User talk:Nilfanion

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

If you want to leave a message to me on any issue relating to Commons, or Commons-hosted imagery please leave it here. Please only leave messages on my en.wikipedia talk page if it is strictly an en.wikipedia matter.

Commons maintenance announcements [+/−]

More translations are needed for:

as of 18 February 2010

Image Use Permissions Yellowmead[edit]

I am interested in discussing the image found here of Yellowmead which was uploaded by Nilfanion. Please contact me to discuss for upcoming publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webandladder (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Batch of files[edit]

Hi here is the list of files you asked for, not sure what they should be called but they are all from a similar location to File:Macclesfield Road, Islington.jpg (and probably taken from the same hotel window)

Oxyman (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC) @Oxyman: I've moved these now (to names based on either "Macclesfield Road, London" or "250 City Road, London, under construction") Clearly the construction site is most interesting thing in these images.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this Oxyman (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion request[edit]

A question concerning two photos in particular which I nominated for deletion, and which the originator merely reverted my request making them valid. They are File:08-2015-04-17 محمية جبل النبي متى.jpg and File:12-2015-04-18 محمية جبل النبي متى.jpg ? The site is littered by similar from this particular user. All or most of his work is not realistically useful for an educational purpose, or are redundant because there are better images, all are defaced with a date and time stamp, all are of poor quality where there are many better available, Many suffer from nothing to distinguish them as to where or what they are about, mainly consisting of visually anonymous subject matters; incoherently named, and non descriptive, even in his own language. Few "if any" are categorized, or used or linked elsewhere; these particular photos since 2015 as an example. He has even listed himself as a category within Syria. See [[1]]. What can you do about this? Educate him presumably. Over to you? Regards --BeckenhamBear (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Location of files[edit]

I know you suggested that its a bad idea to use a bot to categorize images but I can't see how it is much less accurate than doing it manually. The problem with GeographBot (talk · contribs) was that it often categorized by nearest settlement (while I'm suggesting doing it by parish, or unparished). The point that Geograph contributes often aren't accurate with location probably wouldn't be noticed easily by checking them manually either (I don't often find that). But the main problem is that Geograph has 19 images for every grid square so it is clearly not practical to sift through them manually. Geograph also gets thousands more images every week. In the next few weeks I can categorize all the CPs into their district and civil parishes in ??? cat if you think that its a good idea. One problem we might have sometimes it that the cats don't always match the parishes due to alternative names (like Newark for example) I sometimes use the {{geogroup|uk=y}} tag and previewing to locate incorrect images (I found many for Wickham) which the bot could also do. Has there been any more parishes registered with OS? Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Doing things by hand will always have certain advantages over bot. One issue is geocoding is done to the location of the camera, not the subject. As an extreme example this image would correctly be geocoded to France, but correctly categorised as showing the White Cliffs. A human can also pick up and correct errors.
GeographBot was an exceptionally dumb bot as nearest settlement is a very poor algorithm for British geography (it often got counties wrong, never mind villages). The best available tool for localising is MaPit, which shows all areas that contain a point. As an example, if you click the co-ordinates on File:Adit, Devon United Mine (geograph 5120624).jpg you get to this Geohack page, and the MaPit link correctly identifies the parish. That will also be the most recent parish recorded with OS - addressing your last point. As for the rapid uploads to Geograph - we can ignore them until they are uploaded here; hopefully anyone transferring a new file will do so more intelligently than the bulk upload several years ago.
In theory bots could handle this task, but I don't have the ability to set that up, and in their absence its best to make a start by hand.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

De-adminship warning[edit]

This talk page in other languages:

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | മലയാളം | português | português do Brasil | +/−

Dear Nilfanion, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2017 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Royal Flying Corps Station Joyce Green"[edit]

Hi Nilfanion,

Can I interest you in a map project, please? I need it for a forthcoming article I'm creating for Britain's first airbase. Active 1911-1919 in WWI.

1911 Aerodrome

Could you modify your map File:Dartford UK parish map 2011 (blank).svg to show the airfield? Location Joyce Green, near Dartford, Kent, England coord|51.4773|0.2197| The airfield in particular occupied a 121 acres (49 ha) site 1200 x 1000 yards of low-lying marshland bordered by the River Darent to the west, the Thames to the north, its access road Joyce Green Lane to the east (running north to south). Many thanks --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@BeckenhamBear: I'm intrigued, but I'm not really clear what you want. Could you point to a comparable map for a different airport (or whatever), to make it clearer what you'd like? For location purposes, the equivalent of the map in the infobox of w:Lydd Airport will be fine, but if you want real detail visible it will need a larger scale.
I don't think the Dartford map is suitable: The boundaries of both the borough and the parishes reflect the modern geography and don't reflect what was there at the time of the RFC.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your quick reply, shortly after I posted you I discovered another similar map from 1918, unfortunately though it's interesting, it's too fuzzy.
Royal Flying Corp Aerodrome at Joyce Green, near Dartford, England, site plan autumn 1918
. I already have a Lydd style map. However the nerdish RFC community want to see the scale and shape of the site. It does not appear on Ordnance Survey, ad is actually totally forgotten about the site forgotten and all traces cleared away. The maps are more than 1/2 the story. I've put together a raft of materiel for this including "snipping tool" map samples from and amassed several very interesting photos, I could give you access to.
Have a look at EN:Category:Joyce Green airfield
The site hasn't changed much if you look at the satellite photos on Google and Bing. Ideally two maps would be nice a digitized labelled version of the first map I showed you and a map similar to File:Fort McMurray—Athabasca.png showing it relative to the area; that's why I thought of the parish map. At the end of the day its down to what's possible to be achieved by the cartographer. What do you think? All the best, Jim. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, got an idea of way forward - the ideal role for a map would be to illustrate the dubious location, showing the various other things nearby like the hospital (see this 1921 map). The lack on the actual layout of the site itself is unfortunate - I'd assume actual take-offs and landings would be in a restricted area. I'm surprised was zero impact on the field layout, and I'd have expected at least some of the ditches to be re-aligned/removed to ease aircraft movement; not for exactly the same field system to persist from the 1860s to the 1960s. To the point that I wonder if this is the wrong site...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Nilfanion, I just uploaded a photo EN:File:RFC Joyce Green ditch boards and Vimy.jpg. I uploaded a number of explanatory photos into the wiki at Category: Joyce Green airfield, where you can see the boards the RFC covered over the ditches with. The clearer of the two maps show the ditches on the site as seen on the Google satellite EARTH view. The 1918 map didn't bother showing the ditches. Of course the RFC had no landing strips as we know them they just used a flat field turning the plane to suit the wind as needed. Amazing really! The whole area was restricted the hospital was purpose built to hide away smallpox victims from London. We definitely have the right site, Jim --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah that makes sense now, I guess I'm forgetting how lightweight WW1-era aircraft were, so boards over ditches would be sufficient to handle the stress!--Nilfanion (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)