User talk:Motacilla

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

Welcome to Motacilla's talk page.

Please remember to sign your post with ~~~~ and add new comments to the bottom of the page.

If you write me a message in German or French, please keep it relatively simple for me to understand it.

If you write me a message about a Wikimedia technical matter please keep it very simple, as I have great difficulty understanding how some things on here work!

Thanks, Motacilla (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Regulus_madeirensis_&_leaf_litter.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Regulus_madeirensis_&_leaf_litter.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.


If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Oxam Hartog 16:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
I restored this pic and add PD-self. Sorry for this deletion but it's not always easy to appreciate the good status of each pic and a little format without exif netheir license leads often to suspect an uncertain upload.
You will have to restore links on both articles. Friendly Oxam Hartog 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

new uploads[edit]

I read your message on User talk:Rüdiger Wölk

The process before deletion is the following :

All pics without license are in a special list (Uncategorized images) and anyone (me for your pic) can tagged these pics for deletion (with warning message on user page and a minimun of control).

Without reactions, 7 days later, an administrator can deleted the pic without other warning message. this is the rule on commons where a lot of pics are uploaded every day, some like copyvio.

Your license is correct but it will be better if it's possible for you to upload larger pics. 800x600 is a minima. Larger is best (in articles all pics can be reduced by add of |thumb| in the image syntax. Oxam Hartog 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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 | 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, Motacilla!

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").

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) 10:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:SS William Cory aground.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 22:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


File:Nellie Wise aground Hartlepool.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 22:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

File:J&FBell ThreeNuns 2oz.jpg[edit]

Hi there. I wonder could you provide any approximate date for this tin? Thank you. BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. On one side it says "This label is issued by the Imperial Tobacco Co. (of Great Britain & Ireland) Ltd." That doesn't help very much, as Imperial Tobacco was formed in 1901 and J&F Bell joined the group shortly afterwards. For all I know the tin could have been made anywhen from the 1930s to the 1960s. Sorry, Motacilla (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 47d74753d1187323bba262eda0bd60ad[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:AVParkway Welcome sign.JPG[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:AVParkway Welcome sign.JPG. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Hrvatski | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 15:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Motacilla, just a note that one of your images "1 ounce (28 g) tin for Player's "Navy Cut" tobacco" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Player_%26_Sons is being used for profit, by expres-prints-online, an Ebay UK Store owned by Scott Harper, 8 Chepstow Way, Walsall, West Midlands, Ws32nb, UK. Ph: 07412021399, Email: s-harper@hotmail.com http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Players-Navy-Cut-pub-bar-Sign-Retro-metal-Aluminium-Sign-vintage-/121283056058?pt=UK_Home_HomeDecor_Accessories&hash=item1c3d0891ba contact customerhelp_uk@ebay.com to arrange to have the offending item/s removed, you will likely have to fill out a required copyright infringement notice (NOCI1). I have had the same problems with this person illegally downloading my work and printing it onto metal signs for sale, this repeat offender and thief needs to get the message this is not OK. Thanks Darian Zam.

Copyright status: File:FURWIT06.jpg[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:FURWIT06.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 15:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Danke für deine Nachricht. Die Quelle des Fotografs gibt kostenlose Urheberrechterlaubnis aber es ist mir nicht klar, welche Lizenz sie ist. Wann ich diesen Upload gemacht habe, ich habe eine Erklärung bei File_talk:FURWIT06.jpg gemacht, und darin habe ich eine Bitte für Hilfe damit gemacht.
Der neuer Artikel RMS Nova Scotia (1926) braucht einen Foto des Schiffes, und ich habe Schwierigkeit gehabt einen urheberrechtlose Foto zu finden. Wenn du kannst entweder mit dem Urheberrecht dieses Fotos hilfen, oder einen anderen urheberrechtlosen und guten Foto des Schiffes zu finden, du würdest sehr viel helfen und ich würde sehr dankbar sein!
Es grüßt dich, Motacilla (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

File:OnBoardMVBarracudaVanSmit SalvageGenoaCa1972.jpg[edit]

This media has been deleted. Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | français | italiano | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Tiếng Việt | português | +/−


Dialog-warning.svg

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:OnBoardMVBarracudaVanSmit SalvageGenoaCa1972.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (NC), No derivative works (ND), or All Rights Reserved (Copyright), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as BY (CC BY) or BY SA (CC BY-SA) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request. Stefan4 (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12661.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Shuntien Shanghai 12661.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

LFaraone 17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12656.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Shuntien Shanghai 12656.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

LFaraone 17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12663.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Shuntien Shanghai 12663.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

LFaraone 17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12660.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Shuntien Shanghai 12660.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

LFaraone 17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12662.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Shuntien Shanghai 12662.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

LFaraone 17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Class 142 Picture Danescourt[edit]

Hi Motacilla,

I would like to use your image of the Class 142 in our brochure. If you have no objection perhaps you let me know how to attribute the image.

