User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2021

← Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 →

ANEFO

Hi Andy, I try to get these black and white images from Anefo into the right subcategories. Can you help me out please ? I think this is a form of overcategorisation that does injustice to all other photographers that worked in the same town. Meanwhile there are 100K uncategorized images by the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam Peli (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• They're in the right categories. Where do you think they should be instead? You're creating new super-specific ones. Also the template is fairly carefully set up so that it works, and is manageable across the vast range of places where it's used.

It's not really useful to place images into "1962 in Amsterdam" as that's a huge category and mostly unworkable. As the photographer's own work usually has a stronger thematic cohesion than "<year> in <location>" does, there's not a big drawback to having them in Photographs by Koen Suyk in Kalkar (1977) rather than 1977 in Kalkar - which, by the way, doesn't exist. Consistent practice with other such categories, and the templates that support them, is 1977 in Kalkar, not 1977 in History of Kalkar, which is against the capitalisation rules too. Nor were these images categorised into a location subject category like that beforehand, they were in Photographs by Koen Suyk. If they were in a small existing and shared category, such as "1962 in Zandvoort", then there might be a case for leaving them in that category in addition - which is what has already been done where this is useful. But really, the fix for when a multi-photographer set benefits from being identifiable across the set of photographers, and when this is more specific than just a location, is to create a specific category like Demonstration against nuclear power in Kalkar (1974) - which they're already in.

I know nothing of "100K uncategorized images by the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam", nor why they're seemingly my fault? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all thats not your fault. But Collections of Rijksmuseum Amsterdam could use any help it could get. I looked into it and worked hard on it, And I am approaching a a stage of near burnout because of the thousands of perceived errors in the descriptions and the under categorisation by iconographic subjects.

Next topic. You see I worked a lot and a long time within Category:Kalkar and Category:Kreis Kleve, and I think they look pretty neat. They can't be compared to common stage of categorisation of most places in the Netherlands where nobody seems to care about setting up proper subcats. So lets take a look at Category:Kalkar. Doesn't it look odd to have these anefo images under 3 cats alphabetically under P op photo? I learned the German stale of categorisation by watching the work of user Vincentz. He took images in Kalkar. We never categorized images of towns by photographer. I think these anefo images could be nicely stored in a subcat Black and white images of Kalkar, and could also be nicely hidden from toplevel of Kalkar in History of Kalkar. I think your style of categorisation using an untouchable template in this case is not very democratic. No one but you ever told me to stop categorisation of images in cat Kalkar. Does this template you use mean that nobody is ever allowed to touch these cats again? I'm not sure what you mean by that I made super specific cats. I saw some red cats in the work you did for Kalkar and just tried to fix it. And while playing with it trying to fix your rumble, looking at the results it is already been reverted by you. Well good luck with that. I really dont like categorisation by photographer being put on toplevel of geography. Unless every photographer contributing to Commons can put his own name on categories containing two images, which of course is ridiculous. Also I think its not very efficient in browsing to have to click through 2 or 4 or 5 categories to see 10 images of the same sort by the same photographer. Well taking a wikibreak soon. Good bye. Peli (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Doesn't it look odd to have these anefo images under 3 cats alphabetically under P op photo?

Where else would they go? There's only Kalkar to put them under. If you read the template documentation it will explain further. The template is automatic - it tries to put them under one of several options, of those I've seen in use on Commons. But if there's no better parent category, it has to fall back to just Kalkar because there's nowhere else. I've now created Kalkar by year and they will have gone for that instead (as preferred, and as how most other location categories are patterned). Ideally they're looking for 1979 in Kalkar and History of Kalkar for the overall photographer sets (if there are multiple years, i.e. Photographs by Koen Suyk in Kalkar). I see you've created those, and they're now being used - although there's no 1977 in Kalkar and 1979 in History of Kalkar isn't going to be used because it's both mis-capitalised and "year in history of" is tautological.

• We never categorized images of towns by photographer.

No-one is asking you to. If you're trying to organise a set of images of a town, from random sources, then just organise them by the town. But I'm trying to organise photographers primarily, to break down single categories with >100,000 members. This doesn't prevent additional categories, including ones simply by town if that's useful.

