User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2013

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
← [[../Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".|Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".]] |
Archive {{{1}}}
| [[../Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".|Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".]] →

Category:Sectioned_drawings[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Sectioned_drawings 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Mapmarks (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Stationary_engines[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Stationary_engines 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Ariadacapo (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User rights[edit]

Hi Andy. I've added the filemover and rollbacker rights to your acct so that you'll have the tools you need for your work here. INeverCry 20:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Image[edit]

Hi! The image I uploaded of Shiva Ayyadurai got deleted, twice. It's posted on his site under an open license, and I emailed the site manager to check on copyright and they said it was a work-for-hire and they own the copyright. I didn't notice the deletion discussion until after it was taken down. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:V.A.Shiva.2012.jpg

Not sure what I need to do differently. It asked for rightsholder, license, and reference, all of which I listed when I uploaded the image, so this hassle seems unnecessary.

Arttechlaw (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


It's not on his site under a free licence, it's listed [1] as "© 2007-2013 VA Shiva. | All rights reserved" and also in more depth at [2]. You and I don't get to change this when we upload content from such a website, as it's not ours.
If Shiva Ayyadurai (or whoever the rights holder is) wishes to release one of these images under a free licence for hosting at Commons, then they need to contact Commons via WP:OTRS to record this. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

two-bit writers[edit]

I enjoyed reading this. Especially: WP is stuffed full of every two-bit motivational author and management consultant uploading their CV. These may call for use of the administrative flamethrower. "Motivational" -- yes; the WP article on motivation has long been dominated by pop psychology nonsense; I wish a real psychologist or three (with PhDs from real universities) would descend on it and write something worth reading.

And especially: Particularly when it comes from editors at Commons who have a scant handful of images to their own credit, if that. Very well observed; me in a nutshell. I'm in Tokyo and I have a camera; anything in particular that you'd like? -- Hoary (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't you I was thinking of - someone else from a different issue, who is largely the reason I gave up contributing to Commons. My own efforts "aren't good enough" in quality terms, which is why I no longer "abuse" Commons by putting them here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so there are other (non-) contributors who are more dickish than I am. I learn of this with mixed emotions. Anyway, would you like any particular photos from Tokyo? I can't promise to supply them, but I do promise to consider requests. (Meanwhile, I tried to clarify matters on that talk page, but my effort was perhaps incompetent; anyway, it didn't go down well.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Interlanguage reverts[edit]

I noticed you reverted several of my edits, two of which you commented "No, link to the articles." and the rest with no explanation at all. I'm unsure why you did this except for you preferring links to articles rather than categories. djr13 (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is our regular practice, and it's far more useful for readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with both of those points. The reason I started using categories was because I seen it as the more common form of interlanguage link. As well, I find it more appropriate and useful for Commons categories to direct to the respective Wikipedia categories, giving readers a similar category structure to navigate, with similar categorization purposes, and a variety of available further reading, all in their language where possible. djr13 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's a clue: you roll up at Commons as a new editor, and half of your initial edits are "fixing" something where everyone else was already doing it wrong.
Bit of a hint, that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
You're right, I only recently started bothering to edit Commons. Does that then mean I know nothing about Commons's navigation structure or de facto common practices thereof? djr13 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. In any case, if you're interested in exploring the issue rather than postulating on my capacity for understanding, head on over to Help talk:Interlanguage links#Preference for articles or categories?. djr13 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
There are two possibilities: You're magically right, and your hyper-intellectual naivete has broken a wiki logjam of years.
...or else it wasn't broken before, and now you have broken it. Tricky question, but I think I know where my money would be going. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Worth noting is Help:Interlanguage links was created in January of last year. Maybe there is prior discussion or consensus on the difference between the two link preferences that I haven't seen? I wonder how many interlanguage links have been created by people like me without your vast experiences enough to develop wisdom of undiscussed consensus, or just going for what they feel right. Maybe we need statistics on which is more common in order to have a proper dick measuring contest. Or maybe instead of debating your hyper-intellectual genius and my sarcastic-hyper-intellectual naivety isn't so productive, and we should just consider the possibility that it's something that most editors generally don't bother to change, leaving it up to category editors and their domains of interest to decide. Or am I just a stupid-head who knows nut'tin, and we'll leave it at that? djr13 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Flat-4 automobile engines[edit]

Hello.