Kind Regards

Joel (Dapol Ltd)

Unnecessary deletion requests for church images[edit]

Please stop nominating perfectly good images for deletion, deletion requests should be used for copyright violations. You are harming the good work of other contributors by your actions Oxyman (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What a high-handed tone you have! The only images that I nominate are of low resolution, low quality and generally duplicated by better images of the same subject. If donating such images to Wikimedia Commons is "good work", why should I continue to donate high quality 2 MB ones taken with good cameras? Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Existence of other images doesn't stop you donating other ones, this is false logic, other images have a value that perhaps you have failed to perceive, they show the situation at different times, even if nothing has changed, they show that. Oxyman (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits to descriptions[edit]

I suggest you take greater care when editing descriptions supplied by the author: Things like correcting errors and adding pertinent info are fine, but removing things less so. I have real objections if the description of one of my works is degraded, eg by removal of info I feel significant, and this could cause minor irritation by authors more generally.

Some examples:

  1. File:Hexworthy Bridge.jpg: The name of the bridge is 'Hexworthy Bridge' OR 'Huccaby Bridge', not 'Hexworthy or Huccaby Bridge'. That is how the bridge is listed, but that's because both names are used. For instance, OS has consistently preferred Hexworthy.
  2. File:Horner packhorse bridge.jpg: Why remove the mention of Exmoor? I consider that more pertinent to the file than the county.
  3. File:Lerryn Bridge at high tide.jpg and File:Lerryn Bridge at low tide.jpg: Why remove mention of the estuary? The fact the river is tidal below the bridge is significant to the images - hence the inclusion of 'tide' in the file name. I also phrased the description to try break up the repetition of "Lerryn" and make the sentence a bit less of a mouthful.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Riley cars[edit]

Dear Motacilla, Thank you for your provision of four nice pictures of an aging Riley Kestrel. I've noted your interest in birdlife. We have a problem. Because a Kestrel body may conceal vaious sizes of engine, I quote "Body names. Each chassis could take any of three or more different bodies from the Riley catalogue of more than fifty different bodies, some of the names of those bodies are listed below:
Adelphi, Adelphi-Sprite, Alpine, Alpine Fabric, Alpine Gamecock, Alpine Half-pane, Alpine Tourer, Ascot, Autovia, Biarritz, Brooklands, Chatsworth, Continental, Deauville, Edinburgh, Falcon, Foleshill, Gamecock, Gloucester, Grangeworth, Grebe, Holbrook, Hoyal, Imp, Kestrel, Kestrel-Sprite, Light-6, Lincock, Lulworth, Lynx, Lynx-Sprite, Maltby Redfern, March, Mentone, Merlin, Midworth, Monaco, MPH, Roebill, San Remo, Sprite, Stelvio, Tourer, Touring, Treen, Trinity, Ulster, Victor, Wentworth, Winchester,"

So you see just saying its a Kestrel does not tell us enough and while you are definite it is a 1936 car it does not appear in the DVLA records under the displayed number and now I can't put it away in the right category. Can you suggest what should be done. (I realise you or an acquaintance might commute daily in it). Sorry to trouble you but please would you come up with more info. Kind regards and lots of thanks for the nice images, Eddaido (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, I take your point about Riley's blizzard of body names! I just found the car at the Oxford Spires Hotel and rather recklessly assumed it was a Kestrel. I can't remember if I met and spoke with the owner, and I certainly don't know the engine size. Two editions of the Bulletin of the Riley Register mention or depict DVW 374, according to the .pdf of its index online [1]. That index does not seem to give the model, so one would need one of those editions of the Bulletin to find out.
I am much more sure of the year the car was registered. According to Glass's Index of Registration Numbers, Essex County Council issued the DVW block of registration marks from June to August 1936. I use 1954, 1959 and 1964 editions of Glass's Index. They seem not to cover every block of numbers ever issued until 1964, but the 1954 edition is a 21st anniversary special whose coverage of pre-WW2 numbers seems comprehensive.
Does this give you a bit more on which to base a decision? Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes it does, thank you, but not enough, yet. I've added a note of possible engines to the Kestrel page. Bin ruminatin and will now write to the Riley Register. I knew there was a publication that explained old licence numbers. Thank you very much for its name. I see eBay sometimes has those guides. Do I want the 1954 edition or its supplement? Thanks and regards Eddaido (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I think William Glass Ltd published Glass's Index every year, but added supplements as the ever-increasing rate of vehicle registrations overtook it. The 1954 "Twenty-First Anniversary Edition" seems to provide more or less complete coverage 1903–54. For subsequent years I have the 1959 and 1964 editions, but they seem not to cover absolutely every number block. I suspect I need some intermediate years to fill those in! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've had this message from rileyrob: "The Red Kestrel is, as I suspected from the photos, recorded in my database as a 1936/7 Kestrel 12/4. That means a 1937 model registered at the tail end of 1936, which was quite common back then." For the moment I've left your photos where they are but added a note of possible chassis (OK, engines) for the Kestrel body.
I wish a method might be devised to allow readers to find all the Kestrels and also find all the 12/4s and all the Kestrel 12/4s. I mean a kind of matrix that would let us look at these things from different views (do I mean dimensions?). When I tried to achieve something like this elsewhere in Wikimedia I was found to be in contravention of the rules (again).
Can you suggest a solution? Please, Eddaido (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm out of my depth here. I like Rileys but am no expert. I simply photographed a pretty car, surmised (very possibly wrongly) what model it might be and uploaded it. Please forgive me if I leave this puzzle to others who know more about Riley models and how to categorise cars on Wikimedia! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Categorising ships[edit]

