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

Category:Districts of Plymouth[edit]

As there is Tamerton Foliot‎ which is technically still a village (although it feels like a suburb of Plymouth) as it is still separate from Plymouth by a small amount of countryside as well as Plymstock which was apparently in South Hams and other dubious ones, wouldn't it be better to rename the cat something like "Places in Plymouth". Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Tamerton Foliot is not technically separate when you consider reliable source (ie ONS) which merge it into the main urban area. Any definition which is based on interpreting maps yourself, like you appear to be doing here, is very close to original research. I don't see a problem with Plymstock vs the South Hams - Plymstock was part of Plymouth before the South Hams district existed.
I don't see an issue here in any case. A district of a city can retain a distinct village identity regardless of whether it is physically separate or not - a place can be a city district or a village, or both, or neither.
Renaming "districts" to "places" does not solve the issue either, as the two concepts are basically equivalent. The only real difference is with uninhabited places - the Eddystone Rocks are not a district of Plymouth, but they are a place in Plymouth. Other words such as "Area" and "Neighbourhoods" will also have similar issues. In the case of Plymouth, the council actually defines a number of "neighbourhoods".--Nilfanion (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
There are many sources that say Tamerton Foliot‎ is a village for example reads "Tamerton Foliot is an historic village on the northern edge of Plymouth. Although now within the City area, it..." and the murder news articles also refer to it as a village although the neighbourhood profile does refer to it as "one of the city's historic neighbourhoods and has developed around the historic village centre...". According to BBC there is no clear definition of a suburb but as far as I was aware it generally had to at least be part of the settlement rather than nearby.
As far as I was aware when you say "district of ..." you are referring to a part of that place only not a place outside it.
There is Category:Eddystone Light which is under simply Plymouth, Eddystone Rocks could be put in Places in Plymouth or just left in Plymouth, this might point towards naming it "Settlements in Plymouth". "Neighbourhoods" as far as I was aware generally refers to a place within but not always, some people refer to any small settlement as a neighbourhood, areas is indeed more general but would probably generally mean a part of a larger settlement rather than a separate one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
My point here is Tamerton Foliot is a thing within Plymouth, not a thing adjacent to Plymouth. It has a village identity, but it is also part of the whole. Tamerton Foliot is both a district of Plymouth and a village in Plymouth.
"Settlements in Plymouth" would be completely useless as a name - Plymouth is a single settlement - its how to sub-divide it in a useful manner that matters.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
That's like saying that Wivenhoe is also a district of Colchester as well as being a separate town. Old Trafford is much more of a place in Manchester but it is in the Trafford district, Salford is also really a suburb of Manchester but has a separate metropolitan district. The only difference is that Tamerton Foliot is no longer a parish but it was. Tamerton Foliot was also in South Hams as vision of Britain titiles the page "History of Tamerton Foliot, in South Hams and Devon".
I agree "Settlements in Plymouth" sounds odd because of Plymouth being a settlement (which contains most of the district's settlements) but the district also contains Tamerton Foliot just like Colchester includes Wivenhoe or Leeds contains Wetherby. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive - a place CAN be a village and part of a larger settlement. Consider another example - "Stoke Village". Stoke was historically an independent village but has long since been absorbed within the conurbation that became Plymouth. It is a village within Plymouth but, clearly, its more usefully described as a district of Plymouth.
Tamerton Foliot was never in the South Hams. Part of the former parish was transferred to the South Hams CP of Bickleigh, yes. But Tamerton Foliot (the village) has never been in the South Hams - it was added to the city before the South Hams District was created. Tamerton Foliot (the parish) was never part of the South Hams either - it was abolished before the South Hams District was created. Places that were historically within Tamerton Foliot CP are now within the South Hams district.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Stoke is not still a village, it is a district of Plymouth, it would not be correct today to call it a village, it is a district in Plymouth (part of the settlement) rather than a separate one. While Tamerton Foliot is a settlement adjacent to Plymouth (settlement) in Plymouth unitary authority, just like Wivenhoe is a town adjacent to Colchester (settlement) in Colchester borough.
Isn't that the case with many districts, A vision of Britain is probably just using current boundaries which is why it says "in South Hams". Possibly the cat could be split and have the places historically in other areas in City of Plymouth and the pre 1967 (which is one of the things that w:WP:UKDISTRICTS lists pointing towards splits) in Plymouth but I'm not sure if there is sufficient difference in boundaries to warrant a split, it might just be easier to just change the Districts of Plymouth cat. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
There is no need to change this category. Plymouth is almost a classic example of a single settlement district, and there is no need to separate the "settlement" and "district" meanings in this case; making a Settlements in Plymouth category absurd. Anything else is effectively synonym of the existing "district", making a rename to anything else a waste of time. I would only support a change there as part of a standardisation of all similar categories in the UK.
Tamerton Foliot is clearly on the edge of the modern settlement of Plymouth, added to the district after WW2 (before the reforms of the 70s), and not an physically separate settlement. It may be identified as part of the larger unit, or described as having its own identity, but either way it is physically connected to the larger mass of the settlement (with zero separation). This is why the ONS-defined built-up area of Plymouth (which has nothing to do with the district boundary) includes the whole of Tamerton Foliot within Plymouth.