• I think these anefo images could be nicely stored in a subcat Black and white images of Kalkar,

Sub-dividing by unimportant attributes of media type is a really pointless distinction. We don't need "images of Kalkar" because images are what we primarily do here anyway. We don't need "black and white images" because that's an unimportant distinction which almost no-one is looking for. We look for subjects, and older subjects will be monochrome. But otherwise our content is heavily mixed and splitting on this trivial dimension is very unhelpful.

• could also be nicely hidden from toplevel of Kalkar in History of Kalkar.

Which happens automatically, if Kalkar uses "Kalkar by year", like most other locations do.

|RESPONSE|" most other locations do" ... this looks like a fact, but it's a mere rhetoric guess until proven. Peli (talk)

• No one but you ever told me to stop categorisation of images in cat Kalkar.

No-one has told you to do this. Certainly not me. Please don't fabricate slurs on other editors.

|RESPONSE|Right, but the prompt interfering was aN unpleasant experience. Peli (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think your style of categorisation using an untouchable template in this case is not very democratic. Does this template you use mean that nobody is ever allowed to touch these cats again?

Fortunately we're not a democracy. Nor has anyone told you that you're "not allowed" to touch these cats. I did suggest that you stop breaking pages by feeding an automatic template with the wrong parameters, just so that it would generate links to a new category of "Category:1977 in Demonstration against nuclear power in Kalkar (24 September 1977)" [1]. But you simply reverted.

|RESPONSE| No, I just tried again cause I was confused that it would not stick and I was not even aware that we were kind of competing on categorizing these files at that same moment. Not everyone able to use hotcat or catalot knows where to find these templates to read up. And than if found, not everyone will initially know what a "boilerplate template" is. Peli (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I saw some red cats in the work you did for Kalkar and just tried to fix it.

Categories like 1974 in Kalkar, 1977 in Kalkar, 1979 in Kalkar. Which the template links as redlinks, because these are the by-year categories that we should create (and under those names), should we get to a point where there's content to justify such.

|RESPONSE| So this template dictates what and how users "should" do. That's a part of what I meant by: not very democratic. The other part is that it takes some advanced studies to be able to handle it without breaking it. Peli (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• And while playing with it trying to fix your rumble

I have no idea what you mean by this. Did you read the template documentation? Did you ask? Did you say, "The template documentation is unclear because I need to do <this> and can't see how" or "How do I do <this>?"

|RESPONS| This whole topic is about asking for clarity and help. I see now that the template sometimes creates redcats that could be bluecats with a few more clicks, but sometimes months after creating them this was not yet done by the one responsible for their creation and skilled enough to fix it. I checked this to see the situation in Den Helder and Alkmaar and found some well aged redlinks. There was no sign at it saying: "work in progress". Peli (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I really dont like categorisation by photographer being put on toplevel of geography.

That doesn't matter. If you don't like it, ignore it. Or do something else, like categorization by location alone, in addition. But there are photographers (most of the ANEFO photographers have tens of thousands of images) where we have to do something to make that photographer's career navigable as well. None of this gets in the way of any further categorization.

|RESPONS| I see what you mean. Peli (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also I think its not very efficient in browsing to have to click through 2 or 4 or 5 categories to see 10 images of the same sort by the same photographer.

Then don't do that. Navigate by location, if you prefer, which for many readers will be the dimension they're more interested in. But we also have to cater for navigation through the photographer's career, if only because most of these images have no subject categorization on them at all, to start with. Andy Dingley (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hoi Andy, bedankt voor je gedetailleerde antwoord. Bedankt voor het werk dat je hier doet. Is er kans dat ook de files van Mr.N betreffende RMA in een afzienbare tijd in behandeling komen? Hoe lang gaat het ANEFO project nog duren denkt U? Bedankt nogmaals en excuus. Normaal zoek ik niches waar ik niemand tot last ben om bewerkings conflicten te vermijden en ik had aanvankelijk niet eens in de gaten dat je mijn werk al zat terug te draaien waar ik bijstond. Doeii terug naar wikipauze. Peli (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