I changed the categorising of the Evangelia. We have more than 30.000 ships categorised via "name (ship, year of completion)" system and I saw no reason to deviate of that system for this ship. Found her details here --Stunteltje (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I would thank you and apologise were your correction entirely constructive. Instead clearly I should apologise for donating my time to Commons to correct the year of build (1942, not 1948). I should also apologise for adding the correct categories from this edition of Lloyd's Register for where the ship was built, the fact that she was a UK steamship, a reefer ship and a Blue Star Line ship. I am not sure whether the source you cite has the correct name for the ship either. This one, which admittedly does not cite all its sources, says E Evangelia, not Evangelia.
In your message you don't even bother with the basic courtesy of saying thankyou for my contribution(s). All you seem interested in is proving how and why I'm wrong. Normally I "assume good faith" of course, but this type of reversion is too negative and therefore demoralising for me to deal with.
You could have preserved all the improvements I had given to the categorisation. But clearly that was less important than your wielding a blunt, punitive revert that does at least as much harm as good. You reverted the year of build from right to wrong. You deleted the ship from a whole set of correct categories. You even deleted the category page I created, so that I can't even find it to copy all the categories I added.
Please do not expect me to restore the work you have destroyed. I am not here to waste my time repeating the labours of Sisyphus. In the recent past this kind of behaviour on both Commons and Wikipedia has stopped me from contributing for several months at a time. At this rate it is likely to do so again.
Goodbye. Motacilla (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
My time to apologise, I was much, much too fast. This project is done in a way that people who have better information correct the wrong information. I don't have any problem with correting my work that way, I will restore your information. The only thing is, that I was surprised that you introduced a way of categorising ships that the community doesn't use any more in Commons for more than 30.000 ships. No problem at all to do that in local wikipedias, as every language has its own way. E.g. the English categorise by year of launching, the Germans and Dutch by year of completion. Standardisation makes it possible that people can find images to illustrate their articles. That is, as far as I know, the reason for Commons.
I missed the E in the name in the copy-paste and I restored your information as far as I could find. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Categorization[edit]

Hello,

I noticed you're creating some entries at COM:CFD regarding categorization. If you move a category and you don't know what to do with the old one, it's usually wise to leave a redirect as long as it's not misleading. You may find some help at Commons:Renaming a category. This would be my answer to:

as for:

you say that both ships were completed in 1910, but you created Category:Rotorua (ship, 1910) and Category:Rotorua (ship, 1911). Did you make a typo somewhere?

Anyway, I'm not a ship person so I would defer to the people at WikiProject Ships is they tell you any different.

Thanks, –⁠moogsi (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

NZ Shipping Co's Rotorua (ship, 1910) was built in 1910 and sunk by torpedo in 1917. (http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/lines/newzealand.shtml) Rotorua (ship, 1911) was built in 1911 as Federal Steam Navigation Co's Shropshire, renamed Rotorua in 1922, transferred to the NZ Shipping Co in 1936 and sunk by torpedo in 1940. (http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/lines/federal.shtml) I do make mistakes, but I am not aware of this being one of them. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that you made a mistake, just that you'd contradicted yourself and I didn't know what was right: here you say "There were at least two liners called "Rotorua": one built in 1910 and sunk in 1917; the other built in 1910 as "Shropshire", renamed "Rotorua" in 1922 and sunk in 1940." Carry on :) –⁠moogsi (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:BicesterTown LondonRd hoarding.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:BicesterTown LondonRd hoarding.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 | Български | 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) 18:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Categorising trains[edit]

Hi. I noticed your image File:Cathays 150 Barry.jpg and similar were categorised in three train-related categories:

Category:British Rail Class 150s in Arriva Trains revised livery
Category:British Rail Class 150s of Arriva Trains Wales
Category:British Rail Class 150s on the Merthyr Line

There's actually a fourth category which should be added in such cases:

Category:Trains of Arriva Trains Wales on the Merthyr Line

You can use the {{ukt}} template to add all these automatically, including unit number. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Category redirect[edit]

