User talk:Andy Dingley

2007 2008 October, 2009 April, October, November, December, 2010 January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2011 2011 January, 2011 February, 2011 March, 2011 May, 2011 June 2011 * 2012 * 2013 * 2014 * 2015 * 2016 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2020 * 2021 * 2022 * 2023

DenHelderyear

Since you made one of these templates and commented on my talk page before, I will ask you. Is one of these a duplicate? Template:DenHelderyear & Template:DenHelderYear I have no understanding of these templates so if something is redundant please fix it.

Also, can you fix the year sorting in this cat: Category:Den Helder by year they sort like this: 2000, 2001, 2011, 2002, 2003... This means 2011 doesn't end up in Category:Den Helder in the 2010s but in Category:Den Helder in the 2000s.

Thanks --Larshei (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The 2011 issue is fixed by correcting the input variables on the page. Kind Regards. Peli (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Please use sub-categories

---

When categorising files, please avoid placing them into several categories that are directly linked within the same tree (e.g. a parent category and a child category – like Category:United Kingdom and Category:London), to prevent over-categorization of files and over-population of categories. Usually, only the most specific category should be used. See Commons:Categories for more details. Thank you.

Category:Scans from 'Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Cars and Motor-Cycles, Vol III', 1928

Hi, Any idea what's this about? It was in Category:Undelete in 2024, but it is currently empty. Yann (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

And you wonder why I have such a low opinion of WM admins?

This is when I was threatened by The Cabal (the one at Wikipediocracy) because their good friend the Duke of Manchester had taken against me. See WP:AfD/Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester, and other locations too tedious to enumerate. I was given a choice: delete pretty much everything I'd uploaded here, or be banned. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm restoring them now. --Rosenzweig τ 19:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

[1] [2] Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Plenty more of these too:

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Scans from 'Gloag, Time, Taste and Furniture', 1925

Category:Scans from 'Gloag, Time, Taste and Furniture', 1925

{{Scans from 'Gloag, Time, Taste and Furniture', 1925}}

Andy Dingley (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the 1925 stuff when I can find some time to do so. I also restored a talk page that was missed in the undeletion of the 1928 files. Abzeronow (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

* File:English oak dresser, three sections, Gordon Russell (Time, Taste and Furniture, Gloag, 1925).jpg

* File:Chair, Peter Waals (Time, Taste and Furniture, Gloag, 1925).jpg

* File:English oak dresser, two sections,Gordon Russell (Time, Taste and Furniture, Gloag, 1925).jpg

* File:Small oak dining table, Gordon Russell (Time, Taste and Furniture, Gloag, 1925).jpg

* File:English oak hayrake table, Gordon Russell (Time, Taste and Furniture, Gloag, 1925).jpg

* File:English oak hayrake table, Peter Waals (Time, Taste and Furniture, Gloag, 1925).jpg

Those are the deleted files that I could find. @Yann: @Rosenzweig: . Waals died in 1937 so any copyright that his furniture had is expired. Russell's looks like utilitarian furniture. Should we consider the photographs as {{PD-UK-unknown}} and undelete? I have already restored the title page File:Title page (Time,Taste and Furniture, Gloag, 1925).jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the context, so while the photos apparently aren't credited in the book, I can't really say if the photographers are "unknown" or not. Generally, I'm cautious with that tag because it demands to demonstrate some research. I'd look into where the book was published first though or if there was simultaneous publication in the US and the UK. If we can treat them as US works, a 1925 publication would mean they are in the public domain. [3] (which I had transferred to IA) shows there was a US edition, but I don't know if that was published before, after or simultaneous with the UK edition. --Rosenzweig τ 08:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian lists the UK edition among the books received in June 1925, while Publisher's Weekly has the US edition in November 1925. So it seems that the UK edition was published first, and the US edition was published more than 30 days later, which means no simultaneous publication. --Rosenzweig τ 17:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The title page says "Illustrations and drawings by E. J. Warne", but I couldn't find any reference to Category:E. J. Warne. Any idea? The furniture is all utilitarian, so I don't think there is a copyright on it. If the pictures are not credited, PD-UK-unknown is OK. Yann (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

