User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< User talk:Rodhullandemu
Revision as of 19:18, 7 September 2013 by MiszaBot (talk | contribs) (Robot: Archiving 1 thread from User talk:Rodhullandemu.)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Lochs of North Ayrshire

Could you let me know why you removed 'Lochs of North Ayrshire' from a loch that is in North Ayrshire? 92.2.1.44 19:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it again if you can tell me which loch you have in mind, but I have been going by the online database provided by the geography dept. of the University of Edinburgh. I'm assuming they know more about it than I do. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rod, I have been working on the recording of the hundreds of Lochs in North, South and East Ayrshire for some time. You have been removing these categories from large numbers of my photographs. I have always had trouble with the Wikimedia categorisation system, but these groupings seem better than 'The Lochs'. RSLlGriffith (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you're saying here; what I have been doing is creating new categories to cover specific lochs, and these will be put into council area categories rather than do that for each image individually; the images inherit the classification via those categories so as to avoid overcategorisation. As to which area a lake is in, it's sometimes unclear, and I go by the reliable sources. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

River maps

River Wye

The Wye has got me thinking about some potentially useful content: That is maps of the rivers. There is some stuff in Category:Maps of rivers in the United Kingdom, would it be useful to have a set in basic style of File:MapOfRiverCamelCornwallUK.jpg? I could produce a ton of those from the OS data.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very useful, if time-consuming, to have maps as you suggest. I'd do it myself but am no good with graphics. Certainly I think we have enough structure now to have maps of the major river systems of England, Scotland and Wales. I'm hoping to tackle Northern Ireland next, followed by the rest of Ireland. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The map to right was 30 minutes work - and is a reasonable starting point for these I think. Any comments?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an excellent rendering, but perhaps some labels might assist a viewer e.g. of counties and ideally also of tributaries and notable settlements- perhaps by adding notes would not clutter the image so much? Let me know what you think - and a Happy Christmas! Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thoughts - labels (absolutely), a thicker border for the England/Wales border, adding a within-UK locator inset and highlighting the drainage basin by using a different colour for it. Plotting the watershed will be the time-consuming element of that. I'm not sure about how to handle towns at present, but I'll have a play.
And have a good Christmas too :)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated map to tweak the England/Wales border and show the catchment. I need to get my head around labelling properly, but I think the basic map is fine now. As an aside, my workflow gives me a decent estimate for the area of the catchment. eg I make the Wye 4,140km2, the Usk 1,560km2 and 696km2 for the Taff. These figures are classic OR, so they can't be used for WP, but still they are interesting.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year, and the latest map is a big step forward. I look forward to seeing labels, but outlining the catchment area is a useful addition. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking more about labels - I wonder if it would be best to drop the minor streams? That would give a cleaner background and therefore more space for the river labels. The minor streams aren't needed to define the catchment now either.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, if we don't have articles for them. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted

Just for clarity and the record. --Herby talk thyme 17:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted 2

Dear user Rodhullandemu! Please stop to delete my pictures! --Origati

These are presumably copyrighted works of art displayed in public places- we need to know the countries where they are located. Please see this policy for reasons. You may object to deletion on the pages for each image. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interieur Tram Mulhouse.JPG

Hello

I just found the location of the picture, thanks to Google Street View (because I've never been in Utrecht) and thanks to File:Tramway Citadis 302 Mulhousien Utrecht.jpg which gave me some other clues. Indeed, I followed the tram line from this picture on Google Earth and then found some building looking like the ones we can (hardly indeed) notice around the tram. Then it's all good .

I try as soon as possible to locate pictures on my own, especially in the area where I live (in Southern Alsace, in France), but sometimes I don't find the place, then I add the "Location possible" tag. I really do understand that you work on the "Location possible" category, and indeed it's a good think trying to empty this category a little. But when I add "Location possible" I try to make the uploader be aware of the fact he could help on geocoding the picture, with very precise coordinates if possible (and with "Location" rather than "Object Location" because we can't see roundels on Google Earth plug-in when there is only "Object Location"). The example of File:Tramway Citadis 302 Mulhousien Utrecht.jpg is very good because after adding "Location possible", an user added very precise coordinates 2 months later, it's the best we can hope for Commons pictures even if it takes time ^^

And the "Location possible" make things easier to find pictures that need a review in a category because it's a template, and then very convenient with CatScan tools. That's why I restored the tag on this tram picture and put some "Estimated location" tags on other pics just to make other people work on this later, especially if they live near the place. I hope it's ok for you, and you do a great job thanks for all! Have a nice sunday and best wishes for 2012! ^^ Jeriby (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


File:Krz oktaederluecke.png

File:Krz oktaederluecke.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!
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） ∙ +/−

Hi, you're receiving this message because you lastly categorized this file I just nominated for deletion. Best regards, Perditax (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More tips for coordinates

Hi. Thanks for your help with locating some of the images on Commons. It appears that some of the coordinates are very specific yet don't quite match the photos, and are not marked as estimates. A few tips that may help:

I hope this helps. If you have any questions, let me know! --Closeapple (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; it can be quite difficult sometimes (e.g. for suburbs or cities) to work out which coords to use and I tend there to give a general location and let the user decide on their preferred resolution. I also think "object location" is more useful than "camera location" because the latter is not always easy to work out because of lens focal length, etc- OTOH, the object subject of the image is usually pretty simple to pin down. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon being sentenced to death.jpg

Hi I am making enquiries for a friend who would like to acquire the original Seddon photograph and I wondered if you could help. Many thanks Ron Barker (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to respond by leaving a message on my talk page. Ron Barker (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Difference b/w location and object location

Hi, May I know the difference b/w location and object location? I saw one of your edits here. --Vaikoovery (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The various templates are described here, but briefly, "Location" says where the camera was, and "Object Location" says where the subject was- but in most cases they are so close together that it's most useful to use only one set of coordinates. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rodhullandemu, I got the answer in my talk page by Closeapple. Thanks. --Vaikoovery (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grannie Rock

Great picture. I would have spelled the name Granny Rock. Is there a reason it's Grannie? Something to do with granite? But it's sandstone. cf Grannie stone in Wikipedia. Ggriffit1 (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found it as "Grannie" on some website- of course, it's not marked as such on any map. I may have assumed that it is granite due to its relative hardness compared with the surrounding sandstone- granite is not unknown in the area and forms the basis of some of the nearby docks. I haven't, as yet, found anything to confirm or deny this on the web; however, I have plenty of spare time and may need to go to the local librar. I'll get back to you. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albert Dock Gates - geograph.org.uk - 1272528.jpg

thumb|Albert Dock Gates - geograph.org.uk - 1272528

Hi Rodhullandemu,

It seems the above was removed by error from Category:Pumphouse (Liverpool). I restored it and redirected the duplicate category at Category:The Pumphouse there. I'm sure there is a pumphouse elsewhere than in Liverpool. --  Docu  at 08:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not moved in error. Category:Pumphouse (Liverpool) contains images that have nothing to do with the Albert Dock pumphouse, which is the one to which Category:The Pumphouse should refer. In time, when this job is finished, all will appear clear, but assuming I've made an error in the course of a work in progress without asking me about it isn't helpful. Meanwhile, you've left images on a category redirection page, which is just wrong. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect bot will eventually take care of that. Don't worry about it.
This one might have indeed been added to Category:Pumphouse (Liverpool) by mistake, but "Albert Dock Gates - geograph.org.uk - 1272528" and all others seem to show the same building. --  Docu  at 12:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to have a separate category for each of the Liverpool docks for which we have images, and then subcategories under each of those for separate buildings situated at those docks (including The Pumphouse, whose category may well need renaming in due course). If necessary I will go there and take pictures of those for which images are needed, but I would need to peruse a map and devise a strategy for this. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'm glad that I didn't misidentify the building either. I wouldn't attempt to list images of building only in one or the other category though. In a category for a specific building, one would want to find a fairly complete overview about a specific building.
BTW Some time ago I went through Category:Ships at Liverpool and added a few where more than just the ship is visible to Category:Liverpool Docks. --  Docu  at 17:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wave 3.jpg

This picture was taken in Israel in Netanya Promenade

Object location32° 18′ 38.31″ N, 34° 50′ 40.5″ E Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo

The FOP that applies is {{FoP-Israel}}

I see the file has already been deleted; you might wish to reupload it with the above tag. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you're still around

Hi Rodhullandemu, just dropping a friendly note to say hi, missed seeing you about, and I hope you're well - miss you like hell on WP. Long time no see though. Best wishes, BarkingFish (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I may get back to coordinates but for the moment I'm working on categories- backlogs all over the place. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2012 (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: 

-mattbuck (Talk) 21:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:The Angel, on the corner of Stanhope Street and Caryl Street, Liverpool.jpg

Thanks for the pub ID, that's great, Cheers Rept0n1x (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of HotCat

Hi Rodhullandemu. This is not really an example of how HotCat should be used. --Leyo 19:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I should have guessed that someone else failed to quote a category properly. I'll get me coat. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Gabriel Goldney, Bart.

Hi, please see [1]; [2]; and [3]. Any other Wilts baronetcy issues? --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 20:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for fixing all those- I don't know how the original error crept in, but I may have fouled up when I wrote the original articles. Haven't seen any other problems. Thanks again. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Was just distracted IRL with a silly question while creating Category:The Intrepid Fox. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wigtownshire

Would this need to be updated to show only 2 photos remaining ? Thanks.