Hi Motacilla, Your recent redirect of Category:Sailing vessels to Category:Catamaran sailboats is not appropriate. Catamaran sailboats is a small subset of Sailing vessels, in that all catamaran sailboats are sailing vessels, but not all sailing vessels are catamarans - most are not. Please make the appropriate corrections. Thanks, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hillman 14 (1929)[edit]

Thank you for refining the identity of the Hillman of which I uploaded a picture a few years back. I'm afraid I do sometimes upload pictures of cars without being sure what they are (or, which is worse, thinking I know what they are and later discovering I didn't). Anyhow, in this case you have kindly completed an identification that has needed completing for way toooo long. (And I'll spare you my German.) Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

England or UK[edit]

Thanks for your updates and corrections on my image page:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Weatherboarded_Cottages_59-61_Bromley_Road_Colchester.jpg

One comment I have is that you changed 'UK' in the address to 'England'. There is an England in the USA, too! See http://binged.it/1K03klS. I know it is clear that you mean England in the UK from the context, but personally I prefer 'UK', or 'England, UK' However, I am more than happy to leave it as it is. Thanks again. PeterEssexHeritage (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Metacats[edit]

Hi,

Please note that {{metacat}} should only be applied to a meta category. A meta category is one that should ONLY ever contain other categories, because it is a category for categories - and it does not make sense for it to contain files. Churches in the England by county is a meta-category - the giveaway is the "by".

High level categories, such as Category:Churches (nevermind Category:Churches in Suffolk), should normally contain no files as the files are migrated to sub-cats, but are not metacats.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sarottaflo (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Sarottaflo (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Sarottaflo (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


Date Categories[edit]

Please don't remove these from images, this action is of course vandalism when others have bothered to put them there, also please keep your edit summaries polite when others have accorded you this respect Oxyman (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Every one of your reversions of my edits has been unconstructive. If you think date categories on inanimate, almost unchanging objects are vital, all you had to do was (a) reinstate them and (b) leave me a polite explanation on this page. Instead you chose the almost entirely destructive option of reverting good editing over one detail that was so previous to you, that you had to destroy all the accuracy I had added on each case.
Firstly you thought it constructive to remove File:Sundial, Reigate Priory - geograph.org.uk - 1199684.jpg from the accurate category "Vertical sundials in Surrey" and dump it back in the less precise category "Sundials in Surrey", and remove the "defaultsort" template I added. There is no purpose to such an unconstructive reversion. I suggest you were indeed point-scoring.
Then you removed the saint's name from File:Alstone Church - geograph.org.uk - 61446.jpg, removed it from the correct category "St Margaret's, Alstone, Tewkesbury" and dumped it back into the inaccurate category "Churches in Gloucestershire" and frankly wrong category "Alstone, Cheltenham". Gloucestershire has two Alstones. Look at the other photographs of the church in the Alstone near Tewkesbury. You moved it from the right one to the wrong one! I suggest that for you to accuse me of vandalism and then vandalise good categorisation is indeed hypocrisy.
Then you removed from File:Abbey chest - geograph.org.uk - 369955.jpg two categories that correctly place it in Lincolnshire and you incorrectly dumped it back in Huntingdonshire. And you replaced the accurate categories of "15th-century furniture" and "Church chests in England" with the vague and misleading one of "Curiosities". More vandalism.
Since then I have not deleted any date categories, even when they seem to serve no purpose. But then came your latest and purest piece of, yes, vandalism. For a second time you have moved :File:Alstone Church - geograph.org.uk - 61446.jpg from correct categories to wrong ones. But did you first check my previous edit? This time I left in place the "October 2005 in Gloucestershire" category that you insisted should remain. Your revert didn't reinstate the category, as I hadn't removed it!
In all, for the last three months you have been rude with no justification and to no purpose. Yes I have accused you of vandalism, because that is what it is. And of point-scoring, and hypocrisy, because that is how it comes across. I have told the blunt truth of how unconstructive your reverts have been.
As I said above, you could have sent me a constructive message months ago, instead of indiscriminately reverting good work because you disliked just one part of it. I have put right the damage you did to the Reigate sundial and Croyland Abbey chest files. I invite you to undo the damage you have done to the file of Alstone church.
Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
There are a lot of categories I see no purpose to, but I don't delete them unless they are in correct, anyway I fixed the Alstone church file, best Oxyman (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
In your recent mishandling of File:Christ Church - geograph.org.uk - 745132.jpg you yet again reverted valid refinements of a description and several categories. And you smeared those refinements as "vandalism", which is both nasty and ironic, as you were vandalising the previous edit! Please stop petty point-scoring, stop smearing a fellow-contributor and stick to editing constructively. — Motacilla (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Oxyman in your recent mishandling of File:Door to Himbleton church - geograph.org.uk - 846682.jpg you yet again reverted valid refinements of a description and several categories. For once you dindn't smear my work as "vandalism". But you still need to stop petty point-scoring, and stick to editing constructively. — Motacilla (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
You are removing categories which is Vandalism, I will revert your vandalism, You need to modify you behavior before you talk about others, there really is no furtherer discussion about this. Please stop vandalising files. Oxyman (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

