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Monobloc engines[edit]

Hi, Andy. I removed the {{catcat}} template from this category because the category isn't named in a way that prohibits files or pages. (An example of a name that would prohibit them is "Monobloc engines by component".) With the name as it is, it could contain files about things that aren't subcatted -- and the subcats aren't even for whole engines, but for engine parts/components. I'll replace {{catcat}} with {{categorise}} instead. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You've removed this fourfive times now. Thankyou for finally bothering to discuss it. Although discussion works better if you do it before repeating the change anyway.
The category is not "named" in any particular way - names are not magic, they don't specify (by some lexical thaumaturgy) what the contents are. However the definition of this term clearly does. There is a whole encyclopedia article at Wikipedia which explains this: the "Monobloc" term is used in a variety of separate meanings and is only useful, as a name, as a disambiguation or set index. It is the sub categories of this set which contain the items of content, not the parent.
Do not replace the template. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for not noticing that I'd made the same change before. I'll try to remember to check that. I do, however, take exceptions to your statement that category names don't specify content. With metacats, they specify the sort criterion, and therefore what categories there can be (as well as that there should be no files). If there's no sort criterion, it's not a metacat. See Commons:Meta category for more info. If you want it to be a disambiguation category, that would make sense to me. If not, I'll start a CFD on the category to get more input. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to keep arguing the same point, then at least be accurate over it. This category hasn't used {{MetaCat}} for years, since {{CatCat}} was introduced. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ihr Löschantrag[edit]

Können Sie mir bitte den Sinn dieses Löschantrags erklären? Wenn nicht, ziehen Sie ihn bitte unverzüglich zurück.
Could you please explain the meaning of this deletion request. If not, please put it back immediately! As you could see, it had been objected that the image description was not the usual template. Because of this complaint I have adapted the picture description. I do not understand what you object to and that you are even concerned with.-- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It is a requirement that content on Commons is "freely licensed". See COMMONS:LICENSING.
A "free licence" is one that permits certain uses, including modifications of that file.
Such licensing must also (so that Commons can function long-term) permit these uses, including modification, without first getting the owner's permission. If this was a requirement, Commons would not be able to function as intended. For one thing, what if the owner departs? - and we have to consider long-term issues.
It's your image, you're welcome to impose whatever licence terms on it you wish. But some of those terms, such as this, then make it incompatible with Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

boiler chat with the tool guy!!![edit]

Mr. Dingley! Thank you for your help with my boilers. I am today at the same place I started yesterday with an "upright tubular boiler" and no place to put it here.

I also think that the boilers here have been cated for steam locomotives and tractors and not for stationary heaters and such. And also, they get separated by brand and not by a more generic functional name which might be built into the boiler genre. I had to look away from the boilers cats here.

It has been a while, but you are the goto tool expert from days long past? --RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this about the greenhouse boilers?
On en:WP, there are two bad articles, but at least one is about "steam boilers" and "heating boilers". We don't have such a clear split on Commons, but there is Steam boilers and a more generic Boilers. Maybe it's time we created a more specific category for heating? In nearly all cases, "boilers" for heating do not boil. They heat water to make hot water for circulation, but they deliberately avoid boiling it. Despite this, the universal COMMONNAME is still "boiler".
Your greenhouse boilers are clearly non-boiling devices for heating. So I moved them out of "steam boilers".
We've a huge range of sub-categories for boilers by type, and every possible combination of "tubular" and "vertical" is in there. But I think we need to get the top-level cats right first - and these are heating boilers. So how about Heating boilers?
I wouldn't try to put them into a sub-category of that for "tubular heating boilers" as this is too obscure. Possibly Greenhouse heating though, as we have plenty of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Greenhouse heating! Thanks for that.
The words we use. The words that work to communicate between people but that don't actually describe the item being communicated. And then the spelling. The commons is always good for showing me where the lines of my knowledge are.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)