User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2018

← Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 →

File:700HD-EU-main.jpg

File:700HD-EU-main.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!

Kaldari (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Dorset crosswheel buttons.jpg

File:Dorset crosswheel buttons.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!

Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about your cancellations

Dear participant, you have made the following cancellations without justification: [1], [2]. I think that they are wrong and if you do not have your answer within 3 days will be canceled. I remind you that in my edits I made quite understandable logical notes: (Coin cells), (Button cells). Perhaps your actions were caused by your carelessness, I'll explain more: there is category "Category:Batteries by form factor", in which the category is located "Category:Button cells", in which category is located "Category:Coin cells", in which category is located "Category:CR2032 batteries". That is, we obtain a structured chain: Category:Batteries by form factor -> Category:Button cells -> Category:Coin cells -> Category:CR2032 batteries. You, by your cancellation except this chain, added an incomprehensible hash: now it turns out in category "Category:Batteries by form the factor" is. And it is not clear then why the main category "Category:Batteries by form factor" was taken out, and the rest of the contents of category "Category:Button cells" and category "Category:Coin cells" were left in them without taking them to the main category "Category:Batteries by form factor" (for example, to "Category:CR2354 batteries", or "Category:LR41 batteries", or "Category:Disposable AA batteries" duplicate in "Category:Batteries by form factor", instead of placing only in the category included in it "Category:AA batteries" and so on)? I now do not understand this logic at all. If you mistook the editing, I ask you to cancel your cancellation of my edits yourself. Ural-66 (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• By the way, the tablet "This user left Wikimedia Commons at will." at the top of the page misleads users, as you can see you did not leave the project and are actively editing. Why deceive then? Ural-66 (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A list "Batteries by form factor" is of no use if you depopulate it of some of the major forms. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• But, if you want to describe every form of the battery and battery factor in it (and they will be typed hundreds) without an intermediate combination of similar and close form factors, then subcategories "Category:Button cells" and "Category:Coin cells" should be removed from this category, and their contents should be redirected to this main category "Category:Batteries by form factor". But you did not do that either!? Yes, and the meaninglessness of this category is contrived in my opinion. Since there are arrows to the left of the subcategory, when you click on it, all the subcategories included in the subcategory are expanded and, correspondingly, into the categories category with the form factors themselves. Correspondingly, it can not be meaningless, it performs its function, not only in a spread but with precise subcategories for the acceleration and convenience of navigation in the search. In advance I apologize for some expressions - the consequences of google translation. Ural-66 (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• There are 30 form factors in that category. If there were "hundreds", then we might think about this - except that we regularly have categories with 200 members and no problem, we don't even split them by page (and many with even more entries than that). When we do have "huge" categories to manage, the options include navigation bars to index them by initial letter. What we do know is a regular problem for unfamiliar users trying to navigate is when we "un-flatten" a list like this and break it into sub-categories. Most casual readers do not understand how to work such a structure - but they do know how to scroll.

Category:Disposable AA batteries is a subcategory of Category:AA batteries. It has never been a member of Category:Batteries by form factor, nor should it be. Disposability isn't a size issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• And where does one-off? Category "Category:AA batteries" also includes category "Category:Rechargeable AA batteries". And AA is not one-time, but the form factor is steady. And in the category do you think all the existing form factors are common? And they will not add any images of other form factors? Moreover, I will tell you, for example, there are already images of unspecified formers (for example: 17500, 14270, 14430, 14250, 10220, 10180, 17340 (3.2V), 25500 (3V), 32600 (3.7V), 18490 (3.7V), 26430, 15266, 42120, 26650.....), although they are so far single, and there is no point in bringing them to a separate category, but this does not mean that this will never happen. And the most interesting thing is, you did not say why you were awarded only one form factor by taking out from the subcategory to the main category, and the rest at the same time left? Generally I propose 4 basic subcategories to do: Button cells, Coin cells (though I do not know what they are different from each other, especially according to the categories of Coin cells is an integral part of the Button cells), Cylindrical cells, Rectangular cells, and already scatter on them that on Will you say that? Ural-66 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Either AA, AAA, AAAA should be included in the subcategory with form factor A, like 1/2A, 5/4A, 1/2AA, 2/3AA. Also, how to be for example with 14500 (dimensions = AA), 14250 (dimensions = 1/2AA), but with this voltage of 3.6V? Ural-66 (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

COM:OVERCAT

Please read this instead of engaging in pointless edit wars (against an administrator, further). -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 23:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

So administrators are again playing the "we're the arbiters of content decisions" and "edit warring is OK if admins do it" cards?