By contrast, Wivenhoe is NOT included in the ONS-defined Colchester area, not because it is a separate CP, but because it is a physically distinct settlement ( that gap is big enough for a separate Built-up area to fit between Colchester and Wivenhoe, and still have enough separation from both to be distinct).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there is insufficient places outside the settlement to have a "City of Plymouth" category even though I don't thank it is a "classic example" maybe Wolverhampton is a better example. However I was suggesting renaming the district cat to Places in Plymouth to catch all. There is Places in Leeds here which only appears to cover the settlement but w:Category:Places in Leeds includes Wetherby. Others in Category:Districts of cities in England follow this like Places in Sunderland doesn't include Washington. Also why did you remove Towns and villages in Devon from Plymouth? The idea of that cat I thought also included cities as there is no "Cities in Devon" cat nor should there be.
Tamerton Foliot nearly part of the settlement but not yet. However Old Trafford is clearly part of Manchester and is not separated by anything, not even a large river like Plymstock. Salford is much more like a suburb of Manchester isn't it? it is separated by a river bu is surrounded by Manchester unlike Plymstock.
Tamerton Foliot is still a physically distinct settlement unlike Old Trafford and Salford even though the gap is smaller, there is no gap at all with Manchester. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Plymouth should not be in the town and village category. That is because it is not a town nor is it a village. There is no harm in having a cities in Devon category - even if it only has two members. But it is factually incorrect to label a city as a town.
There is NO gap between Tamerton Foliot and the rest of Plymouth according to reliable sources (ONS) - you are creating a gap based on your interpretation of the map (original research). There is no need to rename the district cat to be a catch-all - it does that already.
As for Old Trafford - it is part of the settlement that includes Manchester, yes. However that settlement is not "Manchester". The built-up area is called the w:Greater Manchester Built-up Area. Ditto Salford or Droylesden.
Wetherby is not in Leeds, it is in the City of Leeds - which (unlike Plymouth) is a very different entity.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
As far as I was aware "Towns and villages in ..." takes cities (and hamlets is there isn't a cat) because unlike where it has been split like Carlisle, the settlement (Category:Towns and villages in Devon) and the district with city status (Cities in England) is all in 1 cat. If you look at other cases where we have 1 combined cat like Derby, the same has been done there. I would probably suggest that it wouldn't be helpful to have a cat with 2 members as they aren't very useful to particularly readers. Maybe Category:Cities in South West England would be better as that still contains only 8.
There's more than just my interpretation, see above about sources that say it is a village. I agree that the ONS is a good guideline for determining what pages should go where (and if a split is needed).
But Droylesden, Old Trafford and Salford are still much more like Manchester than Tamerton Foliot or even Plympton. Westminster is clearly part of London even though it is a separate London borough to (City of) London and the other London boroughs. Dovercourt is part of Harwich but is still a town. Because of this wouldn't it be easier to have Places in Plymouth like Wikipedia has places in Leeds to avoid ambiguity. Just because its in Plymouth district doesn't automatically mean its part of the settlement, Pinewood is clearly part of Ipswich town but not the borough, Woodbridge is part of the Ipswich (not greater Ipswich) built up area. However I thought we are supposed to use the settlement area not built up area, is Tamerton Foliot in the ONS settlement area?
Wetherby is indeed not part of the settlement but similar could be said about Tamerton Foliot. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I would have no problem with Category:Cities in Cornwall existing, even though it would only have one member. There is nothing wrong with small categories, when they are appropriate. Do not think a category is bad because it is small - its only when it is empty it is bad. Note also that a hamlet is a small village, but a city is not a large town.
ONS defines the built-up area, which is what is meant by ONS defining the settlement - it does not define the two in different ways. I bring you back to the point that a place can be a "village" AND a part of a larger place. A fully separate village could be physically adjacent to a larger town, and is "near" that larger one. None of your sources indicate there is a genuine gap (only your OR does that), merely that it is a "village".
Old Trafford is part of Greater Manchester, not Manchester. "Manchester" is effectively the area covered by Manchester City Council, not the interior of the M60.
There is zero point in renaming Category:Districts of Plymouth on the basis of the points you have raised here, as there isn't any ambiguity. A rename as part of a broader standardisation is possible - that issue is not Plymouth-specific, and should be done centrally. That discussion might result in one name for all these cats, or different variants for different situations. What seems best for Plymouth might not be best for London, or Manchester (or vice versa). Focusing on Plymouth only could lead to wrong result.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think small cats are always bad but as a general rule we should probably aim to have a reasonable number of pages in a cat (ideally about 40/50) so that they are useful and meaningful to people finding things. Where the cat forms part of a series of categorization like Category:Civil parishes in London (which now has 1 parish and you might want to consider closing the CFD) because we have a cat for every county with parishes and anyway there could well be more parishes in the future. Bristol has no parishes so we don't need a cat. Indeed its merits might depend on the topic its self as well as the number of pages it contains (or might contain). Indeed if we have many cats with just 1 or 2 pages other than the main topic that could probably mean that we could split most of the settlement/district cats that aren't already split (for example Plymouth). Note that on Wikipedia there is w:Category:People from Plymouth (district) as well as w:Category:People from Plymouth. Or where there is only a few pages currently but it is plausible that there could be more pages created in the future that could go in it. On Wikipedia cities are divided up by region which as far as I can see is plenty. If split the cats too much it becomes difficult to find things, it would surely make sense to have the cities simply in their towns and villages cat and in the cities in England (or in region) cat.
ONS also gives the settlement population as well like Nottingham for example see 2001-key-statistics%2Furban-areas-in-england-and-wales%2Furban-areas-in-england-and-wales-ks01-usual-resident-population.
Isn't that the same as Mayfair being in Westminster and Westminster being part of the settlement of London but not the London borough of London.
There are more "Places" cats than other terms used in Category:Districts of cities in England. Districts of Bristol probably works because there aren't places outside the county that are in the settlement while Places in Leeds has been used because there are settlements outside Leeds settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

