User talk:Botteville

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

Read my UP.

I did not edit on Commons for a long time so I have no current discussion. I cleared out the now-irrelevant chatter about other topics. If you have a message just create a section for it below and I will try to give it proper consideration. Most people that communicate with me on Commons have valid points so I try to respond, if I am watching.Botteville (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Argyll and Bute[edit]

Hi, your recent edits to this category have made its layout inconsistent with existing categories for Scottish council areas. I am going through these slowly, but topics should appear alphabetically, e.g. Category:Geography of Argyll and Bute under "G". Specific locations such as Category:Glen Fruin should appear under the appropriate heading, i.e Category:Glens in Argyll and Bute. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No objection at all. It should be easy to do. Mainly all I did was put a "| " after Argyll and Bute. You might be able to take them out en masse. I don't know what your level of skill is. Looks like a "replace" of selected material. Or, you might want to make specific judgements. Now, the topics DO appear alphabetically. The ones up front are in alphabetic order. There are, in this method, two streams of alphabetization: one up front and the other in lettered sections. The method allows you to have two different streams for two different types of material. The bottom categories utilized it extensively before I started, and the method is general over all Commons. The top categories for Scotland appear to prefer the lettered sections. I don't see any inconsistency with that; the material is different from the bottom; that is, at the level of the lowest category into which the picture may fall.
For your other objection, those specific items such as Glen Fruin were like that previously, but that is the problem, to get each level of category containing the same type of material. That is what I've been working on at the lower level. Now that you have expressed an interest in the category and the level of category. I think I will just wait on that until I see what you do. The lower levels are certainly different from the upper; for example, the collection of all towns and villages in Argyll and Bute under one category, or the collection of all Geograph pictures (in their thousands) in one category.
I did subcategorize many categories. My voice has been the only one for quite a number of months, not that I especially like that situation. Feel free to do it totally your way if you like. I've been working at the lower levels. Often one of my problems has been that there has seemed to be no consistent method or philosophy. Instead dozens of photos were collected in bunches under the wrong category. I do understand that in the absence of much of a category structure that approach may have been necessary for general grouping. However, I'd like to fix that now.
So, the upper levels have not much been my concern. In fact I dreaded getting into it. It is a large amount of work obviously. I'm happy to leave that up to you. I've been mainly concerned with getting the large caches of individual pictures in the right category, and adding category substructure. My target is to improve accuracy. I will go on with that. At the lower level we have general categories and specific places and features. I've followed the pre-existing method of putting the general categories up front with the specific items in the lettered section. It seems to be clearer. I will presume that, for any higher-level consideration, you've got it! There is no territory here, of course, but there is so much work one person cannot work on everything.
I am sure we will be in further communication. I appreciate you explanations. American English does not use "cheers" except in a dialectical sense, but consider it said.Botteville (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that; I've spent about two years so far sorting these categories out after a now-blocked user decided to categorise everything by the old shire counties, which now only exist in a ceremonial sense; everything should now be categorised by council area except for historical purposes. So far I've worked through Aberdeen, Clackmannanshire, East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire, Dundee, East Renfrewshire, Falkirk, Fife, Midlothian, Renfrewshire and West Lothian, and am currently going through West Dunbartonshire. I think it would be useful to stick to the prevailing formatting. Lower level categories should rarely, if ever, appear in the top level for a council area. Ideally, the top level should contain no images whatever since at least these will be in a place- there is an obvious exception for items such as flags and emblems which apply globally to the council area. I expect we'll meet again but I'd hope you follow the patterns which have already been used. Again, cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
PS: The Geograph categories are flat and should not be categorised further- they provide a useful way of finding uncategorised images by using CatScan for images that are in Geograph council area X but not already categorised under council area X. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
You're making me feel bad now. I got no intention of spoiling either your fun or your work. You have it exactly the way YOU want it. It appears that we are agreeing on your last communique, pictures are something that should only appear in the lowest category. I hesitate to make one-picture categories, as I have been criticised for over-categorization. However, if the type warrants a category I think there should be one if only one picture. Others have a way of turning up.
What I basically have been doing is grouping pictures on a theme at the bottom; for example, all the photos of a certain mountain or lake. The next obvious group is all the mountain categories for a certain area. Since I'm mainly interested in the Hebrides, the area gets easily defined as a particular island of the group. Above that it gets very vague for me. How the higher cats should be arranged depends on the philosophy and plan of arrangement. I'd rather not do that, especially since you are doing it. So, I'll follow your advice if I see any indication of it. Feel free to step in at anytime. I have not been deleting any categories or rather requesting deletes. I always try to keep what is there, but it certainly needs expansion, so I do that, usually in a downward direction. If you don't like my list of possible categories, give me another and I will try to follow it. I don't think either of us will lack any work to do on these thousands of photos. It was really nice of the holders of the copyright to make them available to the population at large, and without fee, at least on WP.
So, on any individual picture I will try to choose the higher-level cats, if any, so as to fit some subcat of that cat so that the higher-level cats do not have all these photos in them. If I cannot find one I will leave it.
Thank you for your two years of work. I am sorry your previous assistant did not work out. It seems as though in general he was probably too aggressive. Since you're the most experienced man on it, as far as I am concerned, you're the senior editor on the project. Have a nice day. I do have a personal life to lead but I will be popping back in.Botteville (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
In no way was I intending to make you feel bad, and I'm sorry if it came across like that. You seem to have the right approach already. As for one-image categories, there is usually nothing to be gained by having them- however, they sometimes arise as a result of disambiguating a larger category (e.g. "Black Loch") and listing those categories in a disambiguation page at least makes it clear that we are aware that there is only one image (at the time of creating the category!). Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Rod, now it seems as though I accused you of making me feel bad. Sometimes words aren't adequate. I think we may have talked this one to death. So, let's escape from it. We'll each go on doing whatever it is we do. It's a fluid situation; you can't really formulate a protocol of behavior. If differences of opinion arise I think we can settle them mano a mano.
I don't disagree about the one-image cats. Any cat has the function of distinguishing the type of image, even if it is only one image, So, I guess I do not entirely agree that they are of no use, either. As you imply, it depends on the situation. If you have 50 different single pictures you only confuse the situation and make extra work by creating 50 different cats. In that case each pic is its own cat. A category extends the same type to more than one thing. But, as you say, sometimes the syntax of the situation requires a category, even if it is one pic. I am glad we both appreciate that.
Well, talk you later.Botteville (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Kilchoman Cottages[edit]