You're claiming that bridge engineers are not civil engineers. Now go away and have a think about that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Also describing other edits as "vandalism" and then locking your preferred version is blatant INVOLVED. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Bridge engineers ARE civil engineers. But they are already categorized under "structural engineers" that in turn are categorized under "civil engineers". If you read about COM:OVERCAT you'd realize that's pointless categorize an item in two different points of the same tree. Confirm me that you've read and metabolized COM:OVERCAT and I will remove the protection. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 23:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The question is: have you read COM:OVERCAT and understood it? You can complain as long as you want, you're wrong anyway. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 23:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

OVERCAT is a simplistic policy which simplistic minds are forever falling foul of.

There is no reason to remove a parent category simply because it is also a grandparent.

If (and only if) that parent category implies membership of the grandparent category, then OVERCAT might apply.

If there is a high-level navigational structure which would be damaged by removing grandchildren from it as direct children (see the battery category above), then that's also a reason to leave them in place.

In this case, structural engineers and bridge engineers are both significant and recognised disciplines within civil engineering. That alone might justify inclusion as a navigational matter. However there is no relationship of implication between bridge engineers and structural engineers. Both are civil engineers, but not all bridge engineers are structural engineers in this sense. Thus it is wrong to remove bridge engineers as a subcategory of civil engineers. This is basic Mediawiki stuff and you ought to know it already, along with policies against 3RR edit-warring and INVOLVED. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, then open a discussion for changing the policy. I am afraid that you haven't convinced me. My mind is too simplicistic for understanding such elaborate reasonment :-) -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 23:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Facebook & Wikidata Infobox

Hi Andy. Your post on Wikipedia Weekly was pointed out to me. I'm not a member of that group (I think that discussions about Wikimedia should take place on Wikimedia talk pages, not on Facebook), so I can't comment there. In the case of Category:James Watt, I think adding the infobox has mostly made a big improvement - the info about the topic went from a set of numbers to a decent amount of context - and the infobox is inherently multilingual so that context will be shown to anyone in their preferred language. Wikidata does contain mistakes, and showing the data to more people/editors helps to catch those mistakes and fix them, which is what happened in this case. It's not the only case where the data is shown - various other Wikipedias, and external sites, also use the Wikidata information - so we help those other places by spotting errors here, and likewise they can spot and fix errors as well. You can watch the edits to the Wikidata entry on Wikidata (ideally also here, but that's been turned off for performance reasons at the moment). We haven't managed to build an equivalent of this set of info here on Commons over the last decade+, so this is a good shortcut to expanding the info Commons has on each topic. Hope that helps explain some of the background from my perspective here, and if you want to copy this over to Facebook then you're free to do so. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC) (P.S. if you spot any technical bugs with the infobox, please mention them at Template talk:Wikidata Infobox)

/* Category:Diaphragm arches */ require to close the discussion

Could you have a look at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Diaphragm arches, please ?--Pimprenel (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

diaphragm arches

Hello Andy, Could you please (or can I) change the image of the category : diaphragm arches' infobox because even if it shows a real diaphragm arch which used to support a disappeared ceiling , it gives a wrong idea of what a diaphragm arch is and can induce people to insert pictures of "Schwibbogen" again in the category. Cordialement, --Pimprenel (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Those images are automatic now and are derived from Wikidata. That's outside my control. So is arguing definitions of English language terms with Germans on Commons. Life's too short to waste it here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Locomotives_of_Great_Britain

Locomotives of Great Britain has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Themightyquill (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Lorry

Hello Andy,

how is a lorry an early Diesel engine? And how does it have a significant importance in their development? Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It's the first diesel lorry with a high-speed diesel engine, thus the first practical diesel lorry. That's why it's in such a prominent position in the Science Museum.

