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This user is, of their own volition, no longer active on Wikimedia Commons.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]

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)

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)

Electricity pylons of Cádiz[edit]

Why did you remove "Category:Hyperboloid electricity pylons" from "Electricity pylons of Cádiz"? I was thanked for making that category and have been organizing the hyperboloid sections. Curious. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

They're a conical lattice, but they're not hyperboloids. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
In progressive levels/stages/steps? I don't see it. It may not be Shukhov-style doubly ruled tower, but I do see curvature, though not the top third, and I don't think perspective created that. I already know things like the Category:Macau Science Center are conical and don't belong in hyperboloids. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
What's a hyperboloid (in this sense)? It's a hollow cylinder, vertical and tapered, which is constructed from straight rods at a diagonal to the vertical. In this structural sense (as there's no advantage to a hyperboloid otherwise) there are a network of multiple crossings with each of these rods, for each bay. Note that I'm only including steel gridshells here and excluding the more common brick or concrete hyperboloids used for cooling towers. These structures are geodesic [sic], but not true spaceframes (there are bending moments coupled into the rods). By their inherent geometry, the rotation of a set of straight rods produces the distinctively waisted hyperboloid curve.
Most hyperboloid towers use a single bay but Shukhov used multiple bays for the tall towers. However there are still multiple crossings within each bay (the hyperboloid design conveys no advantage otherwise).
The Cadiz towers are not hyperboloids. They do not have multiple crossings within each bay. Each bay is only short and there is a single diagonal within each bay. These rods are not straight between these short bays. Structurally they can be analysed as a large number of short stacked rings and they are less structurally efficient (weight carried / mass of structure) than a hyperboloid. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all that. Very interesting stuff. So it was progressive stages. Did they know at the time that they weren't as efficient as hyperboloids? So this brings us back to a new dilemma. For some reason you've chosen only steel gridshells and excluded brick and concrete hyperboloids with a negative Gaussian curvatures, or those that appear curved as such. Would this call for a new category, class, nomenclature, etc? Such as "hyperboloid-like"? "Faux-hyperbolic"? Ideas? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, what are we talking about? For "electricity pylons", I only know of the steel gridshells. For the others, then anything hyperboloid should probably be categorised as such. And looking here, we have at least three structurally distinct forms: masonry shells, vertical shaped ribs, and rotated straight members. There's enough of those to fill a category each, at least.
We might even split the masonry into concrete and brick. Brick is rarer, earlier, and some were more conical - so there might be both brick cooling towers and hyperboloid brick cooling towers, underneath hyperboloid cooling towers. Although this isn't a strong split, I guess the sheer numbers for the concrete examples would encourage this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Gosh that's a lot to think about. I thought I was just about done with hyperboloids (though I hadn't really even touched cooling towers). Please feel free to expand on your ideas above if you like, (ie. give me instructions or whatever), reference me to missed items that should be included, or refine my novice organizing efforts here:
And to think, I thought I was almost ready to move on to Category:Tensile structures, Category:Tensile membrane structures, and Category:Tensegrity. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Ping? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I've been away for a few days. There's not much more I can add here. Any more detail I could add here would need more research and referencing than I can do from memory.
For the steel masts, I do think it's worth linking to the non hyperboloids, but making it clear that they're not quite the same thing. Especially the battleships, where this was a quite deliberate choice. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Part 1: No worries. Thanks for all your insights and info. I don't know I can act on it or if I'll bother to research it further to feel confident enough, but ping me if you ever wish to later. Part 2: I don't understand what you mean. The steel hyperboloid masts were already "separated" which compelled me to sort of separate other stuff like observation towers from skyscrapers from water towers. However I haven't gone back and cleaved the straight ruled hyperboloids from the hyperboloid-shaped structures. I don't know if this is what you are referring to. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Loco[edit]

Ok, what to do in those cases? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean?
The class was named after monarchs. 6000 itself (one loco) was named after George V. That's what the categorisation now reflects. We're done. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes but is too generic, I guess. Do we know after how many monarchs those trains were named? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
There are thirty of them. They were all named after British kings (manybe English kings - I haven't checked). The class is universally (i.e. everywhere except WP) known as the King class. This is unlike the more numerous Castle class (170 of those) where even Wales ran out of enough castles to name them after and so some had other names. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)