User talk:Babydoll0409

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Babydoll0409!

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Babydoll0409!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't blank pages[edit]

Hi Babydoll0409,
Thank you for your contributions to Commons. I noticed you blanked Category:Rainhill railway station on Commons. If you meant for the page to be deleted, blanking the page is not the right way to do this. A simple real-world comparison to illustrate: You removed the entire text of a page from a thick folder, but the then empty, useless page itself remained in the folder.

Please use {{speedy| type reason here }} and add it on top of the page you would like to have deleted; This way it will be placed on a special list that administrators check regularly for deletion. Without this it might take a long time before it's noticed.

For redirects use #REDIRECT[[Target]] or {{category redirect|Targetcategoryname}}. For more information please read Blanking. Thanks again. –Krinkletalk 00:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC) ===Thanks. Made a mistake wanted to make it capital (Rainhill Railway Station). Getting late i'll look at this tomorrow. Babydoll0409 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Categorys[edit]

You seem to be creating category to contain a single item. This is not good practice. You should only create categories when it aid locating the images. Creating one for each railway station on the northern line is not a good idea unless there are multiple images to occupy each category.--JIrate (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I don't understand what is or isn't good practice, so to speak, you can point me in the right direction. I've just been trying to clean things up a bit, with all due respect many of the images are catagorised impossibly. Which is why i've been cleaning them up.

When you say single items well if it were train stations each station is identified by it's name - if there's only one image i don't see the problem. Though if single items is wrong (ie with each station) then perhaps they're better just as "Northern Line" or "Wirral Line" etc? what do you think ? I just thought each pic should be with the relevent station. It is like you suggest, about aiding locating each image. Which is all this comes to in the end. Babydoll0409 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless there are say 3 or more images do not create a category for each image. It makes it very difficult to search. You said "each pic should be with the relevent station" Can you explain what you mean. The WikiCommons the images are the be all and end all.--JIrate (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Lets clear this up, you seem to be struggling with what i've said -

"Each pic should be with the relevent station", i am of course referring to the images for train stations so what is the problem with this? All i can see is a jumbled mess. If there is an image for say Bootle Oriel Rd station, why not create a page for this as it is a train station ? It is apparent to me that hundreds of stations are on here so why should stations not be mentioned here? I also do not know why putting a said image under the station it appears to be pictured at, make it difficult to find. After all there are several links like Northern Line, Merseyrail and so on.

I dont understand why you refer to wikicommons the images are the be all and end all; what exactly have i done wrong ? I quite agree the image is the be all and end all, what i found is that majority are on the wrong category...i have tried to file them like in a filing cabinet. Eg if an image has the statue at Crosby beach, it is "Another Place" and not ..Metropolitan Borough of Sefton... (Another place is a category within Sefton just to show it is not lost in anyway). Babydoll0409 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of pictures of Another Place. You creating categories for single images. If you want a picture of a railway station in Sefton, then having a category for pictures of railway stations in Sefton make sense, as my selecting the cat you can view thumbnails of images, together. Under you system that category would just contain a cat for each station and most of those would containing single image with nothing to compare it to.
You say "what i found is that majority are on the wrong category", this is very much your opinion. It is possible to create individual categories for every image so they all sit in a category of there own. Every image can be categorised not only by it's location but further by the view direction, time of day, creator. To avoid such problems only create cats where there is a clear need.
Filing cabinets do not have infinite space and every new file folder takes up space. The number of objects than can be stored in a draw is reduces as the number of folders is increased. In the same way having categories for each image is inefficient.

--JIrate (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I quite agree with you. But my only puzzle is that using the train station analogy, i am just following what is on Wikipedia & in addition there are hundreds of stations like i said already on Wikimedia from around the country so why should Merseyside stations be any different. The fact that there are only one image in some cases is the way it is, the more popular stations get more pictures etc. I do think each image (still talking about train stations) could be added the cat "Railway stations in Sefton" and so on, to give them more visibility....I'll come back to it okay?