I can see your point - it's not an "early" diesel engine, in the sense of the Sulzer singles. However we don't have a "history of diesel engines" category, and this lorry does deserve recognition in such a list. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

True that — shouldn't we add the engine itself rather than the lorry then? And what about other engines such as the OB 2 or OM 5 (if anybody should ever upload media files related to these engines?) --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Funny that, we already have Gardner LW. That's the point to this: it was the first successful diesel lorry. It was also an engine design which remained in production for years afterwards (decades and decades, with the LX and L3 engines - plenty are still running). Lorries before this, either from Mercedes Benz or from Saurer, were built in tiny numbers and were not seen (at this time) as commercially successful. I admit I know little of the OM 2 engine, it's barely known in the UK. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough – I admit that I have never heard of that engine before and it seems really impressive despite the unusual design; it's sort of like two- and three-cylinder sections weirdly joined together (and why a timing chain if this is an OHV engine; I mean, I have seen that before, but, why not use spur gears? As far as I can tell though, this engine has a proper timing chain and not what you would find on modern engines). But if it works, it's not stupid. And it even comes with direct injection, something Daimler-Benz would first introduce in 1963. Reminds me of my childhood when the Wesseler WL 24 (having a direct injected MWM engine) would start without any glowplug action just by a very short press of the starter button, while the Porsche took ages before the engine even reached starting temperature. The only British industrial engines I am familiar with are Perkins engines since they were used in Claas combine harvesters; a good friend of mine used to own a Claas Matador Gigant which was powered by a 6.354 Perkins. The premium option back then was an OM 352 but I have actually only seen a few combines that have this engine. Anyways, I think I got something to write an article on for the German language Wikipedia: Gardner LW. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Monobloc engine might give some of the background to the arrangement of the cylinders - this was a very common arrangement in the 1920s. The timing chain has always been more common than spur gears. Also it's a diesel, so it's driving the injection pump too - and often ancillaries bolted to the engine, such as the dynamo generator, vacuum exhausters for braking (diesel buses in the 1940s often had the same hydraulic vacuum servo-assisted brakes as the petrol engined model) and even the radiator fan. Although spur gears would be possible, they're usually more expensive to manufacture than a chain and sprockets. This was a big engine, no lightweight, not even very powerful and not too successful when supercharged. It was one of the first car diesel engines too - a 4LW engined Bentley placed fifth in the 1933 Monte-Carlo Rally - although it took a bonnet the size of a Bentley to fit it! Compare this size to the tiny Citroen Rosalie car diesel, or even the Perkins diesel engines which became ubiquitous for British taxis. The virtues of the Gardner engine was that it was near indestructible, easy to govern (many of them still running are in fairground generator sets) and also easy to start. It's one of the few direct injection engines of that period and size which can be hand started. The Dutch liked them as a boat engine and Kromhout built many under licence - sadly many Kromhouts were lightweight ones in aluminium throughout which are awful for corrosion problems, anywhere near water.

Note one of the key features of the Gardner too - the oval "windows" on the sides of the cylinder head. These allow access (awkwardly!) to the nuts holding the head onto the studs. The head isn't tensioned fully through its whole height by these studs, allowing more thermal expansion. This ability to allow the heads to move, without over or under tensioning the head gasket, is supposed to be one reason for their reliability here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I know about the monobloc-design. With the unusual design, I was referring to the 5LW engine that has a three- and a two-cylinder arrangement joined together. For non industrial applications I agree that timing chains were always more common; as far as I can tell though, for industrial engines, spur gears were not uncommon to say at least; I have barely seen agricultural tractor engines that had timing chains. While ancillaries are often driven by the timing chain (if the engine has one), the injection pump is usually camshaft driven. At least that's my experience. To be fair, I am rather used to engines like the OM 352 (A sectional drawing). I get that spur gears are more expensive, but they are often more reliable than chains and sprockets, which makes them an ideal choice for industrial engines. Whether and engine can be supercharged easily or not depends on the design; MAN-M-type engines which are known for higher thermal load (especially piston and cylinder head tend to get really hot) don't like turbocharging at all. I know only one particular MAN-M-type engine with turbochargers (MAN D 2542 MTE). Maybe something similar was the case for the Gardner LW too? Using lorry engines as car engines seemed like a good idea back in the 1930's, the first Daimler-Benz car Diesel engine was derived from a lorry engine. But it was not a 5.6 litre giant and gave only little power. I have heard of the Citroёn Rosalie car Diesel, however, the English Rosalie Wikipedia article doesn't mention that. In Germany and Austria, the Mercedes W 115 with the OM 615 Diesel is the Taxi legend. For a long time, people thought of this ridiculously slow vehicle when they heard the word 'Diesel'. The reliable Diesel engine in Germany was the good old Daimler-Benz precombustion chamber engine. Isn't the hand starting possible due to the decompression lever? When pressing it down, the valves don't close properly anymore so the engine doesn't have compression. The Wesseler WL 24 has this as well and we used that quite often; however, it only has a 1.8 litre engine and I am not sure if it's to be expected that a decompression lever still makes hand starting possible if you wish to start a 7 litre straight-5. Copper ions + water isn't healthy for any Aluminium part. I wonder why they have used Aluminium as a material for boat engines, corrosion is to be expected anywhere near water, especially if you have no clue what's inside the water. I suppose that anodising would have helped; though I don't think that it is really suitable for Diesel engines. The Gardner oval windows seem like straightforward design to me, there are way more awkward ways of accessing the nuts which hold the cylinder head in place. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Please consider adding iw-links in a different way here on Commons

