User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2012
- 1 2012
- 2 Type 756 telephone
- 3 File:Liverpool Overhead Railway (All About Railways, Hartnell).jpg
- 4 Straight or parallel?
- 5 "Steam engines with xyz"
- 6 File:60163 Tornado firebox door.jpg
- 7 Unresolved issue Napier Deltic
- 8 SVG coarsity
- 9 Sir Malcolm Campbell
- 10 Category:Piston engines
- 11 Categories on File:Turbinia At Speed.jpg
- 12 Category:Scans from 'Rankin Kennedy, Electrical Installations, Vol II', 1909
Type 756 telephone
File:GPO 756 Two Tone Grey Telephone.JPG is clearly labeled as a type 756 and has pushbuttons rather than the dial that a 746 has. It seems to have been re-added to Category:Telephone 746 without explanation. Why is it there? --Closeapple (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Same reason the 741 wall-mount is, or an 8746. These were variant phones within the 746 series (rather than the 200, 300 or 706) and they're generally grouped by that series. The internal workings are mostly identical - some modules, like the dial/pushbutton or the wall-mount switchhooks, are changed, but the core instrument is a "746".
- The category name might be phrased as "746 series", as the 200 & 300s are, but its scope is clearly more useful in the broad sense. I wouldn't even rename it - it's common use to refer to all of these as "746s". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I really think think - for a number of reasons such as the design of train and line - that this is a Mersey Railway EMU. Have you still got the book and if so can you check? Thanks. Edgepedia (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Straight or parallel?
Splitting up engine pictures into different categories is really unhelpful. Why, for example, do you think a Kawasaki W800 is an inline twin, while a Triumph engine is a parallel-twin? For now I have restored things to the simplest setup i.e. all in the same category until it can be agreed (if it can be agreed) what the exact difference is. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Raised at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/07/Category:Straight-two motorcycle engines
- Why do we need this made-up name to describe what are only motorcycle engines (it's not Category:Straight-two engines), when "straight-two" is obscure at best in any case and isn't used anywhere around motorbikes. Category:Parallel-twin motorcycle engines is by far the better name for these.
- As to your specific points.
- I have been entirely silent on the matter of the Kawasaki W800. I know nothing of it, therefore haven't touched it.
- I haven't described anything as an "inline twin" (W800 or not). As you are well aware, that's a problem term, so I haven't used it.
- I haven't even described anything as a "straight-twin". All I've done is to correctly sub-categorize images like File:Triumph 1951 Grand Prix 6 Paralleltwin.jpg as parallel-twins. These are parallel-twins, that is the term used to describe them in motorcycling contexts.
- Note also that there is some discussion over "parallel twin" and whether this is interpreted narrowly (360° four-stroke twins), broadly (transverse twins) or extremely broadly ("straight twos"). Even if (as seems unlikely and was disproved by WP:RS) we use the most narrow 360° interpretation, the images concerned here meet that narrow scope too.
- You appear to be dragging an argument from en:WP over to Commons. As Commons is not trying to describe both motorbike and non-motorbike engines within the same context, the problem that has bedevilled en:WP thus far simply has no relevance. We can call parallel-twin motorbike engines exactly that, as we ought. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The argument at Wikipedia was dragged over here by bridge boy himself by creating the parallel-twin category here. Prior to his involvement motorcycle engines were happily sat in the one category. I really don't see the need to change when the distinction between inline-twin, straight-twin, parallel-twin, etc is so subjective. Better to choose one category for all motorcycle engines which have two cylinders side-by-side and stick with it. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
"Steam engines with xyz"
I suggest you rethink this naming scheme rather than just reverting me. It makes no sense to name what is apparently intended as a tree of images sharing a certain detail, as if it were a tree categorising objects by that detail. You wouldn't name the LED car headlamp category, 'cars with LED headlights' would you? Same here as I see it. If this category is only for actual images of the sidebar/valvegear etc (I've no idea where else this format might be used), it should be named accordingly. Cats with names like 'Steam engines with XYZ' should be an over-arching tree by bringing together all the categories of steam locos that have that detail. At present, nobody using Commons would have any idea that they might be able to put more images of that specific valvegear in that category, by looking through the A1 class tree etc. Ultra7 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Beleive it or not, but that photo was taken when the loco was still in grey livery. If you don't believe me, and think that the upload/metadata dates that make it impossible to be anything else are mistaken/corrupted/forged, then perhaps you will consider this news page from the A1 Trust website. Check the entry for 27th May 2008, which states that the inside of the cab was painted in the finished apple green, ie while the loco was still being assembled. If you want further proof, if you look at this image, and zoom in on the rear edge of the cab side wall, you can just about make out the green, on an otherwise grey loco. While it may seem counter to what's in that particular photo, it's entirely appropriate to categorise this in the grey livery category, because that's for images of the loco during that period. Who knows, it may even help someone in future wanting to solve just this kind of mystery should they have similar images. I shall add a clarfiying note to the category, and all affected image descriptions, of which I can see three, just to be sure. Ultra7 (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Unresolved issue Napier Deltic
- It took some time. Please have a look. Best --MB-one (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I converted my morbidly obese .png files to svelte .svg files. Unfortunately, the Commons script made extremely coarse compressions the default. Is there a way to make the rich images the default? (They are still smaller than the comparable .png files.) Discussion) 15:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)(
- Sorry, I'm not familiar with this. I suspect (for MediaWiki in geenral) it's in the settings passed to ImageMagick, so should be configurable through the PHP (maybe LocalSettings.php) However for Wikimedia projects like Commons, such flexibility is out of the hands of mere mortals, and even admins.