Why do you think that here it is incorrect? Ain92 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a vertical inline 4 (like nearly everything), not a flat 4 (like a Volkswagen Beetle). Do you have any other photos or sources to show that it's a flat 4? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Are you confusing a flat engine with a flathead (or sidevalve) engine? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I understood, you are right. The engine that I photographed is a derivative of Ford Model A engine licensed copy, so AFAIK it has 8 side valves. Could I copy the image to Straight-4 automobile engines? Ain92 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've already added it to the sidevalve category. You could add it to Category:Straight-4 automobile engines, but that's not a category I ever use. There are simply too many car engines that fit into this category, so things are just lost within it.
The best idea might be to create a new category for Category:Straight-4 sidevalve automobile engines and add it to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know what that engine is, but it's not a 1929 engine. It's something added by a customiser more recently. As it's painted blue, I'd guess that it's a Ford engine (looks like it might be a Pinto), but that's my WP:OR so I wouldn't claim that for definite. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ScreenShot XsdEditor.png[edit]

Hi Andy, I replied to what you wrote, but I'm not completely sure I understood what your original concern was - so I'd be grateful if you could tell me whether I answered you or if I completely missed the point. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A belated barnstar[edit]

Restorationist's Barnstar.png The Historical Media Barnstar
For the hundreds of scans of old photos and engravings on mechanical and technological subjects that you contributed. Good show! Morgan Riley (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Florida Photographic Collection[edit]

Andy, could you help with Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Another_exotic_license discussion. We are trying to figure out several templates and licenses related to Florida Photographic Collection. --Jarekt (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Bays of Wales[edit]

Hi Andy. I'm puzzled why you re-added Category:Bays of Wales to Category:Coasts of Wales. This seems a directly similar situation to the example quoted at Commons:Categories#For more appropriate categorization. The example given is:

Example: Assume that Category:Spheres contains only pictures of crystal balls. You must not add Category:Glass in the category page, according to the current contents, because you can have spheres made with a great variety of materials. Normally, any picture showing a glass object would be already categorized in Category:Glass (or in a category of its substructure). So, if the Category:Spheres is really crowded with crystal balls pictures, it would be a better idea to create a new category page, like Category:Glass spheres or Category:Crystal balls, categorized in Category:Spheres and Category:Glass.

Surely the direct analogy would be:

Example: Assume that Category:Bays contains only pictures of coastal bays. You must not add Category:Coasts in the category page, according to the current contents, because you can have bays on lakes or reservoirs. Normally, any picture showing a coastal bay would be already categorized in Category:Coasts (or in a category of its substructure). So, if the Category:Bays is really crowded with coastal bays pictures, it would be a better idea to create a new category page, like Category:Coastal bays, categorized in Category:Bays and Category:Coasts.