files van Mr.N betreffende RMA Link? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Example query: this kind of query creates an unsorted list thats very hard to work with since similar files are scattered all over the list. Maybe i should/could be working from this page to have possible cats in view at the top. Category:Collections_of_Rijksmuseum_Amsterdam this page shows a quick reverence to see that it is far over 100K images that could need attention. I can't estimate how much work this is and how long it would take with or without bots. Nor which bot or which approach is best for it. I don't know if someone is working on this already on a regular basis. Nor who that would be. Usually I used to use HotCat extention only. On an intuitive base, learning by doing/comparing with similar cats, browsing searching to find the best one. Now for doing batches of RijksMuseum Amsterdam I aslo started to use cat-a-lot extention and it saves a lot of painful clicking. Using templates to categorize is newland for me as you may have noticed. For most of these artworks I can easily understand and agree to the use of Categories named after artists by date. I don't even want to get into the subject of the issues with the descriptions created by the uploadbot of Mr.Nostal; "wiel" became Wie: l , "waardoor" became Waar: door etc. etc. Best Peli (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Black and white photographs of Kalkar", I meant to say. It would be legitimate category. Peli (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

ANEFO photographs of Amsterdam

Hi, can you please wait until I've finished categorising the photos of Amsterdam by a single photographer before you start re-categorising them? It's a bit annoying when the pictures "disappear" from the category I'm working on. You can have a look here to see which category I'm working on at the moment. User:Bardenoki/Amsterdam Regards Bardenoki (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Again: can you please wait until I've finished categorising the photos of Amsterdam by a single photographer before you start re-categorising them? Bardenoki (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wait until you've finished every photo of Amsterdam by every photographer? No. Don't be ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Your complaints might also carry more weight if you weren't labelling photographs as "in Amsterdam" when they're obviously not: [2] Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, of course not all photographers of ANEFO, but please the one I am working on. It is marked here User:Bardenoki/Amsterdam as "in progress". And yes, I do move the images that are from the photographer and have "Amsterdam" in the description to an appropriate category first. Simply to have fewer images to work with. But I check each one individually and then revert the assignment if necessary. Regards Bardenoki (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Will you please stop doing bulk mis-categorizations of these ANEFO images. These are obviously nowhere near Amsterdam, so please don't categorize them as Amsterdam. Koningin Wilhelmina spreekt met een vrouw met oogverwonding, Bestanddeelnr 900-4006.jpg Foto van een foto van de Moulin Rouge in Parijs, Bestanddeelnr 252-9282.jpg I don't know what you're trying to achieve here: mostly it looks like spinning edits just to bump up an edit-count [3][4][5] and get back to the same place you started.

The Willem van de Poll images are already extensively categorized, there are only a handful that aren't and these are mostly either unidentifiable or just to "Netherlands" at best. Adding "Amsterdam" to them is not constructive: if they were that obvious, they'd already be in there.

Do not use a live content category as a "holding" category. That way is just a quick route to errors. If you really need to move them into a category and back again (I have no idea why, but you're doing lots of these pointless moves) then at least make it something with an obvious name or something redlinked. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Again, just stop stripping valid categorization from these images: [6] [7] Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mot bikes etc.

Hi, Andy Dingley!

Pls see, that Category:Motorcycles with FWD (front wheel drive) is a sub-cat of Category:Motorized bicycles

I ask you to note this because of this.

You migth think this area is a little bit confusing ... and you are right!

Exactly this "mixed propulsion bikes" contain lots of surprises :-) as down to f.e. Category:Electric motorcycles with FWD (front wheel drive)

By this it is not always possible (or reasonable) to have exact hierarchic structures.

Have a nice sunday! Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If Category:Motorcycles with FWD (front wheel drive) is meant to completely imply it being within Category:Motorized bicycles, then it should be renamed as Category:Motorized bicycles with FWD (front wheel drive). That would be a useful distinction. We already had Category:Front wheel-drive motorcycles, rather than Category:Motorcycles with FWD (front wheel drive)). OVERCAT would only apply like this if one category completely implies the other, and these do not.

