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

Former districts[edit]

Do you think we should have cats on the districts abolished in 2009 like South Shropshire, I know you said that they shouldn't contain the parishes but they could contain the maps like File:ShropshireSouth.png. I have now finished all the civil parishes so other than the Suffolk images needing categorization I probably won't be making many contributions here in future. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no harm in having categories for defunct units - whether its a district abolished in 2009, 1974 or 1892. The problems come from attempting to categorise modern photography into those areas. Look at how other defunct units are categorised nationally, there's probably categories for Urban Districts in some areas (maybe Greater Manc)--Nilfanion (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I was just making sure as you had said not to make and more splits and you had mentioned that the parishes should go in the current administrative units. I have only added things (like mainly maps) that are specifically related to the former units. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Mass patrol please[edit]

Hello, after you block the socks of R, can you please mass patrol their edits, instead of leaving it to us patrollers to waste our time mass patrolling 20000+ edits? Because if you don't have plans to mass patrol R's edits, then don't block, as it doesn't make sense. Thank you. Poké95 09:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No - a mass patrol is inappropriate and the edits should be reviewed properly. I will not mark as patrolled any edit which is not productive. Some of his edits are fine ([1]). Some are not fine ([2]).
The fact a large number of his edits are non-productive is just one part of the ongoing disruption this user causes; mass-rollback may be a better solution.
Incidentally, how can pages be marked patrol en masse in any case?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, the edit you said that was not fine is wrong, as Russavia said that he wants his category to be vanished. So you cannot said that "not fine". Russavia's only interest for now Commons is to cleanup his files. Mass rollback will just make the situation worse either, as he will just continue to edit, edit, and edit until he is now satisfied with his files he uploaded.
FYI, you can patrol en masse with RTRC. Poké95 11:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree removing his category is "not bad", but really Commons ought to be doing that for him.
However, that particular edit is wrong as it adds the {{check categories}} template to a file that does not need a category check - and there is already a hideous backlog associated with that template. When he is just replacing his user-category with cat check needed, he is making that backlog worse - the example I linked doesn't need a category check, nor do the dozen or so which appeared on my watchlist which is how I cottoned on to the sock.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it bad to double (or triple) check categories? Poké95 12:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Its bad to mark as needing a check when it doesn't - it just adds to a colossal backlog, many of which are really badly in need of proper categorisation. Instead of marking the edit as patrolled, you should remove the cat-check template.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Removing the cat-check template while marking the edit as patrolled. :) Poké95 12:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


Here it looks like you also deleted a comment, was that a misstake? Or is there something i dont understand? /Hangsna (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for heads-up. That was certainly an error and I've fixed it. I'm not even sure how it happened, maybe I edited from the old version in error?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


I am currently discussing about an unblock with Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs) via email. As far as I can see I have generally done well here, I have discussed things and we have generally reached an agreement (usually because I am unsure/neutral and you're sure). As you can see on Wikipedia there are still articles on missing civil parishes (see w:Template:Devon parishes that need to be created. I did however suggest that maybe we could use a bot to create "missing" articles. Do you also think that we could use the bot User:GeographBot to add civil parish categories rather than having to do it manually, the Geograph images specify the location and photographa location. The rest could go in the unparished area categories (which may still need to be created). Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Both bot suggestions you make above are bad ideas - both tasks are best done manually. Specifically:
  1. WP articles should be created as more than a bland bot-generated stub - w:user:Rambot is infamous on WP for that. Articles are clearly needed for many CPs but at minimum I would want to see a decent paragraph of prose about the places. Not an infobox and one sentence.
  2. Locating images is not bot-friendly. GeographBot did try to locate the photos, and had an error rate that was sometimes as high as 30%. Even if the bot does the lookup perfectly there are still problems. The location is sometimes vague (only to the 1km grid square), the geograph user may have gotten it wrong, and most seriously, the data is for camera location not subject location. Files should be categorised on what they show, not where they were taken.
With regards to unblock on WP, that is up to the - and the standard offer may be appropriate. If you are unblocked, I'd strongly recommend you creating articles about minor locations (as in anything that is not a Civil Parish) - and instead focus on trying to write higher quality articles about the more important places. Minor locations do not always qualify as hamlets - if its not a hamlet, its almost certainly not notable, and if it is a hamlet it may not be.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)