COM:NPOV[edit]

Hi Motacilla - thanks for all the categorisation work you are doing - on a recent edit you tweaked the description for NPOV - this isn't necessary, please see COM:NPOV, the tower is unusual, and there is no reason not to say so on Commons. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORTs[edit]

Hi there. I see you overturned some of my edits. Hopefully you understand why I made these edits in the first place: your DEFAULTSORTs sometimes mess up other peoples sortings. This would not be the case if you yourself would consider the effects your DEFAULTSORT and fixed them. Please respect other peoples categorising in the future by doing this. --Judithcomm (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Category order[edit]

Hey,

There is no need to re-order categories into alphabetical order. If anything I would suggest it is a bad idea, as thematic structure would make more sense. For instance with this - the one non-church category (the location) is in the middle of the list. And if you have a set list of things you want to categorise for (eg denomination, date, style, patron saint, listed status), it is easier to work out of any are missing if a non-alphabetic structure is applied.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I find it hard to check whether a category is omitted, or has been included twice, unless the order is alphabetical.
Thematic orders are somewhat subjective. Everyone has their own idea of themes. The alphabet is consistent. Motacilla (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This is hardly a big deal of course - as long as it works. However, there's no real need to spend too much time on it (its not even worth mention in edit summary).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, please don't' remove valid categories - such as Category:Geograph images in Devon - like you did here [2].--Nilfanion (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for finding that mistake. I never intentionally remove "Geograph images" categories. In many cases I find them missing, and I nearly always remember to add them.
I started categorising images for Commons four years ago. At first I tried grouping them thematically. But most categories are combine at least two themes and many combine three. For example Category:Gothic revival church towers in Kent combines a type of structure, an architectural style and a location. So I got ever more confused, kept making mistakes and had to change.
People who categorise bus or rail images on Commons seem to work thematically. They apply huge numbers of very detailed categories to each image, so it seems to work for them. Maybe now after four years' practice I would make fewer mistakes if I tried it now.
But when I started, the subject areas on which I work were very poorly categorised: historic architecture in England and historic merchant shipping. They compare very badly with subjects such as modern cars, railways and aircraft, which tend to be categorised in fastidious detail.
In the last four years we have improved the categorisation of both church architecture and vernacular architecture, and I have done a large share of that work, but there is a vast amount left to do. For examples of what can be achieved, please compare Category:Churches in the Diocese of Oxford and Category:Vernacular architecture of Oxfordshire with corresponding categories for other English dioceses or counties.
The work on shipping is barely started, thanks to thousands of photos from the State Library of Queensland being labelled en bloc Category:Ships of Australia regardless of their true nationality. Many of the ships in that category were built or registered in the UK, which is why I bother to sift that collection at all.
Thankyou for your suggestion. I will bear it in mind. But you have already shown that I make mistakes. I would not want to make more frequent ones, merely for the sake of changing a method of working.
Motacilla (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Yep you are human - mistakes are understood! :) I wouldn't worry too much about the how, its the end result which matters (ie what categories are applied). I generally don't adjust category order at all, as it has no impact on end result, and fiddling with the order gives opportunity to make errors - like the Geograph example.
I can empathise with the State Library of Queensland bulk upload - mass uploads by bot are a huge problem for effective maintenance (as I'm sure you know, the Geograph upload is still far from fully incorporated).
A couple question with the Diocese categories:
  1. Is there a potential redundancy? eg Category:Anglican churches in Devon and Category:Churches in the Diocese of Exeter should be identical.
  2. There may be a POV issue in some cases as well, like Category:Churches in the Diocese of Birmingham. The RC diocese has the same name - why should the CofE one take precedence?
--Nilfanion (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

... for adding categories to one of my London photographs. If you happen to enjoy using Cat-a-Lot to add categories to multiple images, feel free to see my other London images at Category:2014 photographs of London by Another Believer. Thanks again! -Another Believer (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Defaultsorts[edit]

Please FIX the sortings for all involved categories when you apply default sorts. You're doing great work on Commons, but you're not alone here. --Judithcomm (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for your message. I treated Category:St. Mary's Church, Chilham the same as I have treated hundreds of other parish churches. St Mary's is in Chilham, so {{DEFAULTSORT:Chilham}} correctly alphasorts it in every category in which it needs alphasorting. The categories Category:Chilham and Category:Chilham Square, Chilham are small and do not need alphasorting, unless one has an aesthetic desire to do so.
I have yet see how the category for this church differs from those for many hundreds of others that I have categorised. But if there is a problem that I have overlooked, I will be grateful for your guidance. Motacilla (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Another query on defaultsorts. I have been following your example on this whenever I happen across, rather than consistently working through, files and cats, particularly if files begin with a date or a camera file number. Can you tell me what is the convention reasoning with defsorts as I cannot find any guidance on this within Wikimedia ? Is there an agreement as to when, why, if, and under what circumstances to apply it ? I ask this as an uploader is querying why I have defsorted their files... I've given a stab at a reply based on what I have gleaned through osmosis but I'm not sure if it is strictly correct. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Defaultsort[edit]