Can't see the point of a category for only one image, especially when it lacks Category:Cottages in Argyll and Bute. It would be different if it had a Wikipedia article, but it doesn't. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rod. I did post a reply on your page. I don't see the point of it either, but that is not what I intend. I'm not done with it. So, do you want Cottages in Argyll and Bute in there? I didn't know that. Can do.Botteville (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't clear that you were in the middle of working on it, but I have added that category. Sorry if I trod on your toes. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Of course. I know it wasn't. As I say, you watchful editors are too quick for me. Add or remove anything you like. I'm looking at so many of these I may not notice. I'm thinking mainly of building down so I suppose there are quite a few upper categories I miss.Botteville (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


Category:Portrait of Ann Fairchild Bowler, by Copley[edit]

--Gamaliel (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Nicholas_Boylston,_by_Copley[edit]

Gamaliel (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Portrait_of_Woodbury_Langdon,_by_Copley[edit]

Gamaliel (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Portrait_of_James_Warren,_by_Copley[edit]

Gamaliel (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Portrait_of_Mercy_Otis_Warren,_by_Copley[edit]

Gamaliel (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember these categories. Apparently, I'm too late to present any arguments. It's all right, I'm not in the least upset and would not take it personally. I might add, picture categories are among the most transient of objects. That is because the number and type of pictures downloaded is very high. When I take a hand it is usually on great masses of uncategorized or insufficiently categorized pictures. I'm often totally alone. I make large numbers of changes. The fact that someone else has a different view or develops one is heartening rather than the opposite. I won't be getting back on this right now. Thanks for the notifications.Botteville (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Amos_Kendell[edit]

Ww2censor (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)