ONS does not give "settlement" figures. Larger built-up areas, like Nottingham, are split into sub-divisions. These subdivisions roughly correspond to the pre-1974 areas and may, or may not, correspond to distinct settlements within the conurbation. Where no sub-divisions are provided (like Plymouth), the implication is it is a single area.

In the context of cities, places has a different meaning to districts. Districts are places, but places are not districts. Districts of cities are large areas (sometimes formal sub-divisions). Places can be much smaller. eg In Plymouth, Devil's Point is a place within the district of Stonehouse. The relevant global category is Category:City districts which suggests "Districts of X" is the natural term we should look to use. We should not deviate from that unless there is a good reason to - like Category:Arrondissements of Paris‎ where that is the correct formal name to use. Changing the name, changes the purpose from something useful to something less so.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The populations listed for the places don't usually (exactly) match the district populations (for the same time) so they must have chosen boundaries somehow.
The problems is that the terms "districts of..." implies being within like Districts of Devon, as you pointed out, districts is a subcat of places. Because Tamerton Foliot is separated from Plymouth by countryside "districts of" doesn't sound right. Look at the old boundaries an the boundaries of Plymouth district, as you can see, it has just been included into the district as the boundaries suddenly go North to include it, probably because of how populated it is.
Going back to the city thing, Plymouth is a settlement (Category:Towns and villages in Devon) in (City of) Plymouth district. Carlisle is in Towns and villages in Cumbria while City of Carlisle is in Cities in England, therefore because we only have 1 cat, Plymouth does also beling in Category:Towns and villages in Devon.
On a related note do you think we maybe we need to consider the names of our district categories with city status, this was discussed at User talk:Skinsmoke#District of... and #District/Borough cats and numerous places on Wikipedia. Indeed having the cats at City of... does remind us that they are cities but do confuse numerous people who aren't familiar with how city status works and probably many more readers. Maybe "City of..." was though of as good natural disambiguation but it is certainly confusing. I would maybe suggest all the cats should be ....District, like there is now w:Category:Bradford District. Indeed most of the City of... just redirect to the settlement, of which appears to be the holder of the city status, like City of Houston, and City of Chicago, City of Wellington redirects to the council and City of Paris is a dab page. Australia is interesting as City of Perth is smaller than Perth (probably like London and City of London) (so maybe England isn't the only place to use this form of city status. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said, the ONS sub-division boundaries are usually the pre-1974 district boundaries, which are typically obsolete and differ from the modern ones.
I'm going to say this again: Tamerton Foliot is connected to the rest of Plymouth (and ONS explicitly acknowledges that). There is NO countryside separating the core of the historic village from the modern urban area. Towns ans villages are a subset of settlements, not their entirety. Plymouth is a city is a settlement, does not mean Plymouth is a town or a village. Note none of the WP articles for English cities are categorised as a "town".
The City of district categories are confusing, but unfortunately that's what consensus appears to want on en.wp. We should follow them (they will get actual discussions for a start).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Russavia socks[edit]