Dear Andy Dingley,

Thanks for creating new categories here on Commons as you did recently e.g. for Category:D n2t locomotives. It would be great if you could add the interwiki-link to the corresponding page on en-wikipedia in a different way then you did for this category. Indeed by clicking here on Commons in the sidebar menu under 'In Wikipedia' on 'Add links' and then putting in the appearing pop-up box the link to the corresponding article on en-wikipedia. This will add a link to commons to all language versions of the corresponding article on en-wikipedia. Moreover this will avoid the corresponding article to be included in the maintenance category en:Category:Commons category template with no category set respectively on en:Category:Commons category without a link on Wikidata.

Many thanks if you could consider to do so, indeed this would reduce my efforts on adding these iterwiki-links later through patrolling the pages listed on the pre-mentioned category on en-wikipedia. I would like to thank you for all the great work you are realizing on en-wikipedia and here on Commons.

If you have any further questions on this do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards Robby (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

OK then, I'll stop. At least this might then avoid wikidata mangling the links, as they have been so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Ihr Löschantrag

Können Sie mir bitte den Sinn dieses Löschantrags erklären? Wenn nicht, ziehen Sie ihn bitte unverzüglich zurück.
Could you please explain the meaning of this deletion request. If not, please put it back immediately! As you could see, it had been objected that the image description was not the usual template. Because of this complaint I have adapted the picture description. I do not understand what you object to and that you are even concerned with.-- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It is a requirement that content on Commons is "freely licensed". See COMMONS:LICENSING.

A "free licence" is one that permits certain uses, including modifications of that file.

Such licensing must also (so that Commons can function long-term) permit these uses, including modification, without first getting the owner's permission. If this was a requirement, Commons would not be able to function as intended. For one thing, what if the owner departs? - and we have to consider long-term issues.

It's your image, you're welcome to impose whatever licence terms on it you wish. But some of those terms, such as this, then make it incompatible with Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Monobloc engines

Hi, Andy. I removed the {{Catcat}} template from this category because the category isn't named in a way that prohibits files or pages. (An example of a name that would prohibit them is "Monobloc engines by component".) With the name as it is, it could contain files about things that aren't subcatted -- and the subcats aren't even for whole engines, but for engine parts/components. I'll replace {{Catcat}} with {{Categorise}} instead. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You've removed this fourfive times now. Thankyou for finally bothering to discuss it. Although discussion works better if you do it before repeating the change anyway.

The category is not "named" in any particular way - names are not magic, they don't specify (by some lexical thaumaturgy) what the contents are. However the definition of this term clearly does. There is a whole encyclopedia article at Wikipedia which explains this: the "Monobloc" term is used in a variety of separate meanings and is only useful, as a name, as a disambiguation or set index. It is the sub categories of this set which contain the items of content, not the parent.