Category:Motorized bicycles are not motorcycles. There's a legal distinction in most countries where they were popular, such that they can be ridden by cyclists who don't have a motorcycle licence. Mopeds are different again (pedals and engine are linked through the transmission), somewhere inbetween. I'm in the UK, we never had this distinction - a VeloSolex was legally a moped and needed the intermediate moped licence (motorised bicycles are still largely illegal in the UK, electric ones are dubious and the whole thing is currently a mess.)

Category:Front wheel-drive motorcycles should have the bicycles moved into this subcategory. FWD motorbikes are rare (there are some all-wheel drive ones too, like Rokon and another one with hydrostatic drive around 2000) and were mostly small-wheel scooters like the Autoped. A handful of early designs had fork-mounted (or even wheel mounted!) engines like the Megola, but these must have been horrible gyroscopes to ride.

Category:Motorcycles with FWD (front wheel drive) should rename to Category:Motorized bicycles with FWD (front wheel drive), then become the obvious intersectional subcategory. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thx for your explanations. If you like to see it, you can read de:Zweirad mit Frontantrieb. This article I have written some years ago. It was also the reason to have a closer look concerning pictures surrounding this article. As I wrote above: "You migth think this area is a little bit confusing ... and you are right!" If you feel a need for a complete new structure I will not oppose. In the meantime it is sufficient useful for the needs for the needs of our authors and possibly readers. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Then I think the easiest and clearest is to rename Category:Motorcycles with FWD (front wheel drive) to Category:Motorized bicycles with FWD (front wheel drive). Motorised bicycles then stay within it, FWD motorcycles (with no pedal drive) would go to Category:Front wheel-drive motorcycles. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Im not asking for more workload. If you want to do that, I can't stop it. BTW perhaps a question you could help in de:Portal_Diskussion:Auto_und_Motorrad#Gefälschter_Schwimmwagen_in_Commons? we are in discussion about these files the objects are not good or near enough for Category:Replicas of military vehicles as user:Sanandros proposed. They could also be in Category:Dieselpunk but that is even unperfect. I'd like to read your idea. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. you might think about the differences between "Motorized bicycles" versus "motorcycles" and "motorbikes" whereas bikes are subordinated to cycles ;-) additionally think about that any motor is a engine and engines can be powered by electrical tensions, diesel, petroleum, steam, gasoline ... two stroke, otto ...

• "the differences between "Motorized bicycles" versus "motorcycles" "

Pretty simple - it's the legal difference (countries vary, but there's broad consistency). Most countries require a motorcycle licence to ride one, but not a bicycle licence (even if some countries don't enforce this). The VeloSolex design was an expensive bicycle and a poor motorcycle, but it gave powered motoring to people who didn't want to get motorcycle licences, so at times it has been a popular vehicle. That's the distinction we should capture.

As to the Schwimmwagen images, then this is why the German wikipedia and its spillage onto Commons is such an unpleasant place. Why do German editors have such a habit of being judgemental about photographers or even, as here, the subjects of those photographs? They have committed no crime for their vehicles existing, yet here they're being treated as some sort of fraudsters. Yet the only error, if that, was in a Commons editor labelling their vehicle as a "Schwimmwagen". For which there is no more evidence than your own labelling of it as a VW concept vehicle.

There is a good basis for defining the VW Schwimmwagen category as "Schwimmwagens" produced by Volkwagen / VAG / Porsche. So that's the Type 128, the Type 166 and the Type 129, together with the first prototypes of the marinised Type 82 (there are plenty of such photos around, when Porsche was testing the design in the fire reservoir). Modern replicas of a Type 166 can be in a sub-category of that, if they're recognised as such. The price of modern Schwimmwagen makes them like Kettenkrad: if they're muddy, they're probably a replica. Some of the examples here are replicas (or were repaired with later VW parts).

Vehicles other than this can go in supercategories of this for "amphibious cars", along with the Amphicar, GPA, Gaz46 etc.

