Open main menu
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
User:Nilfanion/Israel helped me understand what was going on in the IL copyright dispute. Thanks! I would have never found all the scattered discussions on my own. SafwatHalaby (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

District Dabs

Unfortunately district dabs are probably one of the worst forms of disambiguation on Wikipedia as almost no one uses them in everyday speech, I don't think anyone would ever refer to Higham as being in Babergh for example. Even for districts without ambiguity I still think it is common to say "Reigate and Banstead District" not "Reigate and Banstead" Geonames calls is as such along with Carlisle but not usually UAs. The latter prevents everything being at "Foo District" which is what I would have suggested otherwise. This also affects districts that are not split such as North Devon because Torridge is often referred to as North Devon. If we change situations where there is local ambiguity such as Stroud and Dover, we should do that with all such cases shouldn't we? I'm not sure they need moving though w:Buffalo, New York isn't at w:Buffalo, New York (state) for example but Stanley, County Durham is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The problems arise when the simple district name can be misunderstood: "<place>, Dover" would be interpreted by most normal people (ie not wiki-experts) as meaning <place> is in the town of Dover, that's extremely confusing. "<place>, Torridge" would not be understood as meaning <place> is in the Torridge, so is safe. "<place>, North Devon" would be understood as meaning <place> is in the north of Devon, and while their conception of North Devon might not match the district that doesn't cause difficulty. In all 3 cases adding "District" will not cause any harm, but its only Dover that gets any benefit.
City districts are extremely problematic, as Wikipedia has created an absurd approach to them (the City isn't the city). All that can be done is follow WP practice, and hope WP consensus changes to allow a more sensible titling scheme.
Be careful about the additional disambiguation as well. "Buffalo, New York" matches an extremely common structure for US place names, so wouldn't be misunderstood. In contrast "Buffalo, New York (state)" is confusing. Which is the state, Buffalo or New York? Mixing commas and brackets destroys clarity.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes I agree with that but as I pointed out the same could be with Buffalo being in the city. As we have discussed many times titles are supposed to be understood by non experts (like Carlisle). The thing about districts is that some on WP have additional text and some don't and some are split and some aren't (like Topsham being in Exeter District but really part of the settlement). The reason I was using Torridge and North Devon was because of Huish, there being one in both districts and "North Devon" causing confusion. This website uses "North Devon" when describing the place for example. When I first started I used "Carlisle District" as does GeoNames for most non metropolitan districts apart from Cannock Chase for example.
What would you do for Category:Rose Green, Lindsey? which is not part of the village of Lindsey. This diff may be helpful here. Also noting that for London boroughs "Belmont, Sutton" not "Belmont, London Borough of Sutton" is used (even if not part of the settlement). Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
US place names are extremely commonly <town>, <state>, and that format is practically universal and well understood. It would be idiotic to deviate from <name>, <state>. Different circumstances apply in the UK, as there isn't such a strong pairing.
With the UK stuff DO NOT ATTEMPT A STRICTLY FORMULAIC APPROACH! Instead have a set of loose rules, and apply a degree of common sense to allow you to move away from a daft option. You shouldn't need me to tell you that! :)
If there are two foos in Devon: One in the South Hams and one in North Devon, then "South Hams" and "North Devon" are ideal. If they are in Torridge and North Devon, then "Torridge" is still fine. "North Devon" won't be, as it could be misinterpreted, so the full "North Devon District" would be needed. Different places will need slightly different approaches, and a one-size-fits-all approach will fail on the difficult cases.
When there are multiple places in the same district, then something else is needed. The CP is typically a pretty good choice, but occasionally it won't work. For instance if there were two Lovacotts in North Devon, then "Lovacott, Horwood, Lovacott and Newton Tracey" is obviously junk.
Wards are a very poor choice, unless they are named for a place. Consider "Foo, St Budeaux" and "Foo, Three Fields". St Budeaux is helpful, as St Budeaux is more than just a ward name. Three Fields isn't as its sole use is as a ward name.