Hi. The query above was probably not flagged to you as it was an adjunct to another topic head. Be grateful for a response. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for your messages of 24 and 28 May. I apologise for taking a fortnight to reply. I am on the autistic spectrum and often get too anxious to interact with people. Online it looks like rudeness. Actually it's irrational panic.
Thankyou also for all the good photos that you have taken and uploaded, and the thoroughness with which you categorise both your own images and those that other users have contributed. It makes a nice change!
I don't know what conventions Wikimedia Commons may have on defaultsorts. If there are clear conventions laid down somewhere, I have no idea where to look to find them. I know approximately where to find policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. However, here on Wikimedia Commons the conventions and where to find them are different, and I have much less idea where to find them.
I simply do what I think will achieve a good outcome. For a parish church, most categories need to be sorted by placename. For example "nth-century churches in —shire", "Anglican churches in —shire", "Churches in the Diocese of —cester", "Grade X listed churches in —shire" and "Saint — churches in —shire". If it's a Gothic Revival church, the number of categories needing alphasorting will be even larger. A "defaultsort" template seems the most concise way to do the job.
Usually the only category that doesn't need the same defaultsort is the location. Some contributors therefore apply a "key" using the "|" character. But if the location is a village, I can't see the point. That is because most categories for an individual village and/or civil parish is likely to contain only a few categories. The parish church will therefore be as easy to find on the page regardless of what letter it is under.
If one treated every item in a village the same way — the local country house, historic pub, Medieval packhorse bridge, motte-and-bailey, whatever — every category within that village might end up under the same letter of the alphabet. That might dissatisfy someone who wanted them to be more spread out. But in so small a list each category will still be easy to find, so I have yet to understand why some contributors object to defaultsorting them.
I am sorry not to be more definitive in the above. But I hope it gives you an idea of why I do things in a particular way. If anyone directs you to a set of written conventions which we're supposed to apply, please share the link with me. It would save me from making it up as I go along!
Best wishes Motacilla (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Bottisham / Reach church[edit]

Hi -- sorry I didn't get back to you about the church, but thanks for correcting my egregious error. I evidently visited both on a trip out and tagged them incorrectly, but all appears well. I can confirm that it is Bottisham church, if that's of any use now! Smb1001 (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I guessed what you might've done! You're not the only one to have photographed several churches in one trip, and then wondered afterwards which photos were from which church! I may have done it. I know several other contributors have. I've certainly managed to mislabel photos after confusing which saint is patron of which church, I think as a result of having photographed several villages in one day!
I've never been to Bottisham or Reach. I managed to work out which church it really was by asking myself "Now what mistake would I have made?", and then searching the map for nearby churches!
But the important thing is it's a good photo of a good subject, and thankyou for taking and uploading it! And thankyou again for getting in touch. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorting churches[edit]

"most churches in England are now sorted first by place, then by dedication"; why? Who decided this? It makes no sense to do this. In what we might call "local categories", since people read from left to right, they would expect church names to be sorted by dedication. In wider categories (e.g. Saint X churches in England), these should be sorted by location. So it makes better sense to default sort on saint, location and override this for the handful of wide categories that may apply. I'll also point out that your method does not, and never has, applied, in Scotland and Wales. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for your message.
In England thousands of churches are categorised by century, county, style, denomination, heritage category (if any) and, where known, architect. For all of these it is right to sort them by location, so that is the defaultsort. It was custom and practice before I started, and nor am I currently alone in copying it. I have applied it to thousands of churches, most of them in England, it as it makes sense. Dedication or other name is better for sorting churches within a town or city, to prevent them from all being under the same initial. For that, the dedication or other name forms a key for that town's category.
Because Wikimedia Commons is organic and individuals apply their own ideas in their own areas of interest, London has developed differently. Someone has sorted the Church of England dioceses of London and Southwark into deaneries, and has sorted some of the churches in those deaneries by dedication.
Many churches have no known dedication. This applies both to denominations that do not have bishops, and to C of E churches whose dedication, if any, has been long forgotten. The dedication of some churches has been changed. Some people know a church's location but not its dedication.
For most of England, therefore, sorting first by place is normal practice. Examine the categories for England's 43 Church of England dioceses, anything up to 49 county categories for each century, major denomination, style or heritage category and you will see this is the case. In the Diocese of Oxford, so far nearly 600 churches have individual categories. The counties of Devon, Kent and Oxfordshire each have individual categories for more than 300 C of E churches, and those numbers are increasing. To sort them other than by place would be very unhelpful.
Before I started sorting churches in England, most of them were in a mess. Now an increasing proportion of them are in good order.
Thankyou again for asking about the way English churches are sorted. I hope that the above explains that it is a practice that has evolved for practical reasons, and not the product of one contributor's wilfulness!
Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't the number of overrides of {{DEFAULTSORT}} in Category:St Barnabas, Liverpool suggest that this is not a useful approach, however widespread it is? It does to me. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
No, because the defaultsort applies to six of the ten categories and the keys apply to only four. And in most other cases the number of keys required is fewer. Motacilla (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Tattie Kirk[edit]

