User talk:Nilfanion

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Commons-logo.svg

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.

Wikipedia-logo.png
Commons maintenance announcements [+/−]

More translations are needed for:


Backlogs:
as of 18 February 2010


Furness[edit]

Hi, would it be possible to get a copy of this map without the administrative boundaries? I'm looking to create a map showing the extent of the Furness region, and they would get in the way. The only other geographical map of Cumbria I've found is this one, which would be perfect if it weren't for the fact that it doesn't seem to show the lakes. Zacwill (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I made one with the admin boundaries anyway. Zacwill (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Zacwill: I can probably do this in the next week or so if you still want. A question regarding File:Furness map.png - shouldn't Walney Island be included as part of Furness?Nilfanion (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you think it would be better without showing the districts? I was worried they would clutter the map, but I think it turned out okay. Re Walney - I think you may be right, I'll have to change that. Zacwill (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Its probably a good idea to remove the districts as they don't really add value, although they don't have any real negative impact either. Having looked at the article, I think the real issue is showing the "wrong" boundaries - it may make more sense to show the historical Lancashire boundary instead.--Nilfanion (talk)
There is a map further down the page showing historic Lancashire. Zacwill (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

New CPs[edit]

Thanks for your comment, where do you get the data from? I checked the parished this Summer from https://mapit.mysociety.org/ which is how I found many more newly created parishes and found some anyway from the bulletin pages. I expect that the chances are there will be at least 1 new parish created since I checked and it would be much easier to just go through the list of new CPs than check the whole lot manually again, thanks. I can't think of any outdated CP maps but File:North Yorkshire UK location map.svg is outdated as the A1 has been upgraded to motorway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The data files I use for my maps (OS OpenData) contain spreadsheet-type datefiles in addition to the shapes for the maps. There do not seem to be any new parishes registered with OS between June and October of this year, however Moulton in South Holland has been renamed to The Moultons.
I imagine several county-level CP maps (eg File:Suffolk UK parish map (blank).svg) will need a refresh as any parish creation/merger/deletion will not be shown. If the county has only seen some realignments it probably isn't worth re-doing the map.
Thanks for heads-up regarding the North Yorks roads. It would be helpful if you could let me know of any problems relating to parish or road changes in these maps - it saves me having to check all of them!--Nilfanion (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I have done Moulton, please let me know if you find more. We now have an image and category of every CP in England except Lands common to the parishes of Brancepeth and Brandon and Byshottles.
Most counties have only had 1 or 2 I think, Cheshire, File:Cheshire UK parish map (blank).svg is the only 1 that has had a large number.
I will if I can think of any others, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
On File:North Lanarkshire UK location map.svg M8 and M80 upgrades also note the M74 extension although this has been done on File:North Lanarkshire UK location map.svg. I'll let you know if I find any more, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

EU referendum maps[edit]

I don't really understand the need for being so precious about image file names which are to become dormant, but as you insist I'll upload the files again.

The current maps on the EU referendum results page are not acceptable as they fail to take into account the relative campaign strengths of vote in each respective voting area. As an example, how can you justify categorising the result in Moray (the closest result in the country) to the result in Gibraltar? If you are so concerned with these changes then please improve them: the majority consensus is that the UK-wide map scale is adequate, if you wish to overturn this consensus then please consult the relevant talk page. --Brythones (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Primary topics[edit]

In terms of being primary Plymouth compare this Plymouth, Devon pop (261,546) views (24,000), Plymouth, Massachusetts pop (58,271) views (18,615), Plymouth, Minnesota pop (70,576) views (2,047) and Plymouth (automobile) views (11,841). Even though Plymouth, Devon is the original and has long term significance and the others might often be referred to by including the state (and Massachusetts getting more views around Thanksgiving) it appears to get much less views and has a lower population than the others combined so even if the "long term significance" it met on Wikipedia, I question it on here. Compare this to Stockport, pop (136,081, town and 286,755, district) views (8,761, town and 1,140, district) v Stockport, Iowa pop (296) views (148), Stockport, Indiana, pop not mentioned but likely very small since it is an unincorporated community, views (18), Stockport, New York pop (2,815) views (102), Stockport, Ohio pop (503) views (131), Stockport, South Australia pop (234) views (104) so the others have 3848 or maybe a bit more if Indiana or any others that don't currently have articles were included so as well as Stockport, Cheshire the town has over 35 times the population and the district has over 74 times (excluding Indiana or any others that don't currently have articles). Stockport, Cheshire the town has over 17 times the views (excluding Indiana or any others that don't currently have articles) and the town and district have over 19 times the views (excluding Indiana or any others that don't currently have articles). So in terms of usage Stockport in England clearly is primary by usage, even before you take into account that US Places are often searched by including the state anyway, therefore widening the gap further as primary topic is only about this term, se this comment for example, while people probably wouldn't look for Stockport, Greater Manchester as it was in Cheshire. A primary example of this is Lincoln where even though Abraham Lincoln is much more important the city is not usually referred to anything other than "Lincoln". Obviously population and page views aren't the only way to establish primary topics (Winchester the settlement gets about twice as many hits as Stockport even though it has about a third of the population) what links here can show a bit of both criteria (although it was on the tools list before the long term significance criteria was added). Google can be biast when looking for things of geographical scope (however even though as pointed out as w:Talk:Raleigh (disambiguation) Raleigh from a UK Google search doesn't return many hits for the NC city, Google Images is a different story unlike Brampton), notice that w:WP:NWFCTM only mentions things that depend on geographical scope as Mercury probably won't vary greatly from place to place. Maybe primary topics should only be used in situations where nobody disputes that the primary topic is overwhelmingly more likely to be sought and more significant. However that might well lead to many primary topics being removed so as you pointed out at the Plymouth discussion we might think about it on a case by case basis. Interestingly look at Somerton (Somerton, Arizona has about 3 times the population and there are other locations in the UK which have long histories (although the Somerset one could probably be presumed to be meant in the UK as also Somerton, Somerset is unnatural) or Mansfield where there are many other places (although many appear to derive from Nottinghamshire, from surnames although some from Scotland). Worcester might be correct as the UK one is not likely to be disambiguated and is a cathedral city (city not having the same meaning/importance in the US) while the others usually are. Primary topics that I do think are incorrect on Wikipedia for example are Ford as the crossing has more long term significance as a term that has always existed unlike a company which is popular today and Lewis which the given name is quite obviously primary even in Britain!, to me in England (and being part Scottish) I find it astonishing that "Lewis" takes me there, I think I had only heard of it as "Isle of Lewis", if it is not the primary meaning in Britain, how an earth can it be in a global encyclopaedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