None of the scans here are of Warne's drawings. The photographs are uncredited, but I don't think they're Warne's and could (just by elimination) be Gloag's. I've never seen a photo by Warne, he's known for his drawings. However I suspect that most of them (of the scans here) are from the makers themselves – some of them were also used in catalogues by Heals and Liberty. This is not a representative scan of the book. The book is a historical book, the scans were were done solely to represent the work of the contemporary Gloucestershire Arts & Crafts makers (although Waals was Dutch by birth, he worked with the others in Gloucestershire). They're all from the last one or two chapters of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sóller tram

[4] I don't see why should here be an exemption from COM:OVERCAT, as the image is still easy to find via FS car №4. You are editwarring for void reasons, quite an unbecoming behaviour, not the first time from you. Regards --A.Savin 12:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I have given you reasons already: this is the best (and almost the only) clear image we have (had!) in Category:Sóller-Port trams with bow collector. But you prefer to 3RR edit-war instead, just citing OVERCAT over and over, and casting aspersions on the editor, not the edit. But of course, I did have the temerity to disagree with you on an admin board just before your last edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

An exemption from OVERCAT only makes sense if it helps to find it on search of a certain subject depicted. A classical example is what described on Commons:Categories#Exception_for_images_with_more_categorized_subjects with the Merkel example. However this isn't the case for the photo of Sóller tram with bow collector. If you sort it additionally into the Category:Sóller-Port trams with bow collector, the only effect is that someone who is clicking on this category sees the photo straightaway. But someone who is clicking on this category also sees the subcat (Category:FS car №4) and can click and see the images therein. That means, someone who is searching for images of Sóller trams with bow collector will easily find the Category:Sóller-Port trams with bow collector, the Category:FS car №4, and all the photos of Sóller trams with bow collectort that are correctly categorized and available on Commons. No need for overcategorization. --A.Savin 13:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

First convince me that this is about content at all, and it's not just you taking offence at lèse-majesté against an admin and anyone disagreeing with you, same as you always do, and why your judgement is regarded so poorly by editors here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't like your repeated personal attacks, so I'm not commenting here anymore. --A.Savin 03:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

SmallCat

Can you direct me to a Commons policy or guideline on SmallCat. I know where it is in Wikipedia but I can't find the equivalent in Commons. Thanks Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Hmmm, maybe there isn't one? We are certainly poor at cross-linking these policies, even as contrasts. BTW, WP no longer has SMALLCAT (which was only ever a guideline, not a formal policy).

Is this in reference to something specific? Sensible responses to specific cases are always more important than vague handwave 'policies' (OVERCAT being the absolute worst). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

My question relates to an editing dispute with User:Микола Василечко about ecclesiastical parishes in Ukraine. See also the discussion on that user's talk page here. I think that it fair to say that he is refusing to address the substantive point. In my view, there are not enough members to justify the grand scheme that he has created. There are multiple levels of state administrative territorial entities; at bottom, we get to a couple of parishes in a single city. At best, this warrents a "by region/oblast" category structure. As I wrote on his talk page, "It does not need sub-categorisation by different levels of territorial administration. If other parishes are created later, we can look at this again. Right now, there is no need for such micro categorisation.". His present parent / child structure is:

Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in Buchach Hromada -> Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in Chortkiv Raion by hromada ->Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in Chortkiv Raion -> Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in Ternopil Oblast by raion -> Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in Ternopil Oblast -> Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in Ukraine by region -> Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in Ukraine

What do you think? If SmallCat existed, would this be an example of it? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You create Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in January 8, 2024. Until now, this category was not. Was a category Category:Parishes. There was a discussion without consensus. Why did you create new metacategory? --Микола Василечко (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Probably not. One of the classic exceptions to SMALLCAT (which doesn't exist anyway) has been for when the category represents an obvious intersection between notable categorizations, even when that then gives a very small number of members for that intersection. Very often this is <foo> in <location>, where <location> is a subdivision such that a useful level of some of them will contain multiples (i.e. "parishes by street" would not be useful). We don't then start excluding the others because they only contain one example.

Beyond this I cannot say, as my knowledge of Ukrainian geography isn't strong enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can you please clarify what "propably not" means? Is the structure as created excessive? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I can't really judge the structure, I don't know enough about these terms as they're used locally.

Flat

Please, leave me a flat list of Emmy Andriesse's photographs (and add these subcats as extra cats). If I have to look for photos in all these subcategories, I will loose oversight and it will cost me way more time. Vysotsky (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, you could do that properly by using the tools and just including sub-categories. But WMF has turned those off again and "Petscan and SPARQL are only for staffers, not for minions" so I can't even complain about them not working any more.