I saw that you blocked some socks of Russavia, which is globally banned by the WMF. Well, I recommend you to stop blocking those socks, as it is a waste of time. I believe admins don't have the duty to implement such office actions. We all are volunteers here, so we don't need to help the WMF's global bans (except if they have abused Commons). I think Russavia haven't used his "sockpuppets" for abuse, so I won't consider that as real "sockpuppets". He even files valid DRs, mostly copyright issues. So there is no reason to block those socks. I also invite you to join my discussion with Rodhullandemu at User talk:Rodhullandemu#Russavia socks. Thanks! Poké95 01:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Replied there. Note I believe the blocks valid as the actions of these accounts are in violation of Commons policy, irrespective of the WMF ban (evading his Commons block, and running an unauthorised bot). I've also suggested we try and do something to break this cycle instead of just waiting for the next sock.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Katch me if u can[edit]

Not questioning the block itself, but... it's been contentious in the recent past for non-CU's to block for 'abusing multiple accounts' without actually explaining why. A blanket claim of 'this is a sock of some random person I'm not bothering to name' is not transparent, you should at least tag the account. Revent (talk)

@Revent: It is another Russavia sock. See the above section I made. Poké95 01:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: I know. To people familiar it's obvious. For the sake of transparency, the identity (at least) should be noted. If nothing else, useful to expand the "Sockpuppets of Russavia" category for future reference. A block that might appear to be arbitrary and unexplained to someone not 'in the know' should be avoided.... not the block itself, specifically, but the end result of it not being clear 'why' Revent (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Avoid "This is someone's sock" in favor of "This is X's sock," is what I am saying. Revent (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Noted (and fixed). I have tagged as "suspected" even though its 99.9999% certainly him, as I cannot exactly confirm it (without CU).
I also note WMF is not bothering to tag accounts they are locking - maybe we should get them to do that as well.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a bit different though, as the WMF blocks are being done as 'office actions', and the policy they are using to do it pretty much states that they won't disclose the rationale behind those blocks. I think everyone is assuming those blocks, or least the vast majority, are indeed Russavia, but WMF Office lives in it's own world.. (while most likely are him, there are by this point quite likely random trolls making 'fake Russavia socks' as well). Whatever they are using, it's either behavioral or technical information beyond what the CU tool gives.... Russavia obviously knows exactly how the tool works, quite a while back he used the non-public information returned by the CU tool (over on enwiki) to specifically troll the Checkuser that was working his SPI. (He sent Alison the message "Hi Alley-Cat", and a link to a photo of a cat wearing lipstick, which she apparently thought was hilarious). Point being, from everything I understand about the whole situation, and the justification given for WMF bans, it's fairly likely that being as vague as possible about those blocks is based on legal advice. Revent (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Towns and villages in Merseyside[edit]

Hi. Can I ask why you are changing this page from Towns and villages to towns? They're not all "towns". What you're doing is making "work" for yourself when it isn't needed it was fine as it was. What is the reason you are renaming this category? Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Its not a rename, its a split:
  1. All the items listed at Category:Towns in Merseyside are towns - I double checked against the relevant WP articles in each case. If I made a mistake in certain cases, please correct. It is useful to distinguish towns from villages
  2. "Towns and villages" is a daft combination in any case - as strictly speaking it doesn't include cities and it doesn't include hamlets.
I am splitting the Commons categories, to be in line with Wikipedia categories (with Towns in X and Villages in X in separate categories).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree, this was something I was going to do, also the "Towns and villages" cats should probably be moved to just "villages". Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"Towns and villages" should not be moved or redirected to "Villages". The villages should be split out, in the same way as the towns have been. After the towns have gone, the remainder should be villages but there are items in these categories that are not towns or villages - eg neighbourhoods of large towns/cities, as well as cities themselves (which are not towns).
The Towns and village categories are only really used for the UK, the equivalent categories for other countries (and for the UK on Wikipedia) are "populated places". That is a valid catch-all.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
OK then, this will take a long time if we do it though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh I know that! :) Which is one reason to do it incrementally (I started on the towns, simply because they are the easy bit).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)