User talk:Ardfern/Archive 15

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Category:Health_centres_in_Manchester

Category discussion warning

Health centres in Manchester 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Rathfelder (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cartoon Mural, Belfast, July 2010.JPG

File:Cartoon Mural, Belfast, July 2010.JPG 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 file, 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, 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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duke of York, Belfast, July 2010 (10).JPG

File:Duke of York, Belfast, July 2010 (10).JPG 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 file, 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, 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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duke of York, Belfast, July 2010 (11).JPG

File:Duke of York, Belfast, July 2010 (11).JPG 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 file, 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, 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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duke of York, Belfast, July 2010 (12).JPG

File:Duke of York, Belfast, July 2010 (12).JPG 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 file, 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, 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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial non-existent subcategories

Hi Ardfern - please do not move files into invented artificial subcategories that have no basis in reality. You can see the official map of bird recording areas here; the same applies to other animals, and flora of course uses the system of Watsonian vice counties. It is very important for continuity to stick to these official standard boundaries. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what this means, or what these boundaries are, or how they actually apply to Wikimedia categorisation. Just categorise by county etc, same as for everything else. Ardfern (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have changed the Birds in Tynemouth categorisation from Birds in Tyne and Wear to Birds in Northumberland. Wikimedia is about categorising images in the location they are in (county, town etc), in this case Tyne and Wear. So how do we record birds in Tyne and Wear then? Ardfern (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as "tyne and wear" in bird (or any other wildlife) recording; it doesn't exist. For nature recording purposes, the boundary between Northumberland and County Durham runs along the Tyne - see the British Birds article I linked above, and the vice-county map. Tynemouth is in Northumberland, South Shields is in County Durham. The important point is that regional nature recording began a couple of centuries or more ago, and the boundaries are retained the same for continuity of recording. The ephemeral political changes of 1974 have no relevance to it. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't help at all, except that you are attempting to use an external nature/bird recording system for these images, which is clearly not compatible with Wikimedia categorisation and therefore not appropriate. There is Tyne and Wear in Wikimedia recording and we are categorising bird images here internally in Wikimedia, not for external bird recording purposes. The bird images in question are not in Northumberland, but in Tyne and Wear, in Wikimedia terms. Your system is out of step with all Wikimedia categorisation and should therefore not be used. Users would expect to find bird images in Tyne and Wear, as they can in 47 other Birds of England by county categories. Your changes will need to be reverted to reflect the geographical and locational reality of Wikimedia categorisation, which does take into account the 'ephemeral political changes of 1974'. Ardfern (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Wildlife recording in the UK is highly structured, and must follow the national structures, not whatever you think wikimedia wants, which amounts to original research. - MPF (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia does not have to follow your national structures as it is neither designed for, nor the place for, highly structured wildlife recording. I think you misunderstand what Wikimedia is about. It is for the preservation and categorisation of images of all kinds and locality is a major component. The images in question were all taken in Tyne and Wear and so would be categorised in that locality. Any system which regards South Shields as in Co Durham and Newcastle upon Tyne and Tynemouth as being in Northumberland is completely out of step with Wikimedia categorisation. I will be reverting your changes. If you cannot agree with this I suggest you put the subject up for discussion Ardfern (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A solution might be for you to classify bird images by bird recording area (as these do not always map to counties) eg 'Birds of England by bird recording area', with subcats like 'Birds of Northumberland bird recording area', 'Birds of Cheshire and Wirral bird recording area'. This would meet your requirements and allow me to also categorise by county in the normal way that applies to all other images. Ardfern (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC) ::Same goes for wildlife, flora etc.Ardfern (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is un-necessarily cumbersome. And Northumbrian birds absolutely should not by put in categories for something that does not exist. There is no avifauna of 'tyne and wear', it is an falsehood of your own creation. Think of it like this: en-wp has a page List of birds of Great Britain. It doesn't yet have any lists of birds by British counties, but it might do one day. And when you research to compile such pages, you will find birds seen in Newcastle and North Tyneside cited as being seen in Northumberland, including e.g. Britain's first Swinhoe's Petrel, seen at Tynemouth and on the Northumberland list, or Britain's first Eastern Bonelli's Warbler, seen in Whitley Bay and on the Northumberland list. You won't be able to create a "List of birds of Tyne and Wear", because you won't be able to find any citeable references for it: any such page would be deleted immediately as original research. - MPF (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is nonsense. The images in question were actually taken in Tyne and Wear (which does exist) and not in Northumberland and should be categorised as such, the same as every other image taken in Tyne and Wear. We are categorising images here and your external referencing is not consistent or compatible with Wikimedia. This also not en-wp. There are 47 Birds of England by county categories in Wikimedia, but you are denying one for bird images in Tyne and Wear and preventing users from finding Tyne and Wear bird images. This is unacceptable. Please stop. Ardfern (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Nobody is going to look for birds of e.g. Newcastle anywhere other than in Birds of Northumberland. I will not stop; you are the one wrecking long-established recording systems.And you've been showing your complete ignorance of boundaries within the region too. Just stay away from it. - MPF (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The long established recording system you mention is external to Wikimedia. You have shown your complete ignorance of, and disregard for, Wikimedia categorisation to serve your own bird recording agenda. Good luck with that Ardfern (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia does not exist in a vacuum; it serves the recognised boundaries and recognised authorities. You can't just invent concepts that don't exist outside of wikimedia - MPF (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ardfern/Archive_15&oldid=922770419"