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

Buffers / Buffer stops

I was wondering the difference of Category:Buffers in England and Category:Buffer stops in England.

I also noticed that you've put buffer stops into the main category railway station buffer stops, but buffers don't necessarily have to locate at railway stations, do they? Not entirely sure where to categorize buffer photos at the moment so any advice is welcome. Thanks :) - Coen (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• The whole thing's a mess and there's a bunch of duplication. Mostly this was some cleanup to get past "rail pyramids" recently.

"Buffers" is wrong. It should be "buffer stops" at least, otherwise we get into all the photos of buffers on rolling stock. It should also incorporate fixed bent-rail stops, stop blocks, terminus station huge hydraulic things and collapsible scissors. Otherwise we could easily "go Commons" on it and sub-categorise into an empty list of pointless tiny categories.

Overall, I'm not a fan of "buffer stops in stations". It's definining and a pretty clear distinction from buffer stops elsewhere, but I don't see it as adding much value. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Cees de Boer

Dear Andy Dingley, All categories re Dutch photographer Cees de Boer seem to have a category structure formed by {{ANEFO photographer location|Cees de Boer|Boer, Cees, de etc., see Category:Photographs by Cees de Boer in IJmuiden (1982). There seem to be dozens of these categories, all starting with the word ANEFO. Cees de Boer wasn't an ANEFO photographer though, as he was the founder of Photo Press Agency De Boer, see Category:Fotopersbureau C. de Boer. Is it possible to remove the word ANEFO from all these categories? Vysotsky (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Where does the phrase ANEFO appear in these categories? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The phrase ANEFO is at the start of all (several hundreds) templates re Cees de Boer, for example {{ANEFO photographer location|Cees de Boer|Boer, Cees, de|IJmuiden|North Holland|198|2|intermediate=Velsen}}. I saw that after I found the phrase back in a category of a photo by De Boer and looked at the origin of the phrase, but I can't retrace the photo. Vysotsky (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

So where does the phrase ANEFO appear in these categories?

The {{ANEFO photographer location}} template was written to handle the problem of describing the vast amount of content from the prolific ANEFO photographers. It is (by default) targeted at Dutch photographers, with the implicit assumption that the content is in the Netherlands (easily overridden) and it has some embedded behaviour around the Dutch provinces. There is nothing in this template, other than its name, which limits it to ANEFO. It's already in use for a lot of RCE content (which often overlaps with ANEFO, but isn't the same thing) and likewise it works for the De Boer agency content too.

What is the problem here? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

In short: the template suggests ANEFO includes RCE and De Boer, which is not the case. Is it possible to either rename the template to something like "Dutch photographers location" or make a distinction between templates of these three photo press agencies? Vysotsky (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

So where does the phrase ANEFO appear in these generated categories?

That's the sort of thing that in hindsight one might have done. However it conveys absolutely no advantage and would be a massive amount of work to do it. So no, I'm not going to waste time on such a thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Better category

Hi, Andy Dingley. "Fuck nazis (text)" is not a better category because "Category:Fuck Nazis (text) is a textual category. You can see here how these "(text)" categories work. For example Category:Christmas (text) does not contain images depicting words such as "Nöel" (French), "Natal" (Portuguese) or "Navidad" (Spanish) neither Category:And (text) includes depictions of words such as "et" (French), "und" (German) or "y" (Spanish). Those categories are intended to contain specific words, not meanings. Regards. Strakhov (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

A literal translation of this places it within that category. As Commons categories are English language (You can question whether we should do this, but the fact is that we do.) then this image belongs in there.

Also I know what your maiden aunt's French dictionary gives as a translation here, but this does not say "Kiss Nazis". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

My "maiden aunt's French dictionary"? isn't that a bit jerk-ish, Andy? By the way, I didn't even translate that, I took for granted that it meant what the description said. With regard to your "Commons categories are English language", you can see here that "not all Commons categories are English language" [sic], but you are certainly entitled to your opinions. Take care. Strakhov (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I was planning to send you a message as a result of the discussion we had with you this week. You are an important and valuable user for me. I felt sad for what you wrote when we are arguing in the discussion, I didn't want to be understood like that. I took action to protect the Commons, but the consensus in our community was slightly different. We talked and understood each other. The community gave me these rights, so the community is above everything for me. So, I want to send this kitten to you :) Best regards,

Kadı Message 16:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Monkey selfie

At Commons talk:AI generated media#Purpose and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#user:VoidseekerNZ, you said that the monkey selfie case was bad for Wikimedia. What did you mean by that? Brianjd (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I've written enough on that topic already, on the many linked discussion pages.

This was an awful PR disaster for WMF. If it was a good thing, why did the photos of Jimbo and Katie Chan posing with monkey selfie posters at Wikimania 2014 have to be deleted with such prejudice? It's bad enough that Wikimedia did this to the photographer, but to start gloating about it like that? Unsurprisingly, this then destroyed many working relationships with other photographers or museum collections.

It's a legally bad move regarding the misinterpretation of copyright (and what happened to COM:PRP?) But as to the appearance of it, it was a disaster. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)