- There may be Commons graphics people who know some means to tweak with this per-image, but I'm afraid I'm not one of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for help. :)
- I asked for help from Professor David Eppstein, who is a specialist in computer graphics, on English Wikipedia. He's uploaded many fine .svg files. Discussion) 10:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC) (
Sir Malcolm Campbell
Hi Andy, quite a while back we discussed Sir Malcolm Campbell. There is an odd landmark at Daytona Beach, called the "Clocktower." For many years, it seemed out of place to me, since I could not figure out why it was built. I just learned today, that there is a plaque at the Clocktower, dedicated to Sir Malcolm Campbell. Waymarking Time Trials were held on the beach, and Campbell participated in them. EUREKA! Of course, the Clocktower makes sense to me now! I took a photo of the Clocktower a few years ago and marked it Public Domain. I'll take a photo of the plaque for you when I am able. Cheers. Gamweb (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks If you look at Category:Daytona Beach Road Course, there are some photos of these LSR runs taking place. Campbell was just one of those taking part, Henry Segrave was another successful run there.Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Your comment on your revert was, that my edit is undiscussed, neither was the former state. The definition of piston engines includes non-internal combustion also. You can check with en:Reciprocating engine if you need to. Best, --MB-one (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but so what? The category as in use on Commons today is clearly that of internal combustion piston engines, whatever the category title is. Read the description para, read the subcategories.
- If you want to change this (and by all means do so), then either suggest renaming the category to a more accurate name, such as "internal combustion piston engines", or else change the parent categories, the subcategories and the description text so as to be consistent with the broad name "Piston engines". Then create a new category called "internal combustion piston engines", because that's obviously an important category and we're still going to need it.
- What doesn't work is to do just one bit of it, such as changing the parent category as you did here, but to still leave a set of now inconsistent child categories. Edit or do not edit, there is no half-edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Categories on File:Turbinia At Speed.jpg
Hi Andy Dingley,
Regarding your recent "category restoration" edit on File:Turbinia At Speed.jpg I just wanted to point out that Category:Turbinia (ship, 1894) is already in Category:Steam turbine ships, which is why I removed the first link (COM:OVERCAT).
As for the second category (Category:Parsons steam turbines), it seemed a very weak link (the media doesn’t actually show one such turbine) so I removed it.
None of this is worth fighting over and I’m not going to revert your changes, but I’d appreciate a word of explanation from you regarding your edit so I can understand your point of view. Thanks, Ariadacapo (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Steam turbine ships is implicit, agreed - remove it if you wish. The point about Parsons turbines though is that the whole of the Parsons turbine's success is really based on this one ship and its high-speed run through the Spithead review. That single ability and incident demonstrated the capabilities of the turbine and its advantages over the reciprocating engine.
- As there are (AFAIK) no good photos of Spithead that indicate Turbinia's speed, but this trials photo does and is well known, it's a historic photo re turbine history just in its own right. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Category:Scans from 'Rankin Kennedy, Electrical Installations, Vol II', 1909
Hi Andy, you are doing great work scanning those old engineering textbooks. It seems there are some minor inconsistencies with the Category:Scans from 'Rankin Kennedy, Electrical Installations, Vol II', 1909.
- The category title mentions Vol II but the description mentions "Scans from a five-volume"
- Also it seems more appropriate to categorize this category in Category:Scanned works by Rankin Kennedy then in Category:Scans from 'Rankin Kennedy, Electrical Installations', 1903
- I stopped scanning for Commons a year or two back, as I was fed up with being told how bad my scans were. Much of the Rankin Kennedy stuff has now been deleted (even the aircraft book, which is incredibly rare) – so just join the queue if you feel like deleting another volume or two.
- It would seem unhelpful to move the categorization of the 1909 book from under the 1903 book, especially not to an obscure author category that no-one will bother looking at. I have three editions of this book (Kennedy's habit was to publish a first edition of about three volumes in the set, then grow by a volume for each new edition. There's a lot of overlap, but also a lot of useful addition) If they were ever scanned in full (even though it's unlikely I'll waste my own time here again) then we could create a category for the book in general. In the meantime though, the current situation is probably for the best. Excess categorization depth is just make-work for readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining, I guess you are quite right about this category. I am sorry to hear about those responses and the removal of some of your work. I have no intention of removing more of your work. I am just trying to improve the categorization (and retrieval) of historical technical drawings, and I happy to have linked your work to the category-tree of historical technical drawings. -- Mdd (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)