User talk:Nev1

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

Talkback[edit]

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Nev1. You have new messages at Lewis Hulbert's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Calshot Castle[edit]

No. Apart from anything else I prefer the pic that currently leads the en:Calshot Castle article.Geni (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Pendennis Castle[edit]

The train was named after the castle, so I fail to see how it is not relevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Would it be worth creating a separate category for the train? Nev1 (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Certain trains are worth creating their own category for, heritage ones mainly. There are currently 11 photos of this train on Commons, or at least 11 which include "57604" in the page. I'm not sure I know of any non-heritage trains with their own category. I suppose it could be done though. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
If there are enough photos to make a category worthwhile, I don't see why not. 11 seems like a good number. Then it would be useful to have that as a subcategory of Pendennis Castle. At the moment, the way I look at it, it's a bit surprising to see pictures of trains in a category about a castle as the file names don't give an indication why. A subcategory would make the link clearer. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll get on that. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:British Rail Class 57 57604 Pendennis Castle. I also found another Pendennis Castle loco which was added to the parent cat. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Nev1,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Salford Quays - Media City, IWMN & Lowry, April 2011.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Salford Quays aerial view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Midland Hotel west, Manchester.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Midland Hotel, Manchester SW view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Express Building Manchester.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Daily Express Building, Manchester, façade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Light Oaks Hall (geograph 2950297).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Light Oaks Hall east view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Royal Exchange Manchester central hall.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Royal Exchange, Manchester central hall.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

CIS Tower Manchester.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Co-operative Insurance Tower, north-west view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Angel Square, front facade.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
The Co-operative Group Building, Manchester south façade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
67 Whitworth Street.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lancaster House, Manchester north view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Urbis Olympics.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Urbis seen from the south.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Oldham town centre, aerial view from north.JPG
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Oldham town centre, aerial view from north.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Aerial View of St Asaph Cathedral.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
St Asaph Cathedral aerial from the east.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

{{Listed building Scotland}}[edit]

Can't really see the point of tagging each image in a category with this when the category is already tagged; is there one? Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

By and large it's probably not worth it, but I've just installed a script which uses the template to populate lists on Wikipedia. It's not essential, just speeds things up in this case. That's why I've been tagging one photo in a category rather than lots – tagging them all probably isn't worth the effort. Nev1 (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, OK, it makes sense in that context. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Roslin Castle vs Category:Rosslyn Castle[edit]

Hi, I found we had been maintaining two separate categories for this castle. The category that matched the en:WP article name hadn't been placed in Category:Roslin, Midlothian, so there was no warning to anyone. Since it appears that locally, as described here the name is Rosslyn rather than Roslin, I've moved everything into Category:Rosslyn Castle for now. Let me know if there is any compelling reason to have the other name and I'll fix it back. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Going with 'Rosslyn' strikes me as the right thing to do. Thanks for spotting that, I'd completely missed it. Nev1 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:New_Square,_Lincoln%27s_Inn[edit]

Hi there! I moved your '12 and 13 New Square' category. It contained an assortment of buildings that did not match the category name. The same was true for some of the file descriptions. I tried to mend that as much as possible, but maybe I still missed some. The buildings in the square are all listed either I, II or II*. Are they all 16th century, do you know? Because one of your categories was '16th-century architecture in London'. --Judithcomm (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Judithcomm, thank you for taking care of that! The category was based on the information for numbers 12 and 13, so I'm not sure about the dates for the other buildings in the square. But from a search of the English Heritage website it looks like 1–11 were built in 1690–97, and 14 & 15 were built in 1928. There are other listed buildings, but as far as I can see that covers the houses so I'd be tempted to add categories for 16th-, 17th-, and 20th-century architecture in London. Nev1 (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok to add those categories as far as I'm concerned. Only there are 'purists' who would disagree. They say a category should apply to all media in the group or the category should be split up. --Judithcomm (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)