Rose Green, Lindsey is fine as Lindsey, Suffolk covers both village and parish. If the parish and village had separate categories, then further disambiguation might be needed. I'd probably just up-merge to Lindsey in any case, as there is no real evidence Rose Green is a hamlet (and not just a couple buildings near a label on the OS map). Your obsession with tiny places, that might not even qualify as hamlets, was a major factor in your WP block and is a factor in the sheer quantity of moves you generate on Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
New York would be a bit different as the state is disambiguated with brackets not naturally. As least I don't think we add bracket/comma disambiguation to things disambiguated with the place which is also disambiguated.
The problem is that there is no obvious title that would be much better for district DABs, but guidelines that are too vague are prone to instability, something you in particular want to maintain (which I agree with to some extent). "Ash, Dover District" is not an obviously better title than "Ash, Dover" IMO, there isn't an Ash in the town of Dover. Also the titling of districts is not ideal (like the "City of ...) so we don't want "Hayton, City of Carlisle". IAR/apply common sense is where there is just a few out of thousands of titles where there is an obviously better title for example "Worcester, England" instead of "Worcester, Worcestershire". But with districts, most of them are ambiguous with some other local concept (like the town with Dover, the forest for Forest of Dean or the northern part of Devon for North Devon).
The average person, even in Devon probably wouldn't know what "Torridge" is, I didn't know what Babergh was until I brought a street map in 2008. But yes adding district to avoid conflict with the general meaning seems sensible in the case of North Devon.
I would say that "Lovacott, Horwood, Lovacott and Newton Tracey" is a bad title but not unacceptable, "Soulby, Soulby" would be unacceptable though.
If you use wards then you will probably have the problem of not being part of the settlement of such, most wards don't have the same boundaries as a parish so should be split.
Rose Green is a poor example as I don't think many people would know it exists, I didn't until I looked on a map even though I'd been through it probably thousands of times. I wouldn't have even known that Lindsey Tye also existed. The main point is that the OS classifies them as places. Maybe Newbiggin is a better example. the one in Dacre is not part of the village and the one in Kirkby Thore isn't part of the ward or parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem with something like "Ash, Dover" is that a normal person will misunderstand it to mean Ash is in the town of Dover. That will cause them to misinterpret what that Ash actually is, so therefore it needs to be AVOIDED.
"Lovacott, Horwood, Lovacott and Newton Tracey" is unacceptable because it fails to distinguish between the <subject name> and <disambiguating term> - you need to know what it is to know where the line is between the two elements, or even that the term has those two elements. In this case the two commas have very different meanings, and you simply cannot read that without knowledge. Again that confusion needs to be AVOIDED.
Note that OS classifies them as places is very different to as a hamlet. All we really know is OS has it as a point on the map.
When the rules of English grammar conflict with the guidance, an exception to that general guidance needs to be made. There is no reason to expect things to be written down already, especially if you are the first one encountering issues in bulk. Your interests mean you often go well beyond the circumstances that the existing rules have been designed to handle. That's fine, but if you are going to do so you need to be flexible. If you are unable to adapt, without explicit written guidance, to complicated situations you need to either leave or pick a different area to work on. Its the difference between writing a few simple rules and attempting to create a comphrensive document to cover all situations. The first might that make life easier for you and others, while the other ends up with a document longer than this one and considerably harder to read and no one will ever read it.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Again this also can happen with other units that aren't split. With the 2 Newbiggins in the Eden district, neither are part of the settlements they are disambiguated with.
Actually I would now agree with your point generally, the first comma is not part of the name, the second is, as its the name of the CP.
A hamlet is the lowest form of settlement, there is no lower type.
The problem is still that with stability, the situation for years has been to just use the "short" name of the district, with what you appear to be proposing we could end up with titles constantly being changed. How do we handle like North Devon or Taunton Dean for example that have local ambiguity but don't have separate articles on WP. My point here is to avoid over complicating things. I don't see why "Ash, Dover" is any more of a problem than "Newbiggin, Dacre" is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes I know what the two commas represent. But how would anyone know that? It could be "<Lovacott, Horwood>, <Lovacott and Newton Tracey>", "<Lovacott, Horwood, Lovacott and Newton Tracey>", and other grammatically valid combinations are viable. Two commas in the same term, with commas having distinct uses, is inherently confusing and should be avoided at all costs.