What is this particular vehicle? Well the Type 129 is well known as a Schwimmwagen, but it isn't one of those (it was a Type 128 converted for remote control, with a demolition charge on board and rocket assist for climbing out of the water - it was intended for amphibious assaults). It's possible that this is a Porsche of the 1950s-1960s, as Porsche did produce a number of off-road Beetle derivatives for the forestry service and Bundeswehr. I've checked my few lists of such, but can't see one - but I wouldn't rule it out. More likely is that it's a "Beach Buggy", one of the innumerable specials and custom vehicles built on the ubiquitous Beetle platform chassis. So if we can't identify it as a model, and we have several related photos, give it its own category and describe it with what we do know for sure: that it was seen at a particular location and date, and make no further claims. Pejorative comments on it describing it as "dieselpunk" or comparing it to an Italian character in a Japanese animated film have no place here, nor does claiming that there's a hole in the floor and thus it's somehow not "genuine" (I have a dinghy here with two large and complicated self-baling holes in the floor, but that doesn't stop it being a dinghy. This is clearly a drain plug, removed on land to drain the bilges). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

nice dinghy drain plug

Hi Andy, you should not get angry about new questions which might rise anywhere. Very nice your dinghy, very usefull that plugs, I agree. This special type 129 (I agree) that is a unsolved problem. I hope that the experts which are focusing on media concerning VW-Concept-cars will find a solution. Local state licences are useless concerning international classifications technical equipment over the century's. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Goedendag mijn beste Andy, klik op Vraag naar beschrijvingen van afbeeldingen om de vertaling te zien. Vriendelijke groeten --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Edward the Booble, Moominworld.jpg

And also:

• File:Moominmamma and Moominpappa, Moominworld.jpg
• File:Sniff's family portrait, Moominworld.jpg
• File:The Groke's cave, Moominworld.jpg

Yours sincerely, A.Savin 18:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

File:UK101 by Julia Hawkes-Reed.jpg

When an IP messes with authorship of a contemporary photo, it is no-brainer rollback for me. And it should be for everyone. --jdx ^Re: 11:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

They're not "messing with it" though. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Sniff's family portrait, Moominworld.jpg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Sniff's family portrait, Moominworld.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I've left a message for you in Wikipedia

Hi Andy Dingley, I'm the former user SandyShores03. I've left a message in English Wikipedia when you have time, please read it, because I want to talk with you for important something.

Best regards.

--SandyShores03 (talk · contribs) 15:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I no longer edit at Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Sorry for that. If you prefer can we contact for e-mail, please?

Because my account in Commons is currently blocked and I can't write discussions with my name. And I don't prefer that other user block those IP adresses because there are public conections and I would not want to harm those internet connections.

Best regards. --SandyShores03 (talk · contribs) 10:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Andy Dingley, I talk you with this temporal account to talk with you. But I prefer talk via E-mail. Can you give me your mail for send a message please? Cordial greetings.

JQGK06 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Category removal

Apologies - I was using HotCat and I pressed the Move button rather Copy. I see you have corrected them all - thank you. --Headlock0225 (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

ANEFO template

re Category:Photographs by Willem van de Poll in Trier

Hi, not every structure of categories is similar in each city. Using the ANEFO-template, I can't remove categories. But I want to do so in order to have a consistent structure in Trier. --P170 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• The template already deals with this. The structure of categories for each location isn't identical, but we should try to keep some consistency to it. If not the set of categories used, then at least the implied meanings of these terms should be as close as possible.

I don't much like either "History of Trier" or "Photographs of Trier" as parents for this category. We can have better titles for this, if we have the content to need it. Also, "photographs" are simply what we do on Commons as a default. We don't need specific categories for them.

If you prefer though, I've shifted the priorities in the template, so that it will now use "Photographs of " rather than "History of ".