Do not replace the template. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not noticing that I'd made the same change before. I'll try to remember to check that. I do, however, take exceptions to your statement that category names don't specify content. With metacats, they specify the sort criterion, and therefore what categories there can be (as well as that there should be no files). If there's no sort criterion, it's not a metacat. See Commons:Meta category for more info. If you want it to be a disambiguation category, that would make sense to me. If not, I'll start a CFD on the category to get more input. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to keep arguing the same point, then at least be accurate over it. This category hasn't used {{MetaCat}} for years, since {{CatCat}} was introduced. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

boiler chat with the tool guy!!!

Mr. Dingley! Thank you for your help with my boilers. I am today at the same place I started yesterday with an "upright tubular boiler" and no place to put it here.

I also think that the boilers here have been cated for steam locomotives and tractors and not for stationary heaters and such. And also, they get separated by brand and not by a more generic functional name which might be built into the boiler genre. I had to look away from the boilers cats here.

It has been a while, but you are the goto tool expert from days long past? --RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this about the greenhouse boilers?

On en:WP, there are two bad articles, but at least one is about "steam boilers" and "heating boilers". We don't have such a clear split on Commons, but there is Steam boilers and a more generic Boilers. Maybe it's time we created a more specific category for heating? In nearly all cases, "boilers" for heating do not boil. They heat water to make hot water for circulation, but they deliberately avoid boiling it. Despite this, the universal COMMONNAME is still "boiler".

Your greenhouse boilers are clearly non-boiling devices for heating. So I moved them out of "steam boilers".

We've a huge range of sub-categories for boilers by type, and every possible combination of "tubular" and "vertical" is in there. But I think we need to get the top-level cats right first - and these are heating boilers. So how about Heating boilers?

I wouldn't try to put them into a sub-category of that for "tubular heating boilers" as this is too obscure. Possibly Greenhouse heating though, as we have plenty of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Greenhouse heating! Thanks for that.

The words we use. The words that work to communicate between people but that don't actually describe the item being communicated. And then the spelling. The commons is always good for showing me where the lines of my knowledge are.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Electricity pylons of Cádiz

Why did you remove "Category:Hyperboloid electricity pylons" from "Electricity pylons of Cádiz"? I was thanked for making that category and have been organizing the hyperboloid sections. Curious. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

They're a conical lattice, but they're not hyperboloids. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

In progressive levels/stages/steps? I don't see it. It may not be Shukhov-style doubly ruled tower, but I do see curvature, though not the top third, and I don't think perspective created that. I already know things like the Category:Macau Science Center are conical and don't belong in hyperboloids. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

What's a hyperboloid (in this sense)? It's a hollow cylinder, vertical and tapered, which is constructed from straight rods at a diagonal to the vertical. In this structural sense (as there's no advantage to a hyperboloid otherwise) there are a network of multiple crossings with each of these rods, for each bay. Note that I'm only including steel gridshells here and excluding the more common brick or concrete hyperboloids used for cooling towers. These structures are geodesic [sic], but not true spaceframes (there are bending moments coupled into the rods). By their inherent geometry, the rotation of a set of straight rods produces the distinctively waisted hyperboloid curve.

Most hyperboloid towers use a single bay but Shukhov used multiple bays for the tall towers. However there are still multiple crossings within each bay (the hyperboloid design conveys no advantage otherwise).

The Cadiz towers are not hyperboloids. They do not have multiple crossings within each bay. Each bay is only short and there is a single diagonal within each bay. These rods are not straight between these short bays. Structurally they can be analysed as a large number of short stacked rings and they are less structurally efficient (weight carried / mass of structure) than a hyperboloid. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• 
  Single stage water tower
• 
  Shukhov hyperboloid
• 
  Cadiz cone

Thanks for all that. Very interesting stuff. So it was progressive stages. Did they know at the time that they weren't as efficient as hyperboloids? So this brings us back to a new dilemma. For some reason you've chosen only steel gridshells and excluded brick and concrete hyperboloids with a negative Gaussian curvatures, or those that appear curved as such. Would this call for a new category, class, nomenclature, etc? Such as "hyperboloid-like"? "Faux-hyperbolic"? Ideas? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• 
  I think they faked it here too.
• 
  Mürwik Water Tower does not use double ruled straight lines.
• Cathedral of Brasília, similarly uses curved lines.
  Cathedral of Brasília, similarly uses curved lines.
• 
  This one uses straight lines for parts, but faked it.
• 
  And the Seattle Space Needle takes the curved lines to a minimal extreme.
• 
  Clever cheating geodesic lines.
• 
  McDonnell Planetarium seems legit - but no lines.
• 
  Wrong lines.
• I would guess these are actually booleans of hyperboloids, but they don't show lines, like showing your math homework.
  I would guess these are actually booleans of hyperboloids, but they don't show lines, like showing your math homework.