The easiest way to provide a flatlist here is by using stuff set up for Anefo. But is it correct to describe Emmy Andriesse as being an Anefo photographer? As these being Anefo photographs?

There are also some issues with author credits and the licensing tags (bad imports on the older ones). The French ones are claiming PD on a dubious basis (and a false claim of 1929 publication), so I'm worried that someone might just try and delete the lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, helpful.

Yes, it is correct to describe Emmy Andriesse as being an Anefo photographer, even though she only acted in this capacity for a very short time (my guess: 2 jobs). Johan Cruijff is labelled as being a player of Feyenoord (Rotterdam) even though many people from Amsterdam would consider this blasphemy. And no, photographs from this recent upload are not from Anefo (as far as I can see). Vysotsky (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Andy Dingley, can you take a look at the results of these fix desc format - Doing 5 replacements.? I changed some of them already and wanted to inform you about the spelling: Erebegraafplaats . Cheers [[smiley}} Lotje (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That's the original import to Commons, not anything I've done. It converts soft breaks to hard breaks, then treats those as property/value breaks. It's really hard to fix this afterwards (it requires a semantic understanding of things like Dutch spelling), that's why it's so important to get initial imports right and to QA them at the time. All we can really do now is look for 'junk' (like this) and then try to work out manually what it ought to have been (as your spelling check has done). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much Andy for coming back to this. I'll keep an even more vigilant eye on the spelling. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My recently deleted Third Reich images

Hi Andy

I'm sorry I don't know how to reply on the thread that I started about my images being up for sudden deletion. I find it galling that one of the people who weighed in said I should find the descendants of the person who took whatever image I found and ask their permission to post it here. How would I do that when the photographers name is not mentioned anywhere? Why are images taken during the Third Reich not public use or fair use? There are literally hundreds of thousands of images floating around on the net from that period, what am I doing wrong by using one here? I used one for a plane, the Arado Ar 240, it had, and now has again, an idiotic photo of a model. How is that better for an encyclopedia to not feature actual photos of aircraft? Same for the wind tunnel image, other aircraft images, the Heinkel He 280 has a stupid drawingǃ Two drawingsǃ How is that good for an encyclopaedia to have drawings but ban real photos? All you have to do is google Heinkel He 280 and up come all these real photos, but Wikipedia insists on drawings because I didn't ask the descendants of the person who was employed by the Nazis to take a photo of the plane if it's ok to put it here?

There is an image I uploaded years ago of Hitler sitting with one of his dogs, Muck, I think. There was no photographers name anywhere, who would I ask if it's ok to put that in the article about Hitler's dogs? I can't ask Hitler, whoever took the photo is long dead, the dogs dead, the regime is dead, what gives here please? I apologise for putting this on you but you took a civil and reasonable tone with me and I wanted to thank you. I think it's ludicrous that images taken before and during the Third Reich are copyrighted by somebody, but nobody knows or can tell me who or how to find out.

Thanks again

Troy from sunny Australia ```` Troy von Tempest (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome.

• File:Messerscmitt Bf 109E wind tunnel testing at the Deutsche LFA.jpg
• Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Messerscmitt_Bf_109E_wind_tunnel_testing_at_the_Deutsche_LFA.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Messerscmitt Bf 109E wind tunnel testing at the Deutsche LFA.jpg

I'm sorry I can't really add much. This is complicated and I'm no expert on German copyright policy for this period. It may well be that these wind up deleted. I may not even post at the DR, because the last thing I need is another of those arguments based on, "This is German. I am German. You are not German. Therefore I am right."

My concern was just about the way in which this was done. Speedy deletion is clear: it's only for cases where it's so straightforward that no-one is assumed to want to challenge it. If anyone does, it imediately stops and (if needed) goes to a regular DR. But instead, some editors see this as either a more rapid way to do 'urgent' deletions (it's not, and these weren't urgent) or more usually just a lazy way to do deletions, without having to engage with other editors or the uploader disagreeing. That is absolutely wrong.

Whatever these are, they're not clear. Either because the law isn't clear itself, or because the law isn't usefully precised for Commons' purposes here. (Many of the topics we have to deal with have been, but I've not seen anything comparable for the Third Reich) Maybe a DR with some helpful input will be able to clarify this.

Also remember that even if Commons can't host these, maybe WP can. If they're really valuable because of their scarcity, then en:WP:NFCC might apply. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)