All churches I've worked on in Scotland, which is hundreds if not thousands, are sorted by name, then location, and not the other way around. Please stick to the prevailing custom. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Bell cotes vs bell gables[edit]

Hi Motacilla, I just noticed this edit where this figure was sorted from Category:Bell cotes to Category:Bell gables in Ireland. This appears to be strange as “bell cotes” and “bell gables” are synonyms. There is no difference between them. See, for example, James Stevens Curl, Oxford Dictionary of Architecture, Oxford University Press, p. 80. Likewise the Penguin Dictionary of Architecture. Both terms have, BTW, one common German translation: “Glockengiebel”. The corresponding articles bell-gable and bell-cot got it wrong, they haven't been written using architectural reference works. If you read the actual description at File:Suggestions on the Arrangement and Characteristics of Parish Churches Figure 10 BL Scan.png you will see that the author of the book (which was a famous architect) refered to it as “bell-cot”. Hence, there is no point in maintaining these categories in parallel. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this structure in Liverpool a bell-cote, -gable or -turret?
Thankyou for your message.
Commons has separate categories [[Category:Bell cotes]], [[Category:Bell gables]] and [[Category:Bell turrets in England]]. Fleming, Honour and Pevsner (1966) define bell cote and bell gable as synonyms. But their origins are distinct, hence the logic of the Wikipedia articles bell-cot and bell-gable.
For centuries cot or cote has meant a little house – hence cottage. Bellcot or bell cote implies a little house for a bell or bells, which therefore implies shelter.
"Bell gable" implies an extension on a gable wall, either upward or outward, to hang a bell or bells. But the term makes no implication about sheltering the bell, and indeed some bell gables are very open and exposed.
Glockengiebel translates literally as "bell gable". Giebel does not translate as "little house", or therefore as "cot" or "cote".
I have been categorising bell turrets as well. My copy of Fleming, Honour and Pevsner (third edition, 1980) seems not to mention the term. John Henry Parker (1935) defined bell turret as a synonym of both bell cote and bell gable. But a turret is a little tower. I therefore expect a bell turret to be in a relatively high place on a building, as I would a bell gable. But a cote, a little house, could be anywhere. Some bell cotes are free-standing at ground level.
I have therefore been drawing distinctions between the three terms, and applying whichever one seems most descriptive. In some cases two terms seem applicable to the same structure, so I have applied both.
If we are to treat cotes and gables as precise synonyms, then one category or set of categories should be replaced with a redirect to the other. But given the wide diversity of structures that this would lump together, I can see this producing some odd results.
And if we are to treat cotes and gables as synonyms because architectural dictionaries say so, can we defend keeping bell turrets as a distinct term? Parker treats all three as synonyms. But some turrets are so large as to verge upon being towers, whereas others are small and perch on a gable wall like a bell gable or bell cote.
Where do we go from here?
Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for jumping in here chiefly as I have added files to bell cotes and bell gables, and regardless of 'experts' who provide definitions... presumptive I know. I tend towards Motacilla's view.
I work on the accepted definition that 'cotes' are enclosures (would that mean usually four walls?), for bells or birds etc. I have assumed that bell cotes are bell enclosures added to any parts of roofs or side walls, while not having their special tower (being a separate bell tower or turret), or part of a multi-purpose tower (as belfies).
I think some confusion lies with bells in enclosures (however enclosure is defined), and bells housed in gable edge 'two dimensional' upper apertures. This also poses the problem of the bell gable seeming to suggest a gable which is built specifically to support on it a bell... hardly ever the case I suspect. This terminology the experts have perhaps not tackled.
Apart from the anomaly suggested in the last paragraph, I think it might be a way forward to call all enclosed dedicated roof bell enclosures as bell cots or, if tall and pointy, bell turrets, even if they appear at the end of a gable, and end-of-gable bells in simple wall apertures as bell gables, however inadequate the term 'bell gable' may be. Acabashi (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

File renaming[edit]

Hi Motacilla. As you are so active on Wikimedia, and may have asked for a number of files to be changed, you might consider becoming a filemover: request filemover-rights here. I know one of your concerns (and mine), is with Geograph files (especially the dubious quality of loads of them), and no doubt this with all files too... see. And there is now a load of badly named and catted defunct Panoramio stuff being shoe-horned in. There are so many files with ridiculous and meaningless names that make them virtually unsearcheable, such as some I've seen: 'Are you asleep', 'Gaggle of Gravestones', 'Whoops', 'What Stile', '007(6062522586)-DellboyDaBumbler' ... you get the picture. Cats we both add are fine and very useful, but most searchers will first pick up first on a file name, not just here, but on web searches. I hope you will consider being a file mover. Keep up the good work. Happy New Year. Acabashi (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Saint James churches[edit]