I'm not advocating that we need to divide Category:Bays into coastal and lake/reservoir categories, as most images will also be included in subcategories of Category:Coasts, but surely it cannot be correct to include images of bays on lakes high in the mountains of Snowdonia under Category:Coasts. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Bays are a feature of coasts. Now there may be bays that do not form part of a coast, but these are very much the exception. Certainly it can't be said (as in your analogy) that "bays are part of a great variety of locations, other than coasts".
As stated before, MediaWiki categorization is a feature for automatically building useful navigational structures based on worthwhile associations. It is not an ontologically-defining mechanism and, owing to the inherent limitations of MediaWiki, it's just not possible for a Wikimedia project to choose to treat it as such in any useful fashion. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. In that case, do you not think the help page needs clarifying? Most bays are on the coast, but there are a great many that are not (many lakes have bays, as is stated in the article at en:Bay: Bays also exist as an inlet in a lake or pond, such as those found in otherwise land-locked areas like Wisconsin and other Great Lake states.. The inference on the help page I certainly took to read that if something is not necessarily part of the larger category, then it does not get categorised as such. You are suggesting that this only applies if "a great variety of" comes into play. The obvious question is when does "a great variety of" come into play? At 10 possible options? At 100 possible options? The piece I pointed to is the only example given on the help pages, so there is nowhere else to look for guidance. As a different type of example, the European Union consists of 27 countries: 10 (at least for a couple more months) from what was known as Eastern Europe, and 17 from Western Europe. As the overwhelming majority are from what was Western Europe, should it hypothetically be included in Category:Institutions of Western Europe? I would argue most definitely not, on the basis that not all its members are from Western Europe. However, your reasoning seems to leave that open to argument. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Put it this way. Name one bay in Wales that isn't on the coast. Wales is not in Wisconsin, or even Finland. There is a distinct lack of lakes big enough to spin a leek in. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Western bay of Llyn Gadair
This one for starters. Llyn Peris and Llyn Trawsfynydd both have bays, as does Llandegfedd Reservoir. I know it's not in Wales, but even the Chew Valley Reservoir at Greenfield, in Saddleworth, has several bays, and that's tiny! A lake doesn't have to be particularly large to contain a bay. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Llyn Gadair's bay is less than a hundred yards across. Now generously we might still consider it "a bay" (although string-matching geograph captions isn't a RS for geographical features) but that is far from a reason to start redefining the scope of Cardigan Bay as being on the coast or not, because the shape of some village pond has a few outdents. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Whitesands Bay
Ceci n'est pas une plage
Whitesands Bay
Mais ceci est certainement une plage
This is a well-known beach in Wales. It's also called "Whitesands Bay", not "Whitesands Beach" (although the "Sands" part is a bit of a hint). Your edit summary claim, "Categories amended: a bay is not a beach" is simply wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I presume from this that your argument is that the name Whitesands Bay applies equally to the bay and the beach, not merely the bay? If so, on looking at it again, I accept this. I see that you've restored it to Category:Beaches of Pembrokeshire, so presume no further action is required. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
"Whitesands Bay" is not only a beach, it's listed as a beach with good water quality in the Blue Flag standards. Are you seriously proposing splitting the category into "The bay that is called Whitesands" and "Other things that are called Whitesands Bay and are in the same location"? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Tell you what. Why don't you try reading what I put and maybe you'll see I suggested no such thing? Skinsmoke (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking at what your actual edits were. You decategorised Whitesands Bay as a beach, on the grounds that bays weren't beaches and seemingly couldn't also be beaches. Now that means that either you're decategorizing the beach at Whitesands altogether, or you're splitting Whitesands in two. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Side propellers[edit]

Paddle wheel in a dry pond.

I moved the images of the paddle wheels to the right category. What is left are images of a device we call in Dutch a "zijschroef", being a propeller with lifting device on the side of a barge. Do you have a better name in English for a device like this? --Stunteltje (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Side propellers" sounds reasonable for these (there may be another name, but I don't know it). The point is that they're propellers - a helical screw. Paddle wheels though are not propellers (they're not helical) and don't belong in this category.
Having paddle wheels overall as a sub cat of ship propellers is reasonable – it's better than creating some arbitrary container of "ship's twirly propulsiony things" Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
We cannot use the word propeller differently in category names, that only furthers confusion; either must propeller be generally restricted to helical screws, or, according to its literal meaning, comprise all devices that drive forward vehicles, with propelling screw as a subcategory. Besides, paddle wheels are not only used to propel ships, but can even be simple water wheels, as seen in the picture to the right.--Abderitestatos (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy with ship propellers applied to the overall paddle wheel category (and I agree, they're not helical), because it avoids creating yet another wiki-neologism and I see that as a worse thing. However I do recognise that there's an issue here.
What we must do though is to preserve the distinction between waterwheels (driven by flow) and paddle wheels (creating a flow). Your change here was both inaccurate and misleading.
As to paddle wheels used on land (as illustrated), then these are so obscure that I'm not going to bother categorizing them separately. However they are paddle wheels (wheels that are driven to create a flow), rather than waterwheels that use a flow to extract mechanical power. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Paddle wheel mill.