For the overall undated topic cats, the favoured categorization is one of (in preference order):

1. Category:Historical images of <location> by photographer
2. Category:Historical photographs of <location> (this will be redlinked as a suggestion for creations, if nothing else is available)
3. Category:Historical photographs of the <location> (only if "of the", "at" etc. was used with |loc_prefix=)
4. Category:Historical images of <location>
5. Category:Photographers in <location>
6. Category:Photographs of <location>
7. Category:History of <location>
8. Category:<location> (only if nothing else is available)

Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ton van der Wal

Dear Andy Dingley, The RCE collection (Dutch: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed) is an interesting collection. In the past I have added categories with photographers to many thousands of these photographs. There were a few categories incomplete, one of whom (Ton van der Wal) had approx. 5,000 photos missing attribution in the category. I started adding these categories yesterday evening. One hour later, you also came in with a further subdivision of the categories. Could you please wait a few days, so I can first finish the main category for the years 1965-1977? Vysotsky (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure Thanks for uploading them Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. Categories added.  Done My pleasure. Original uploads were done by User:Multichill, thanks also to RCE (Leon Bok et al.); I merely uploaded higher resolution images. Vysotsky (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion nominations

I see there is a discussion about the deletion nominations for A1Cafel. Since the same editor who nominated images such as the one below for deletion on the erroneous claim that there were not public domain worth mentioning at the discussion? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Cuban Missile Crisis, Havana Weapons Exposition FKR-1, AS-1 Kennel..jpg

Hello,

although your argument is strongly overformed by subjective demand and you don't want to follow the commons guidelines either, I ask you to at least adjust the image description accordingly, so that it is clear that the few pixels in the background is the R-12 ;-) --Mosbatho (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks from Finoskov

Good evening. Thanks for your intervention. I hope it will be regulated. I do not write the English language correctly but I understand it a little. Fortunately there is Google Translate. Cordially and greetings from the Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer (Camargue).Finoskov (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Alex Proimos at ANU

Hi Andy, I just moved the discussion to the Village Pump since it is not exactly about a Commons user. So to avoid double posting, would you mind undoing your reversal at ANU? De728631 (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, good. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Colour?

• 

Hello Andy Dingley, I dont't think that this is a colour photograph. Obviously not all pictures from this trip can be assigned to the category "color photographs". Greetings --Xocolatl (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Wenn wir das hier spiegeln, ist es im Archiv doch immer noch falschrum. Und solange die Datei nicht benutzt wird, kann sie ja auch falschrum bleiben. Nur sollte der Benutzer das auch wissen. Übrigens könnte es bei der Rekonstrution des Reisewegs helfen, wenn man wüsste, welche Dateien alle spiegelverkehrt sind, denn die gehören dann sicher zum selben Film (falls Poll Filme und keine Platten benutzt hat, wovon ich aber ausgehe). --Xocolatl (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for my comments last night. You did not deserve that. I was just a bit annoyed to find that I'm apparently now a gag slide in a workshop at Wikimania using all the ANEFO work as a justification for why categories need to be removed and replaced with something based on Wikidata and Wikifunctions.

Colour photographs are rare in the 1930s. We should recognise this. Many of them are categorized as "black and white photographs of location" when this is a default for those decades and largely unimportant (even today, there's nothing technically exciting about black and white). But the colour distinction is worth preserving.

Yes, not all of these are colour photographs. But most are, sufficient, I would claim, to justify that categorization. Categorisation here is a blunt, but useful, tool for navigation. It doesn't create canonical definitions of our content. So splitting the category is pointless make-work, categorizing at the image level loses the sense of a collection (Why was he doing this in Greece and seemingly nowhere else? Was Greece simply brighter or thought to be more promising?) Yes, it introduces an inaccuracy to a handful, but I think we can live with that as the least worst option. And yes, I am very tired of putting a lot of effort into this part of the project to have it torn down so casually by others. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I hate Tuesdays

I am going to back off on the Garfield deletion discussions. No one will probably get a DMCA anyway for pictures of street art, so my time would be better spent on other things. I just wish that copyright law could just be abolished worldwide, so that we'd never have to engage in this overly pedantic research and silliness when trying to educate audiences again. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Jesse Hartley's steps

Before I could get to the steps at South Ferry Basin, I spotted this from a ferry. Undoubtedly influenced by Hartley, if not actually by him. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the style we're looking for.