That's just one example i will look at what i have done or continue to do Babydoll0409 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing categories and pages. On Wikipedia say the Maghull railway station article is in the category Stations in Sefton. On WikiCommons the image is the equivalent of the article. WikiCommons does have articles like Liverpool. --JIrate (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Not at all, really dont know where you get that from. (I certainly am not saying Maghull is in Liverpool to use your example, i place it in Sefton). If anything i have corrected many locations. As it is you dont seem to be happy with what i am doing, but listen i am trying my best to place each image correctly i think it's great so many images are on here of which you have provided many. With all due respect i have found images like the Coronation pub, Childwall Valley Road, Childwall, categorised as Huyton, and so on (ie nothing to do with Huyton). Babydoll0409 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
To be honest i think youre being very unfair. I have by far improved these pages if you look at it Towns and villages in Sefton, Knowsley, St Helens all improved with their localities having images that were previously just titled "Metropolitan Borough of....." and so mixed. I would be grateful if you'd give me some credit instead of picking holes. Babydoll0409 (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but in a lot of cases I do not think you have improved things. The measure your using is inappropriate, I don't think you fully understand what commons is intended to do and how it is used. Have you ever accessed of commercial media library?--JIrate (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Look you're entitled to your opinion. I can't fully understand as i've not fully submerged myself with guidelines. If you have a valid reason then fine. But i dont see what i have done wrong, unless single file images is wrong in which case i take it back. But if you look well away from what i've edited there are many single file images. NO; i have improved this and if you disagree tell me and i will discuss it with you. Otherwise i don't see why a load of indiscriminate images should remain on a general page (such as Metropolitan Borough of Sefton) when they could be better identified under the local district, ie Formby, Crosby, Southport and so on...or under train stations and train lines. Crosby Beach, Formby Beach. So on. What is so wrong with that? They all connect via Sefton anyway. NO, image cagegories i have altered have been either incorrectly located - or far too broad. I mean why locate an image of Southport Flower Show in Metropolitan Borough of Sefton when it can have its own pages and then in Southport, where it is more correctly located? I am puzzled why you see wrong in what i have been doing. Babydoll0409 (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
On Commons, there is no rule that says that one needs n images before making a category. A category is an encapsulation (with low system cost) of one or more items that allows to freely choose the name, categorise it in many subcategories and allow for categories with many entries that can be sorted in a specific way while being presented in a compact way. A striking example is Category:Ships by name. And from what I have seen, Babydoll0409 did an excellent job so far. --Foroa (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Re above note user Foroa, thank you very much. It is appreciated. Not meaning to step on anyone's toes. Babydoll0409 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning request[edit]

Hi, it would be great if you could do some housekeeping in Category:Astley and potentially other English villages in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories. I know that it is not completely your area, but frankly, I am a bit lost in all those ...shires and Greater Manchester. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i'll have a look & save the link although i tend to stick with what i know. I'll have a go.

Babydoll0409 (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Multichillbot[edit]

I tried at the adminisitrator's noticeboard to get the bot stop (it's an automated computer controlled bot that is doing the edits) - but with absolutely no success.Imgaril (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:pot luck[edit]

Hi there, sorry I didn't respond sooner. I can do my best to point you in the right direction- please explain the problem on my talk page or email me, and I'll get back to you as soon as possible. J Milburn (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Flat Iron/Anfield[edit]

Since there is only one Flat Iron, and it is in Anfield, it would seem to make sense that its category should also be categorised as Anfield rather than the individual images- imagine the clutter in Category:Anfield if there were, say, 100 images of something. Please reconsider your edits. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that would make sense. I felt that they were not major places in the area just pubs. Babydoll0409 (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Streets in Liverpool[edit]

No idea what you're trying to do here, I'll have to come back and sort it all out later. In particular, please stop removing the date categories, they are widely used. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Dean House, Waterloo, Merseyside.jpg[edit]

Hello Babydoll0409,

Just to let you know, I undid your edit to the above file. It may seem superfluous to specify in the description that the Waterloo depicted is in Merseyside, since the image is already categorised under "Waterloo, Merseyside". However, the commons cats are not immediately visible to anyone viewing the file from another project, for example from any of the Wikipedias (as not everyone follows up the link in to Commons), so there's certainly no harm in being specific in the description itself. Respectfully, I can't see what's the advantage from removing information in this case. I have uploaded many Merseyside images which have been used in foreign Wikis, often used in subjects unrelated to Merseyside itself, so for that reason I like to specify the full description. A lot of users are from outside of the area, and in this particular case there's also a locality in London called Waterloo. Also the bigger picture is that many uploaded pictures end up on external sites outside of the Wikimedia projects - in those cases, the category information is lost, but the description is often used. I hope that makes some sense. Thanks also for all of your hard work on categorising local images. Best Regards, Rept0n1x (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:The Queens Arms, Walton.JPG[edit]