So you would not categorize the water wheel on the picture to the left, which in my opinion is a construction quite common rather than obscure, as a paddle wheel? By the way, screw propeller, propelling screw and, to some extent, even paddle wheel propeller have been used in technical literature for more then a century, thus those are certainly not neologisms. --Abderitestatos (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just had to revert your completely incorrect attempt to merge water wheels into paddle wheels. Please stop this, and don't try it again until you understand the difference between them.
  • Paddle wheels are driven by engines and cause a water flow. They are used to propel boats, but some (like the algae farm example right) are also rarely found as simple pumps, on land.
  • Water wheels (example left) are driven by water flow and provide mechanical power to a mill etc. They are not used on boats.
Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notification[edit]

Hello, plz participate in the discussion concerning your recent recent edits started by a fellow filemover here. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC).

Hello please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Andy_Dingley_redux.--KTo288 (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you renaming all gauge categories in metric form?[edit]

Can you please point me to where I did that? I see

which I did not rename, and don't plan to rename. Wikimedia Commons is a multilingual project and Imperial categories are fine for those that are familiar with it. The others can use the mm-categories.

So, where did I rename any category "in metric form"? HSRtrack (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Media without a license: needs history check[edit]

Hi, thanks for the help in Category:Media without a license: needs history check. But when you tagging files as {{no license since}} ou should inform the uploader about this to give him a chance to correct that. The easiest way to do that is to active the quick delete gadget in our peferences. Then you only hav to klick on "missing license" and the rest will be done automacticly. PS: you are checking each file history? There are a lot of files where the valid license got lost and just need to be "restored". regards. --JuTa 21:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, hadn't seen that gadget.
An awful lot of these do have a recoverable history, a great many of which seem to be a "Flickr review" that also deleted the licence template. I don't know if there was some unfortunate technical reason for that happening. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Thx for using the gadget now :) another little thing: I remove Category:Media without a license: needs history check from the description page when I chacked such an image. Thats important espacially when you recovered or fixed the license, cause the next helper will find your checks again in the Category and has to open and check the files again. Would be nice if you could do that addional step as well. (PS: With the gadget Hot Cat its also only on klick.) thx and regards. --JuTa 22:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Only if the "missing licence" problem has then been resolved (which I estimate so far as about 1 in 20). If it's still unlicensed or now up for deletion, I plan to leave it in place. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And it now seems that I've been blocked anyway. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Bluebird at Goodwood Festival of Speed[edit]

Apparently a replica of the Bluebird V was transported from Daytona Beach to the UK for the Goodwood Festival of Speed. Not sure when this will occur; if there is still time, get your camera out and snap away. Gamweb (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm unlikely to get to Goodwood, but I have friends who usually do. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them.
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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them.
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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them.
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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them.
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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them.
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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Discovery museum[edit]

A few new photos for the collection: Category:Discovery Museum (Newcastle upon Tyne)

--ClemRutter (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I used to live up there years ago. I remember seeing Turbinia, but not much else of this collection was on display. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them.
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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, ghouston (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Garrats of the Welsh Highland Railway and Category:NG G16 locomotives of the Welsh Highland Railway[edit]

Hello Andy, are these categories really necessary? The WHR has seven or eight steam locomotives, six of them Garrats, five of these class G16. All of them can directly be found under Category:Steam locomotives of the Welsh Highland Railway, which certainly is not overflowing (in my opinion the only reason to create such intermediate categories). --Telford (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Fordson Major[edit]

What's to talk about? Eddaido (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Woodworking machinery[edit]

This category already has a Category:Planers, jointers and thicknessers, so at least

are overcategorised, unless you delete Category:Planers, jointers and thicknessers, (my preference). By the way, do you have a category for File:Damen machinery at open day 09-11-2013 (26).JPG and File:Damen machinery at open day 09-11-2013 (29).JPG --Stunteltje (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that the purpose of categorization is to improve the ease of navigation for readers? It does not exist to give admins something to do, or to invent fatuous polices such as "no item may ever be categorized in a parent of another category". Forcing the readers of "woodworking machinery" to navigate into multiple levels of sub-category, just to find examples of very common woodworking machines, is unconstructive. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't make the Commons policies and agree. But why didn't you split-up Category:Planers, jointers and thicknessers? --Stunteltje (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
These are groups of machinery whose function is frequently confused, and whose common occurrence varies internationally, as does their naming. This is a carefully thought out and well described set of categories. Why are you so keen to destroy it? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)