(I wasn't aware of much Hartley stonework close to the Pier Head itself. Must take a closer look.) Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:ANEFO photographer location

Template:ANEFO photographer location has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

ErickAgain 19:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

My nationalistic POV pushing

Considering you exposed my true face here, I can't do anything but reveal you my nasty nationalistic POV pushing modus operandi:

• Case 1: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? No. Result: went to fantasy [8].
• Case 2: realistic? No. A concept of some historic political movement? Yes. Result: went to 1946, Egypt & nationalism categories [9].
• Case 3: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? Yes. Result: group added [10].
• Case 4: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? Not even that. Result: went to fiction [11].
• Case 5: realistic? No. A symbol of some marginal political movement? Yes. Result: group added [12].
• Case 6: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? Not even that. Result: went to fantasy maps [13].
• Case 7: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? Not even that. Result: went to fiction [14].

Now you have all black on white, a pure anti-Kurdish, anti-Armenian, anti-Azerbaijani, anti-Talish, anti-Arab, anti-Lurish and anti-Iranian nationalistic POV pushing. I admit every edit, and I would do the same one more time. There's probably more similar edits related to the Balkans, so you can add anti-Albanian, anti-Bosnian, anti-Croatian, anti-Serbian and anti-Turkish nationalistic POV pushing. In the matter of fact, I do have POV. I consider all those groups and every individual nationalism as laughable, as well as all those fictitious material (which can not illustrate even marginal political groups) as utter rubbish which should be deleted, considering it can not illustrate any encyclopedic article and do not have any educational value. Now you can freely fill a report for, as you said, a substantial block. Go ahead, make my day. --Orijentolog (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Your comment on files nominated for deletion

Thank you again, really. Your comment was a relief and made me smile. I wish there were more sensible and practical people like you on Commons and Wikipedia.Acqueamare (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Your vote

Hey Andy, I'd just like to follow up with you with regards to your vote in the Commons Photographers User Group board election. To clarify: I didn't “silently” withdraw a candidate. After asking the group's members for someone to step in and oversee the election, no one volunteered. But people had a strong opinion that someone who was running shouldn't currently be blocked. Then, on the day the election started, and while still no one was willing to lead the election process, I summarized the result of the discussion to that point, pointing out that User:Contributors2020 wasn't eligible. Then I started the election according to what was agreed upon on the talk page. I had even mentioned in one of my previous posts that I was uncomfortable with playing an active role in handling the election, as I was running as a candidate myself. Now, as always, I'm assuming good faith and I think you might not have been aware of the above. That's why I'm reaching out to you. Thanks, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I was only watching this page so that I can oppose that candidate if necessary, because I think they epitomise the "hat collecting" aspect of such.

But that said, we should be careful about vetoing such applications. At the very least they deserve an explanation at the time and in accord with all of our previous practice, we strike through such things rather than removing and hiding them as if they'd never been there. To just 'vanish' it like this? That's exactly the sort of judgement I don't want any more of round here, and certainly not in organisers or secretaries of groups. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I get your point. Thanks for your reply. I think I could have done better by notifying Contributors2020 of the removal and I just apologized to him. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Reentry modules

You added this to an archived discussion:

Reverse undiscussed rename and leave it at "Reentry vehicles".

What were you referring to? Brianjd (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A discussion that's opened, makes the change anyway, then is closed only minutes later is hardly a discussion, is it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that the discussion is closed. If the closure was improper, reopen it. Otherwise, don't change it. Brianjd (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:1963 in Noordwijk

Category:1963 in Noordwijk is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: CSD C2 (unuseful empty category) If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:1980 in Noordwijk

Category:1980 in Noordwijk is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: CSD C2 (unuseful empty category) If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Christmas and new year holidays

	Merry Christmas and new year, Andy Dingley
	Hi Andy Dingley, Have a sweet and a safe Christmas and New Year holidays. Wishing you a colorful Christmas season. , --Contributers2020Talk to me here 10:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Door_bolts

Door bolts has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Themightyquill (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)