User talk:Enchufla Con Clave

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Enchufla Con Clave!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

Thankyou for the files you have donated to Wikimedia Commons. Commons now has more than 43 million files, most of which are photographs or other images.

To make files easier to find, contributors have created thousands of categories, and arranged these categories in tiers. The relationship between categories is now intricate. Category:Saint Mary Church (Clumber Park), for example, is categorised by the date it was built, its dedication, its denomination, its diocese, its architect, its architectural style and the materials from which it is built.

Files are placed in the most precise categories possible. The aim is to prevent a category from being filled with so many files that it it becomes hard to search it the precise subject that one wants. Commons displays only 200 files to a page, and even this can be rather a lot to search by eye. Also, precise categorisation helps fellow-contributors to see what files Commons has for each subject. This helps to identify subjects for which Commons needs more good files, which contributors can then create and donate.

For example, if a file is in Category:St Mark's Church, Mansfield it should not also be in Category:Grade II* listed churches in Nottinghamshire. And if Category:Church of St Mary Magdalene, Sutton-in-Ashfield is in Category:Grade II* listed churches in Nottinghamshire it should not also be in Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Nottinghamshire or Category:Listed churches in Nottinghamshire.

Commons now has individual categories for most of the Anglican churches in England. The creation of individual categories for Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches on England is less complete, but is well advanced. Thus in most cases it should be possible to place files of particular churches into categories for that individual church. If a category for an individual church does not yet exist, one can be created.

A benefit of having a Commons category for an individual church is that templates can be applied to that category and need not be iterated on each individual file of that church. This applies to templates including "Listed building England" and "On Wikidata".

A glance at Category:Churches in England by county will show that each county has numerous subcategories into which files have been sorted. Ideally the only individual files left in a "Category:Churches in —shire" category are a handful that have so far defied attempts to identify them.

The exception now is Nottinghamshire, since you have kindly donated several hundred files of individual churches. I have refined the categorisation of a few dozen of these, which has reduced the number of "loose" files in Category:Churches in Nottinghamshire to 325.

Please may I ask you to do your fellow-contributors a great service? Were you to refine the categorisation of the remaining files that you have donated in the last few months, it would make them a great deal easier to find. I realise that is a lot to work through. Categorising Commons files can be time-consuming and perhaps tiresome. But it does help to make Commons' ever-expanding stock of files is as navigable as possible, and therefore of greater benefit to its many contributors and users.

With thanks and best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Motacilla I'll do my best to work through them and categorise them based on what you have said. Sorry, I was pretty sure at some point someone on here advised me something along the lines of "add lots of categorties" when there were non on my photos! Obviously I misunderstood :-) I didn't actually realise categories existed tyillEnchufla Con Clave (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Motacilla PS: I had a quick glance at the Category:Churches in Nottinghamshire just now. I recognised a few at least from when I was trying to categorise over Christmas, that didn't have individual categories of their own. Is there someone I can contact to create them when I find one missing? I'm pretty sure I'd struggle to do it myselfEnchufla Con Clave (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An update from Wiki Loves Monuments UK

[edit]
Thank you for taking part in Wiki Loves Monuments UK
More than 300 people have contributed a total of 4,000 photos to this year's competition and we wanted to say thank you for helping us get this far. The competition runs until the end of September, and you can upload as many images as you want - so feel free to document some more sites. Or why not go through your old images to see if you have any others that could be submitted?

Since you've already submitted some pictures to the competition, you might be interested in the banner mini-contest; to take part you crop your images to a 7:1 and upload a new version. You can find out more about how to do that here. In the meantime, we hope you enjoy the competition and share it with others! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

File:Bath Mill, Bath Lane, Mansfield (Also Goldie, Wade and Goldie, former mill, now demolished) (2).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!

Tine (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bath Mill, Bath Lane, Mansfield (Also Goldie, Wade and Goldie, former mill, now demolished) (6).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!

Tine (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bath Mill, Bath Lane, Mansfield (Also Goldie, Wade and Goldie, former mill, now demolished) (3).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!

Tine (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Allens Chemist, High Street, Mansfield Woodhouse (Now Lloyds Pharmacy) (Grade II listed building) 2.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!

Tine (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bath Mill, Bath Lane, Mansfield (Also Goldie, Wade and Goldie, former mill, now demolished) (1).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!

Tine (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bath Mill, Bath Lane, Mansfield (Also Goldie, Wade and Goldie, former mill, now demolished) (4).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!

Tine (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bath Mill, Bath Lane, Mansfield (Also Goldie, Wade and Goldie, former mill, now demolished) (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!

Tine (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mausoleum 75 Metres North East Of Chapel At Mansfield Cemetery, Nottingham Road, Mansfield, Notts (11).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Good for QI, but not without good categories. --XRay 05:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have added 4 suitable categories. --Zinnmann 11:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Good quality. Thank you. --XRay 18:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for British monumets

[edit]

Hello, thank you for so many photos of British monuments. I often come across them in "Media with geo-coordinates needing categories". (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=enchufla&searchfilter=incategory%3A%22Media+with+geo-coordinates+needing+categories%22&ns6=1&fulltext=Search+by+keyword&fulltext=Search) Could you please put them in proper categories, so that people can find them? In principle, anyone can do it, but it's best done by the author, who remembers where the photo was taken. Thank you. JiriMatejicek (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019: it's Wiki Loves Monuments time again!

[edit]

Hi

You're receiving this message because you've previously contributed to the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest in the UK. We'd be delighted if you would do so again this year and help record our local built environment for future generations.

You can find more details at the Wiki Loves Monuments UK website. Or, if you have images taken in other countries, you can check the international options. This year's contest runs until 30 September 2019.

Many thanks for your help once more! MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Severns' Building, The Lace Centre, Castle Road, Nottingham (5).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!

Chris j wood (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]