Hi Again,

I don't necessarily disagree with you moving this pub into the Aintree cat. In fact I was originally going to put it in the Aintree cat myself. Clearly it's in the vicinity of the Aintree racecourse and a stone's throw from Aintree railway station, yet over a mile north of Walton railway station and I have no doubt that the area is commonly accepted as for all practical purposes as being in Aintree. However, on closer inspection, the pub appears technically to be just south of the boundary between Aintree and Walton. This photo shows the "City of Liverpool - Walton" sign right outside the pub and this map shows the two pubs (denoted by beer glass icons), the Red Rum and the Queens Arms as being on either side of the local authority boundary, with the Red Rum on the Aintree side and the Queens Arms on the Walton side. As I'm from the Wirral, I'm certainly no expert on the exact boundaries of the Liverpool districts, and so I certainly appreciate any corrections as regards to the Liverpool categories. It's just that if the pub is technically in the City of Liverpool area, then placing it under Aintree (a Sefton category) could be inconsistent. Just thought I'd point that out, comments welcome. In any case I should at some point make the description and filename consistent with your cat change. I'm happy to leave it as-is for now, as it's certainly not a clear-cut one. Thanks again. Rept0n1x (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative reply. That also explains why some of the shops around the Black Bull area do have "Aintree" on some of the shop signs. I have now corrected both the description and the filename accordingly. I guess the only remaining inconsistency is that here on Commons, the "Aintree" category is only within a Sefton category, but from what you are saying Aintree also extends in to the Liverpool Metropolitan Borough area, therefore it should probably be also placed in a Liverpool category as well to reflect this. Also some of the other photos I have taken around the area of the Black Bull might be need to be changed to Aintree too, I'll look into that at some point. So, thanks for the correction in this case. You might find some other photos of mine in the wrong districts. I do try to work out as best as I can which ones I think they should go in, but don't always get it quite right. Particularly that some of the official signs have been placed in the wrong places! In those cases, I welcome any corrections. Cheers Rept0n1x (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Aintree Dogs in Trim, Walton, Liverpool.JPG[edit]

Hi again,

Please can you see User talk:Rept0n1x#Aintree / Walton. Thanks,

Rept0n1x (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wirral category re-organisation[edit]

Hi again Babydoll0409,

I've replied at Category_talk:Wirral#Restructuring_of_Wirral_categories,

Best Regards, Rept0n1x (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing county and country from descriptions[edit]

Hello again Babydoll0409,

Firstly thanks again for many numerous corrections you've done on many of the Liverpool & Merseyside-related photos I've uploaded.

Can I just ask though, what is to be gained from removing the county "Merseyside" from the descriptions?

In the case of Waterloo in particular (which in England is an ambiguous place name), people browsing these photos might not know the building depicted is in Merseyside - particularly if it has been copied to an external website. Maybe if you use edit summaries, it would help others understand the reason for your changes?


Thanks, Rept0n1x (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Mistake on my part. My opinion was writing Waterloo, Merseyside, England is a bit formal. But, it's your image/s. Babydoll0409 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
OK Thanks for the reply, once uploaded under a free license, the images no longer belong to me and anyone here is certainly free to make amendments as they see fit. It's just that I've seen a few cases on the Internet and even on various Wikipedias where a wrong image was used because the user thought it was an image of place 'A' when it was really taken in place 'B'. This is a particular problem where the wiki in question uses a language other than English and the users might not have much familiarity with places in England for example. Because of these previous problems, I prefer to err on the side of caution and give as much relevant information as possible. But I fully understand not everyone here thinks the same. Rept0n1x (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent uploads[edit]

Also, it's good that you've recently been uploading some photos of local buildings and streets etc.. For photos like File:The Coronation pub, Childwall Valley Road, Childwall.jpg which are on Flickr at [1] you are better using one of the automated tools like [2] or [3] which will transfer the maximum resolution file from Flickr and also provide a link to the file's source. Also that particular file is not under a free license on Flickr. So if that's your Flickr account then you should go in to it an change the license to a free license as sooner or later a Wikimedia Commons user or bot might nominate the file for deletion as a suspected copyvio. Please see Commons:Flickr files about using files from Flickr. Also, similarly files like File:Belle Vale (Childwall Valley Road) from Netherley.jpg which appear to be a doctored photograph might be open to deletion requests as Commons doesn't normally host photos like that which have been artificially altered to show something that isn't really there. I've seen many files file that deleted in the past as "hoax files". Any questions, please ask, Cheers! Rept0n1x (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. May be useful in the future. Regarding Flickr I have lost access to the account but I am speaking to them about it. Babydoll0409 (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah OK, that makes sense then, I hope they can sort it for you. Regards, Rept0n1x (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:My cock PA piercing.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:My cock PA piercing.jpg 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 file, 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, such as a copyright issue.
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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 06:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lambananas[edit]

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorting categories[edit]

I see from your recent edits that yout have removed sort ordering from some categories relating to Merseyside, for example here. In this case, the first removal was correct, the second was not, causing a Merseyside category to be listed under "F". Categories by county are always sorted by county names, because that's where people expect to find them. Could you please review and correct these mistakes. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I've done it for you. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)