No, that happens automatically. Thanks for the work you've put in on this. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have put some Loch images in Category:Lochs of Scotland by name , but have not sorted them as I don't want to mess up your list. Cheers. Scotire (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barfad Loch. I put the boathouse back in to Lochs of Dumfries and Galloway, instead of putting it back in to "Kirkcowan". sorry
Lochs of Scotland by name. You may wish to check the few I placed in this category. Not sure if they had to go in both "Lochs of Dumfries and Galloway" as well as "Lochs of Scotland by name".
Category:Lochs of Scotland by name is intended to list categories only. Category:Lochs of Dumfries and Galloway may hold categories and images which do not already fall into categories- of course, if there are a number of them, a new categoory is indicated. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate it if you would leave the Wigtownshire area in the "Category". Thanks

Which category? Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way of putting a link in the wikicommons page (i.e. for Anwoth, Kirkcudbrightshire) that people could see and be able to click on for an easy directly link to Anwoth in en.wikipedia ? By putting in en:Anwoth it does not appear to have a direct link. Scotire (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not quite sure what you mean here; en:Anwoth will put the name of the article in the list of interwiki links underneath the Toolbox. If you write [[:en:Anwoth]], that will embed a link in the descriptive text for the page, but if you just want the name of the article to appear, you'd write [[en:Anwoth|Anworth]] which would just show as Anwoth. Is that what you had in mind? Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Streets in Liverpool

Re your note on my page. I am trying to tidy up the pages. Perhaps the "Streets in Liverpool" page is one that needs a discussion. To me it seems very random and full of images of unimportant streets. There are thousands of streets in Liverpool! Just regards other things i am tidying up the images. Too many with the wrong categories probably done by bots. Babydoll0409 (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the category "Streets in Liverpool" will eventually split into "Streets in Liverpool City Centre" (which we already have) and suburbs, such as "Street in Aigburth" and "Streets in Toxteth" etc. Whether a street is "important" is subjective, and whether it has a category of its own should depend on how many images there are of it here, not its perceived importance. You have to consider what will happen in ten, twenty or a hundred years time- there may be many more images of a particular street over its lifetime. For the moment, I think individual images should be placed into their own category (if more than one image) and the suburb, e.g. images of Granby Street into Category:Toxteth and Category:Streets in Liverpool until we have a Category:Streets in Toxteth. And the date categories should be there for historical perspective which we are as yet unable to see. If you see it differently, please start a discussion. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Streets in (district) sounds good. As it is it is far too random (don't you agree?). Babydoll0409 (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would benefit from some subdivision, yes. It's moot whether we should do this now, but if we do, we will be setting up for those to come after us. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories - photos

Someone has done a great job in arranging the main categories, sub-categories, sub-sub-categories etc. in Dumfries and Galloway. Would it be possible to display the main categories with the indented sub-categories under them so that when one is sorting photos they can see into which sub-category to add them, knowing they will automatically go up to the main category ? At present only the main categories are displayed (i.e. in Dumfries and Galloway) and it means double the work-time if people only sorted photos into these displayed main categories and then someone having to re-sort them into the non-displayed sub-categories etc.. Thank you.

If you are in Category:Dumfries and Galloway, you can see lower level categories by clicking on the "x" next to the main category name. If you are using the Cat-a-lot gadget, you can enter the name of a category in the search field, select it with the Enter key, and the sub- (and super-) categories will appear below- it's then a case of selecting the image(s) and copying or moving to the required category. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, that is a big help. I can now click on all the "+" and make a list that I can print for my own use for when I continue with finding and sorting out more photos for Kirkcudbrightshire. Now to find the Cat-a-lot gadget. Scotire (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Preferences -> Gadgets -> Tools for categories. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New topic - should have a new header

re Category:Geograph images in Dumfries and Galloway with the alpha. How would you describe this as a help in looking up photos ? Would each photo in Dumfries and Galloway have to have that at the bottom of the page ? Thanks Scotire (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not meant to be a help in looking up photos; there are other categories for that. It's a label to identify Geograph images in a certain location. It's a long project, and these categories should, in time, be refined into subcategories. For further information, you should ask User:Fae. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see there are about 15,000 images so the geograph.org photos are probably all included (through a hidden category). Handy to Google search a (placename + "Geograph images in Dumfries and Galloway"). Scotire (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dumfries and Galloway

I have finished sorting photos. Thanks for your help. Scotire (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben MacDui is vandalizing

Ben MacDui removed the wikimedia.commons link from wikipedia article on Cullen. Why did he do this when there are thousands of wikimedia.commons links on wikipedia and wikipedia welcomes links to wikimedia.commons photos ? This is an act of vandalism by Ben MacDui (amongs many other repeats of vandalism when he deletes references from wikipedia) and he should be blocked. Wikimedia condones and encourages people to add links, especially links to wikimedia.commons. Ben MacDui should clearly state his reasons why he is going against wikimedia policy.

I have been blocked from using wikipedia because I said that Cullen is in Banffshire. This is my protest, because as you all well know that Cullen is in Banffshire.

Rod Hull and Emu the puppet - please refrain from deleting my edits in my talk page. Scotire (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to delete personal attacks made on your talk page as they are unacceptable. By all means, if you wish to be blocked here as wellas on WIkipedia, feel free to continue making them. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive_1&oldid=103740287"