User talk:Andy Dingley

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 * 2014 * 2015 * 2016 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2020 * 2021 * 2022


Category discussion warning

Tinplate toys 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boet van Dulmen[edit]

Why make things complicated by deduplicating using a deprecated template, and at the same time effectively remove this photo of Queen Juliana from Commons? I will rollback these edits, and search for the right description of the Juliana photograph. Vysotsky (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a total screw-up, so no.
Also the photo of Queen Juliana needs to be deleted (or its source found, which is likely a duplicate anyway) because at present it's on the wrong file description page, linked to the wrong source record at the National Archive. Which, to make it absolutely clear to you, means we can't have it (even if we wanted), because there's no valid source or licensing on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you track down the Juliana photo, then we can (as usual) use it. Except that if we find it, that's probably going to be by finding it already existing here, so it would just be a duplicate. It looks like it might be in Arnhem, but there's no certainty that it's the right author (many of them are wrong). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found the Juliana photo; and no: the photo was not in Commons. Restored original, corrected metadata and title. Don't fix it, if it ain't broke. Vysotsky (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, as you removed the radiator category, I was wondering what category it should go in. There is engine radiator or heat radiator. Sahaib (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not any sort of radiator. This is just the plastic grille in front of it. The most detailed category would just be "car parts" or "car bodywork".
This problem is called "fly tipping" in the UK. A radiator contains metal, so has scrap metal value. It wouldn't be thrown away. Cars use a lot of plastic though and as this has no resale value, it's regularly dumped in the country.
This category tree really needs to keep focus on radiators as the technical component of the engine cooling system. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Archive / Anefo images[edit]

Hi Andy, I know you are familiar with this treasure trove of images. I came across this: File:Albeda, W. - SFA008007045.jpg and noticed the resolution was way below normal and wanted to see if I could obtain the full high resolution image. The source link was broken but I was able to find the original at this link: sfa008007045 at SpaarnestadPhoto. However, it requires a login to download. What do you advise? Are there certain Commons users who have been entrusted with the password as part of the partnership program? P.S. The image license template seems to be a little off, too, as the photographer is not unknown. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look at and had similar trouble. I've not used this archive before – it's a source that was being used before I got involved with the Anefo stuff.
You could ask @Multichill: , as they're the operator of the 'bot that did the original upload.
But I think what I'd do is to switch the image for this one, from the Nationaal Archief site we usually use. It looks like it's the original, and less heavily cropped. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I will contemplate that pending response from Multichill. Came across another non-conforming file: File:Bomans romanfiguur Erik onthuld in Thijsse's Hof in Bloemendaal, Bestanddeelnr 929-1878.jpg. Our info matches that of the link to Nationaal Archief but I think they've got wires crossed on their end. (It looks like the image ought to be the next one following File:Bomans romanfiguur Erik onthuld in Thijsse's Hof in Bloemendaal mevrouw Boman, Bestanddeelnr 929-1877.jpg, but instead it is from Johan Ferrier's state visit. Do we change our description and file name to what matches the image and what we think it should be or what? Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few of these. But what's the problem? Is the Nationaal Archief version correct or is the mistake there too?
If it's our mistake, then fix the image to match the filename – that gives a much clearer history. Otherwise (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Edit-warring_and_time-wasting_from_Vysotsky) it ends up with a bad redirect. We might need to create a new page to hold the 'spare' image that has been removed, so long as we can find its source record at the archive, and we don't already have it.
But in this case, the Nationaal Archief page seems to be incorrect too. We can't really fix that (this isn't the first I've seen). In that case I'd use the {{Fact}} template to tag that the page filename and metadata are wrong (even the photographer might be wrong), but I'd leave the incorrect image there and try to categorize the page on the basis of the image, as best I could. It would probably be worth creating a category for these as Category:Images from Nationaal Archief with metadata errors. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Ferrier photo was made on 21 May 1977, at Schiphol Airport, on Ferrier's first state visit to the Netherlands as prime minister of Suriname, as announced here. The man on the left is Freek Bischoff van Heemskerck. The photographer was most likely Koen Suyk, but I have sent a request to the Dutch National Archives to be sure about that (and about the license). It makes sense to change the metadata (description etc.) and the file name. Let's wait till I have a response from Nationaal Archief. More information about the Anefo collection and its road to Commons can be found here and here. Vysotsky (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 929-1878, I've updated the categories, but neither changed the text meta-data nor requested a file move. I did so not only because of Vysotsky's information, but also because I found 929-1885 which by way of background, same people, and same outfits confirms the date, location, and names. Cheers, SVTCobra 22:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do we keep the Anefo archive intact when some people freely replace it as in this edit? Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert that bit, and tell them you're reverting it. It's usually an accident. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. This is over two years old, but I thought I'd show it to you as a courtesy. Diff. Cheers,

Category:Crimp connectors[edit]

Category:Crimp connectors 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 category, 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.

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!

  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locations Anefo[edit]

Dear User:Andy Dingley, Many of the so-called "locations" in the descriptions of Anefo (Nationaal Archief) don't tell the complete story. Constructing categories on the basis of the metadata is quite daring. See this category, in which the location is not Zürich but Schiphol. One needs to understand the Dutch text to construct useful categories. I have seen dozens of these misinterpretations. Vysotsky (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. I agree! I have seen scores of examples of Anefo not using their "Locatie" field correctly. Photos from Schiphol Airport often has the destination or origin country of the travelers as the location. I've seen photos in the Tweede Kamer being labelled as being South America, because that is what the politicians were debating that day. Photos at Soestdijk Palace being tagged as the country of the foreign dignitary who is visiting Queen Juliana. I could go on and on. --SVTCobra 00:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taking in incomplete and incorrect metadata is partly the price we have to pay for automatic uploading of a very useful collection of press photographs from an interesting and not well-covered period (re images in Wiki), but we should be careful in building complete sets of categories in Commons based on that information. All I ask is to be careful in constructing categories of that sort. Vysotsky (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? You're not pulling that "You're not Dutch, so you shouldn't be editing Dutch content." bobbins again?
The metadata on these is far from perfect. Over the last couple of days I had to change thousands of them to get the name accreditation for Jack de Nijs correct. Worse, many of those weren't even by Jack de Nijs, or they were and were mis-attributed. This one (and others) had the subject name creeping into the photographer namespace.
Yes, the "Location" field for airports is as commonly used for destinations and sources as it has been for the location of the airport. Most of these I've spotted, this one I must have missed. But I am really tired of you forever trying to turn this into a personalised pissing contest about how you're the only editor fit to be here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I look at your accusations with amazement. I like sharing my expertise, and have always encouraged other people to improve and make use of the Anefo collection. That's the reason why I wrote several articles about the Anefo collection. Regarding the example you gave (publisher Geert van Oorschot vs photographer van Oorschot): Mr.Nostalgic had to find a way to get the names of the Anefo photographers into Commons categories, uploading well over 300.000 photographs. He found a good way to work on that, and in the months afterwards he corrected the inevitable mistakes that are caused by automatic uploads. I assisted him in that work, as you can see in the file you gave as an example: uploaded by Mr.Nostalgic in Jan. 2018; categories corrected by me in March 2018, to show the actual depicted person and the actual photographer. Let's please work together, instead of wasting time on discussions. Vysotsky (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this, where you "fixed" it, but still left the Author field as van Oorschot. Yet you're the one who feels entitled to talk down to other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anefo, bad meta[edit]

I removed Hans van Dijk from these. Cheers, SVTCobra 02:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, maybe we need to scan the whole corpus and search for any that are still in two photographer cats. Pain to check for, but we can (just about) do it with some SPARQL Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]