User talk:Nilfanion

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to 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:


Backlogs:
as of 18 February 2010

Image Use Permissions Yellowmead

I am interested in discussing the image found here of Yellowmead which was uploaded by Nilfanion. Please contact me to discuss for upcoming publication. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yellowmead_stone_circle_3.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webandladder (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simone 1961 track.png 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!

188.69.241.249 16:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hattie-Simone-Inga 1961 track.png 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!

188.69.241.249 17:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Create missing Scottish Civil Parish categories

I noticed your bot created categories like Category:Crailing (civil parish) in the past. Since you did that creation run, James created the missing ones on Wikidata like for example Larbert (Q68816019). This query gives an overview of all of them and this one just the missing ones. Can you create the missing categories here and link them on Wikidata? Multichill (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: I'm pretty sure I created all the categories in that run. It looks like some were deleted (eg Category:Falkirk (civil parish)). Easiest thing to do would be for an admin to restore from Special:DeletedContributions/NilfaBot.
Scotland worries me as the civil parishes are the only area that makes any sense to me and I used them myself, but they are not current administrative areas. That means OSM might not want to host the relations, and if they do they might apply a different flag to the english ones.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found them. Will undelete them later. For now we have the data somewhere else than OSM so no blocker for the reverse geocoding. OSM also hosts borders that are historic like these ones or borders tagged as political. So yes, we should be careful to tag them correctly. Multichill (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted them and connected them to the Wikidata items. Multichill (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how useful it is to have categories like Category:Aberdour, Fife (civil parish) and Category:Aberdour. Maybe we should merge these kind of pairs? What do you think? That's how it's usually done in England. Multichill (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep the Scottish parishes distinct from the villages. The practical reason are a significant number of parishes straddle council areas, and the association of the rural areas with the town is a lot weaker. The underlying causes are: The parishes lost all practical function in 1930, which means they haven't been updated and have a mucher lower profile than their English equivalents; and on average they are also much larger than English parishes.
Things would MUCH simpler if Scottish parishes were active units like the English ones.
I'm free of work commmitments next week so will finish sorting out Wales and will start getting the data lined up for Ireland (both bits).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Nilfanion (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]