tl;dr. Please use paragraph breaks, and is there any point to this? If this is about the Plymouth case, you should make your case on the CFD not here. I'm sure there are lot of problems on Wikipedia with Primary Topic application, likewise I'm sure there are a bunch of similar problems on Commons. I have no real interest in chasing any of this up. What I do care about is not breaking something that works, and causing more harm than good.
As an example, the purpose of the long-term significance clause is to stop recent things such as recently released movies or internet memes from overturning long-standing concepts. For example, the article Avatar is not about the film of that title, even though utterly dominated pageview count after its release, because its unlikely to have truly lasting significance. That clause is not designed as an argument Ford should mean the water crossing and not the motor company, just because they have existed for longer. The motor company has been continuously highly significant for over 100 years, so scores very highly as "long-term significant" - and it probably rates higher than the water crossing.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I was providing some analysis on primary topics (although more relevant for Wikipedia) it still has some relevance here (some is off topic to Plymouth) as, as you have pointed primary topics should be held higher (for categories).
I'm not convinced while Fords aren't used as much in modern society as Apples for example, w:Jaguar and w:Jaguar Cars are located as such. Instead of the way Ford is set up. I wasn't saying replacing "Ford" with w:Ford (crossing) rather the DAB page moved might be better (this primary topic has been disputed by many). Because Commons categories (as do Wikipedia categories) use plurals, there is less conflict here but Category:Ford is still a DAB here.
Another point is when the administrative unit and settlement (or feature) have different names but are clearly alternative names should w:WP:DABCONCEPT also apply (as administrative unit are generally subtopics not competing titles for Primary topics), for example "Stratford-upon-Avon" is the name of the settlement (and CP) but the name of the district is "Stratford-on-Avon" but even so "Stratford-on-Avon" redirects to the main article "Stratford-upon-Avon". Category:Llangyniew redirects to "Category:Llangynyw but the community cat is at "Category:Llangyniew (community). This would be inline with for example w:Scarborough, North Yorkshire which isn't at "Scarborough (settlement), North Yorkshire" (or similar) even though w:Borough of Scarborough is also in North Yorkshire. If you look at this for example the links appear to be at the settlement not parish even though the settlement is called "Newark-on-Trent". I would say we should move Category:Newark, Nottinghamshire to Category:Newark (parish) per this comment (or possibly merge them as there doesn't seen to be that much difference between the settlement and parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Analysis on primary topics - especially how primary topics work on Wikipedia - is really not helpful. Debates about Primary Topic there are pointless and waste time better spent on other areas (like improving the articles!). I have no real interest in them on Commons beyond ensuring they are understood to exist, I certainly have no interest in wasting more time on this.
In Wikipedia terms, Ford is a solid primary topic and is not a helpful one to look at for guidance. A case could be made for looking at categories like Category:Fords in the United Kingdom. This could be reasonably understood to mean "Ford vehicles in the UK" not "Ford (water crossings) in the UK"; so could do with a better title. However, I have no interest in that discussion.
Stratford is fine at currently is on Commons. As for Newark, the best solution is to merge to Newark-on-Trent. There is zero point in making a distinction between the settlement and parish - they are the same thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes agreed, although some users are interested in this (I am to some extent) although improving the articles is generally better (for most people anyway). Some users have special knowledge/interests in this, see w:WP:GENERICSTUB.
Agreed this is different for Commons because of plurals but the same could be said about Jaguar and Apple (for Wikipedia, although we don't need to have it here!)
I have merged Newark. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)