Newbiggin, Dacre, is fine. It would only be a problem if we had separate categories for parish and village. The other Newbiggin is problematic, but the current term is a least-bad label as there is nothing totally suitable in existing guidance. Alternative like "(near X)" might be possible, but I am dubious of that one as who defines "near"?
The reason why Ash, Dover, is a problem that is we separate the meaning of the two Dovers (the town and district). Dacre isn't a problem, as we don't split the two meanings. So if you think its Dover A instead of Dover B, you end up getting mixed up. If you think its Dacre A instead of Dacre B, you end up at the combined Dacre, and there is no potential for confusion.
By displaying a label on a map OS only indicates that it there is a place of that name. That doesn't imply that label is for a settlement, or a hamlet specifically, You are assuming that "labelled location = something between city and hamlet", and that is incorrect. It can just as easily be a farmstead, or some other single property. To say X is a hamlet you need a source explicitly stating "X is a hamlet" not just "OS has it on the map". Royal Mail could qualify as that source, as the Postcode Address File includes locality information for addresses and that includes hamlets.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I find your comment that these comments will result in "titles constantly being changed" laughable. The titles have been perfectly stable for years, until you decide to move them. eg There was nothing wrong with Category:Widecombe-in-the-Moor, and no-one here apart from you would care about whether the hyphens are there or not. A solution that would generate much better stability would for you to stop changing things and work within what we have already.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I now agree that that would be a bad enough name not to use (unless there was no reasonable alternative) but is "Rame, Maker-with-Rame" really a bad enough title? Its not the same as "Soulby, Soulby" as the "Maker" bit tells you something.
I don't see why being split makes much difference and would the title be "Newbiggin, Dacre (civil parish)" which seems unnecessary. I don't see why this is a problem with Dover either. There isn't an Ash in the town of Dover.
Well with the OS (from when you could search in it, it only takes you there if it is a settlement, not just a feature, Geograph also returns them as settlements, not just features as it does with Linstead Parva or Cookley which don't even show up until you click Try a wider place search.
Because it was one of the few that wasn't the same as the OS, I doubt it will need to be changed back. If we title things correctly and simply to start with we can avoid the need to change things to begin with. In particular noting "For example, the article Grenfell Tower fire was once moved to 2017 Grenfell Tower fire and Unite the Right rally was created under the title 2017 Unite the Right rally, all due to this misunderstanding". Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem with Ash is "Ash, Dover" appears to be about an "Ash" in the normal meaning of "Dover" (ie the town). In fact, its in a very non-standard meaning of Dover (the district). That is why its confusing, as the fact there isn't an Ash in the town is irrelevant. Newbiggin is different. The gap between parish and village is quite small, and nothing like that between town and district. The most usual "boundary" to the village is the parish boundary. The most usual "boundary" to the town is clearly not the district's.
You need something more reliable than a link like that: Something explicitly calling it a hamlet. And if its at the hair-splitting level, there probably isn't much value in having a category.
Widecombe is generally referred to with hyphens, so the WP article is correctly titled. There was no need to change the Commons category, nor is there any need to change it back. Commons is not Ordnance Survey, and Ordnance Survey isn't the word of God either; if it comes to variations of a name, stay aligned to WP unless there is clear evidence they have the wrong name. Don't just move it because OS disagrees with WP on a minor detail like hyphens.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes but there isn't likely to be confusion, along with your argument about wards, you could point out that Dover being named for a town is useful, while Babergh isn't, it comes from the hundred which comes from the Heath. No average person (at least outside Suffolk) would know what Babergh is but would know what Dover is. The difference between Dacre than Dover is arguably more so (or at least Dacre and Darlington) Dacre isn't even the largest settlement in the CP! while Darlington just contains a few villages. Dacre could easily be split here for the fact it has many settlements. The problem also is that we haven't agreed on appropriate titles for say Carlisle, (we could have "Hayton, City of Carlisle) for example. WP or Commons may title the district differently because of being more precise like Category:North Devon District vs w:North Devon and the situations where WP makes a distinction may differ to Commons (of which tends to make more distinctions). Which could also lead to disagreement on weather to use the short or long title for disambiguation.