Please stop removing things from Category:St. James churches. That category is for churches by name, not by patron saint, so the remaining categories for specific saints do not cover this. Since you commented at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:St. James Churches, I know you are aware that this category is being discussed, so it's inappropriate for you to remove things while the discussion is ongoing. Anything you remove in the meantime will be put back. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

On 13 November AFBorchert placed a template at the head of the Category:St. James churches. Its second sentence states "As a result of this discussion, pages and files in this category may be recategorised (not deleted)". I am making no change to the category. I am, in accordance with that template, recategorising pages in that category.
By now the churches that I have categorised on Commons, mostly in England, number many hundreds. The ways in which they are categorised are highly developed. The categorisation itself has been progressing well, but much remains to be done. Please consider contributing to that process, instead of threatening an edit war with your statement "Anything you remove in the meantime will be put back". Motacilla (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The template statement you quote refers to what may happen to pages and files after the discussion is closed. The discussion is still open, so no related action should be taken yet. Do you have any suggestions on how to resolve the name confusion between the categories by name and those by patron saint? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There is already a Category:Saint James churches in England, which so far includes Category:Saint James the Greater churches in England alongside categories for nine English counties. I have just moved Category:St. Joseph and St. James Church, Follifoot to it, as this is more precise than Category:St. James churches. More counties could be added to this family of categories. And there is not yet a Category:Saint James churches in the United Kingdom. Motacilla (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Renaming files[edit]

Thanks for adding files to the 'Bad file names' in UK place cats... useful. I work through yours when I happen across them. I am happy to carry on, but you might find that adding a change file temp using "more → move" tab near the top right per Commons:File renaming, will get more file changers directly on the case, with a descriptive file name added to your satisfaction. I go on the basis that the actual file name (its potency up to, but diminishing towards, the first 10 words of that name) is the optimum and prime latch for recognition by Google algorithms for image searches... descriptions have less search value, and tags (cats) virtually none. Also, building a history of file name change requests helps in a presentation for file changer rights for which, from your dedicated efforts for the project, I think you should soon apply. Thanks for the good work. Acabashi (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Cats[edit]

Hi Motacilla, Just to let you know categories don't go in alphabetical order, For buses atleast they go by: "the name of the company", then "the vehicle make/model", then "the bus colour" (if desired) then "buses in X" and then finally "Files with bad names",
Thanks & Happy editing :), –Davey2010Talk 13:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for your edit warring and gratuitous obscenity on File:Au Morandarte Flickr DSC00958 (10332793974).jpg. It tells me all I need to know. Motacilla (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome!, Had you bothered to actually discuss it maybe things would've been nicer. –Davey2010Talk 23:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Defaultsorts[edit]

Stop reverting me or you may be blocked. We may have started by doing these incorrectly, but that's no excuse not to do them properly now. I can't believe anyone ever though that "location, dedication" as opposed to "dedication, location" is in any way a sensible way of default sorting church names, and frankly, it's just asinine to support the idea. People read names in the UK from left to right, and expect to see a church sorted by its saint's name. Let's not insult their intelligence and confuse them by getting it wrong, please. I'd fix all this but I have 506 uploads to do from the last five days photography so it won't be this week. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I categorise sort churches throughout England and have been achieving a very high degree of consistency. I have categorised and sorted images of hundreds of churches that, until I found and categoriesed them, were barely findable on Wikimedia Commons.
You want churches in your part of England to be sorted differently from those everywhere else. This makes categories much harder to navigate and serves no purpose that I can see as constructive. For goodness' sake please stop.
Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I want ALL churches EVERYWHERE to be defsorted CORRECTLY, showing proper consideration for our users and a basic understanding of their expectations. A very high degree of consistency is absolutely useless if you are consistently wrong. Following the herd may be easy, but it is mindless. I'm prepared to seek community consensus on this, because everybody else seems to get it right. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Saint Peter's Church Redditch[edit]

Hello, sorry for any confusion, this is definitely part of the Church, not the annexe, although it is a modern addition. I'm assuming eth title was auto generated by Wikimedia, otehrwise I have no idea where it came from. Stub Mandrel (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"Deleted categories appropriate only to individual files"[edit]

No. Not "only". A category may be specifically of the tower of a church, in which case a tower category would be appropriate, but not for the individual files within it, was it would then be overcategorisation. Please learn what you're doing with categories before you do anything else, and I lose my fucking temper with you. I'm prepared to let you have the clearly incorrect DEFAULTSORT templates, if you will allow me to override them so that the user doesn't wonder why the fuck everything is in the wrong place. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)