Well, what are we talking about? For "electricity pylons", I only know of the steel gridshells. For the others, then anything hyperboloid should probably be categorised as such. And looking here, we have at least three structurally distinct forms: masonry shells, vertical shaped ribs, and rotated straight members. There's enough of those to fill a category each, at least.

We might even split the masonry into concrete and brick. Brick is rarer, earlier, and some were more conical - so there might be both brick cooling towers and hyperboloid brick cooling towers, underneath hyperboloid cooling towers. Although this isn't a strong split, I guess the sheer numbers for the concrete examples would encourage this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Gosh that's a lot to think about. I thought I was just about done with hyperboloids (though I hadn't really even touched cooling towers). Please feel free to expand on your ideas above if you like, (ie. give me instructions or whatever), reference me to missed items that should be included, or refine my novice organizing efforts here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hyperboloid_structures
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hyperboloid_structures
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hyperboloid_structure

And to think, I thought I was almost ready to move on to Category:Tensile structures, Category:Tensile membrane structures, and Category:Tensegrity. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Ping? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I've been away for a few days. There's not much more I can add here. Any more detail I could add here would need more research and referencing than I can do from memory.

For the steel masts, I do think it's worth linking to the non hyperboloids, but making it clear that they're not quite the same thing. Especially the battleships, where this was a quite deliberate choice. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Part 1: No worries. Thanks for all your insights and info. I don't know I can act on it or if I'll bother to research it further to feel confident enough, but ping me if you ever wish to later. Part 2: I don't understand what you mean. The steel hyperboloid masts were already "separated" which compelled me to sort of separate other stuff like observation towers from skyscrapers from water towers. However I haven't gone back and cleaved the straight ruled hyperboloids from the hyperboloid-shaped structures. I don't know if this is what you are referring to. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Loco

Ok, what to do in those cases? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 18:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean?

The class was named after monarchs. 6000 itself (one loco) was named after George V. That's what the categorisation now reflects. We're done. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes but is too generic, I guess. Do we know after how many monarchs those trains were named? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 18:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There are thirty of them. They were all named after British kings (manybe English kings - I haven't checked). The class is universally (i.e. everywhere except WP) known as the King class. This is unlike the more numerous Castle class (170 of those) where even Wales ran out of enough castles to name them after and so some had other names. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Retired template

Hello. I removed the {{Retired}} template from your talk page, because your contributions show that you are active on Commons. This message may mislead other contributors and inhibit communication. Please note that user talk pages on Wikimedia projects are just for communication and they cannot be considered personal belonging of the users. You can add other alternatives such as {{Considering retirement}} and {{Semi-retired}} templates to your talk page. I also encourage you to remove {{Retired}} template from your user page, however, I don't think that is required because user pages are not as important as talk pages.

Finally, I ask you not to call other good-faith contributors "troll", because that may be considered personal attack.

Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Please consider the revival of Motor Transformer gallery and become its editor...

File:High Band Pass Motor-Transformer, v9me, maximum surge allowed in Micro-Cap - tracings.jpg

High Band Pass Motor-Transformer, v9me, maximum surge allowed in Micro-Cap - tracings

@Andy Dingley: Would you consider reviving the gallery, Motor Transformer, and becoming its editor? Populate and script it as you wish.

A category of this topic needs to be existent since my latest findings confirms the hypothetical existence of a motor becoming its own transformer - in a substantial way - since it is possible that such a device, if its coils are shorted to themselves and each other, can create an initial surge capable of burning itself up without proper safety subcircuits put into place to suppress these dangerous, but temporary, surges from destroying our beneficial use of this appliance.Vinyasi (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

A motor transformer is a real thing. They're more usually termed 'rotary converters'. I have one in my workshop to convert single phase to three phase electricity to power motors on large woodworking machinery.

But your content here bears no relation to this, or to reality. I want no part of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)