User talk:Billinghurst

Je suis Charlie
"Da mihi basium"
System-users.svg This user has an alternate account named SDrewthbot.

India Andhra Pradesh location mapEdit


The issue is that since 2014 the state of Andhra Pradesh was divided, and the northern part became the state of Telangana. I moved the file:India Andhra Pradesh location map.svg to its current name because the map still showed the situation prior to 2014. Following the conventions of mapping workshops, the name of the file that shows the current situation should be "India Andhra Pradesh location map.svg", which it is the standard used in all wikis. That is the reason why I asked for the deletion of this redirection, to upload there an updated map.

Greetings. --Shadowxfox (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I cannot speedy delete based on your beliefs, instead the local rules Commons:Deletion policy apply. As I said, upload your work to Commons with a different name, and you can utilise appropriately through the wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the best way to manage the image is through infobox and calling the data from Wikidata. You will be able to add your new filename to Wikidata.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

¿What? I'm not asking the deletiion of a file, I'm asking the deletion of a redirect. Is so difficult to understand that? In any case, Commons:Deletion policy does not collect any rule for keep/deleting redirections. And if redirections can not be erased, then ¿why this redirect was removed?. --Shadowxfox (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Lakshmi Rebecca.jpg in googleEdit

File:Lakshmi Rebecca.jpg appears in google as a video in YouTube --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC) It is just a change to prod for permission, it isn't removed from review, just review by different means.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


It's not that I disagree with your logic (or care in particular about the categories), but can you understand how edits like this might come across as somewhat rude? I'm trying hard to fight the backlog of CfDs. You might have had the decency to ping me or comment on my talk page, rather than just overruling and adding to a closed discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll go further: What Commons guideline or policy are these "not deleted" because "Wikidata" determinations based on? This appears to be recently invented, and if I've never heard of it, being around here as long as I have, then it should be linked to so someone has a chance to know where this guideline is, where it came from, and who discussed it, if at all. Category deletions based on the subject (particularly a subject with a proper name rather than a common object) having only one file and no sign of imminent additions, has been relatively uncontroversial for the entire history of Commons, as far as I can tell. And I've never heard of the mere existence of a Wikidata link being allowed to override a project's own deletion determinations; if that were the case, there would be no such thing as AfD on Wikipedia anymore. As much as I like Wikidata, some "bright idea" from a few Wikidata users doesn't override or substitute for Commons consensus. --Closeapple (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The categories are populated, can and should be populated. There is no need to delete, and the CfD queue is shortened by my action to keep,. Re consensus, non-discussion discussions where there cannot be said to be a clear consensus to delete simply may not be deleted by an admin. Now if you wish to criticise please demonstrate the harm in a keep action. Demonstrate to me the benefit in a deletion, rather than come here and whinge about your thoughts on Wikidata. If you want that Wikidata debate take those thoughts to a broader audience at Commons. It is evident to me that you have no been looking at the discussions about infoboxes and creator: ns usage and the use of Wikidata on-site, nor the management of static and differing data.

Commons is not a standalone in the Wikimedia community, despite some thinking that it is. Part of an adaptive approach to this site, and its jigsaw piece of the WMF movement is to keep an eye on the broad usage by the WMF community, and how they utilise or can utilise categories to the point that a Commons Category is now a clear defining factor. If you wish to ignore Wikidata that may an interesting reflection upon you, but I would prefer an evidence-based central discussion, not a snide comment for a valuable debate. While Wikidata is not perfect, and has its issues, I do not sit in your camp of negativity.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I may have missed something. Just so I understand, how is the CfD queue shortened by your action to keep? Second, I disagree with your evaluation that a 3-year-old nomination for deletion without any opposition in three years can be said to lack consensus. Almost no CfDs get input from more than 3 or 4 people. If I wrote "support" and then closed, would that have made a big difference, or should no CfDs ever be closed? Third, taking unilateral action based on a non-existent policy and then telling other people who disagree to bring *their* concerns forward for a wikidiscussion seems rather unhelpful. Finally, regardless of the legitimacy of your action, the way that you did it, as well as your complete lack of response to my two-week-old comments above, is still rather insulting. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: For my non-response, please accept my apologise as I did start a response and did believe that I had submitted it, but it is clearly evident that I didn't. I cannot remember back to what was happening there then to me not successfully completing the action. Not having a reason to visit my talk page since I hadn't noticed that my response wasn't there. I would agree that an administrator is and should be responding to queries on their actions. Again my apologies for no evident response.
My action to not delete was not meant to be insulting, and I didn't see it as particularly controversial and was trying to add context about the usefulness of populated categories, even lightly-populated categories from the Wikidata perspective an area that wikis are now looking to utilise for trivial and auto-populated data. I know that English Wikisource relies on WD for its data feed for CommonsCat, and Commons in populating the author and header links. I also know that they are a valuable indicator for the WD link itself and pointer to Commons, and our community has been slowish to respond to utilise the resource.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I certainly accept your apology, Billinghurst. Although I'm fairly neutral on this issue, your argument seems like a very reasonable position. If you believe it is important, I would suggest you bring it up at the village pump for further discussion, hopefully leading towards a firm policy, so that those of us working hard on the CfD queue have something to work with. There are currently more than 15 person categories with a single image nominated for discussion right now just in June, and the Commons:Category scheme People currently specifies a minimum of two photos even for notable people. Perhaps your proposal will change that scheme, and we can proceed with your plans when dealing with new and existing CfDs. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Alumni OxoniensesEdit

Hi, Billinghurst. We have a category and a whole host of files including the words "Alumni Oxoniensis", which should be "Alumni Oxonienses". Could you please suggest the best way to deal with it? Regards, Moonraker (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Moonraker: You can recategorise the files, though moving them is too problematic for enWS, with no benefit. The descriptive components in the templates will need to bear the brunt of the correctness. :-/  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

pdf is not a duplicate of djvuEdit

Where have you seen a djvu? Ratte (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ratte: Thanks for the ping. They are not duplicate works, if there is replication then please take the file through a normal deletion process and identify how they are replicated in the deletion discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Вестник_Европы_1868_009_01_Гарвард.pdf&page=9 andВестник_Европы_1868.1.1.pdf&page=10. Again «pdf is not a duplicate of djvu» although they have same format and even the same size. Sorry but I don't understand such politics. Ratte (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi, Could I ask why my request was declined ? ... The editor requested to have their category moved and as no one in their right mind is going to manually move over 5000 files I thought the next best option was to get the bot to do it for them ...., Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I have no expectation that anyone manually moves them. I also see no point in moving them by bot or normally, this is the sort of request we politely decline as the user can utilise {{category redirect}}, which will provide the shorter use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah right sorry I wasn't aware these were generally declined, I assumed that if the category creator wants their category moved then it had be done? ..., So If I come across something like this again should I just point them to {{category redirect}} ?, Thanks for your help, –Davey2010Talk 01:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Billinghurst".