That would be difficult and unreliable, the fact it shows up as a settlement means it couldn't be anything less than a hamlet. People refer to things differently and may not use the correct terminology.
I agree OS isn't the world but is still useful in at least determining the shortest title (natural disambiguation may prefer a longer one). Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem with of Dover is that it is highly recognised as something other than the district of Dover. If we use "Dover", people will naturally assume is the Dover they have heard of (the town). If we instead mean the low-recognition district, that doesn't match their preconceived idea and that can cause confusion. That confusion can easily be avoided by using "Dover District", so we should avoid it. In contrast, with Babergh, they probably haven't even heard of it. There is no risk of confusion, so we don't need to clarify further. The same is true of Dacre, or any other random village in the countryside, who has heard of it? Hardly anyone? Then no major confusion, no problem. The problem is the ONLY districts named for an eponymous town.
If you can't find a reliable source that says "X is a hamlet", then we cannot say "X is a hamlet". Sure that may be more difficult, but mention on a simple list isn't enough. Just because a list says X is a settlement does not mean X is a hamlet (you are ASSUMING settlement = hamlet or bigger, when it is likely to be defined in a much more technical sense for a list like that.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The point as I have pointed about before is that the distinct is a sub topic of the town but "Dover" isn't ambiguous in this case as there isn't an Ash in the town so adding "District" is redundant. How do we make the distinction, would we disambiguate Epping Forest for example or North Devon. You could point out that "Foo, Three Fields" don't need to be clarified further while "Foo, St Budeaux" does. If we just use the short titles for disambiguation (except for cases of Huish, Torridge and Huish, North Devon) it avoids this debate.
Rose Green is still a settlement, but if not a hamlet then what else could it be? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not ambiguity, but confusion. If there was also an Ash in the town then "Ash, Dover" would be ambiguous. However, that's not a problem. What is a problem is "Ash, Dover" is CONFUSING, as it implies Ash is in the town. And sure if there is realistic risk of confusion in other districts, avoid the confusion by clarifying. Its only really going to be a problem when the commonly-understood meaning is significantly smaller than the district. Dover is much smaller than Dover District, so is a problem. Ditto Chichester or Stratford-on-Avon. When the regular meaning is about the same size as the district, or larger, there is no problem with confusion. North Devon isn't confusing, nor is South Holland. Forest of Dean is more difficult - there may be issues for places that are in the district but not the forest. There may be issues with ambiguity, like Torridge and North Devon.

Rose Green is listed as a settlement on the resource you are looking at. That doesn't mean it is a hamlet, as "settlement" might mean something other than "hamlet or larger". It could be "more than 5 properties in a 100m radius". Geograph derives its info from the outdated OS Gazetteer. This search shows some of its limitations: There are 7 Court Bartons. One of them is listed as a settlement, but is no different to the other 6. All 7 of them are farms, but none of them are listed as farms because they do not include "Farm" or "Fm" in their name.

OS Open Names is a much superior resource. For a start it explicitly uses both "village" and "hamlet". So, instead of saying "X is a Other Settlement" and having to guess that that means Hamlet, the source directly says "X is a hamlet".--Nilfanion (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

So are you saying Darlington would be OK? (if there was a need to DAB by district there). The point is that that same confusion could apply to any administrative unit that has the same name as something else. The point is that you are saying using "Dover" is not OK because of the town but are saying "Three Fields" is also not OK because it isn't also the name of a settlement. The same confusion could apply to both Dover and Dacre for being settlements just as Babergh and Three Fields aren't settlements. Both Dover and Dacre could be split and both could have 1 page but that shouldn't affect how we DAB them. Its just that larger places tend to have enough coverage for 2 WP articles while smaller ones don't.
It would be interesting to see what they put for Cookley. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
It depends where the place is within the Borough of Darlington. Use common sense to assess if the place is in the normal meaning of "Darlington" (which is the urban area, not the borough). That means "Blackwell, Darlington" is fine, "Killerby, Darlington" isn't. The same goes for any other district in the country please don't bring more up.
There are two separate issues going on, the suitability of the concept and the precise term: The district of Dover is a suitable unit for disambiguation, while the ward of Three Fields isn't suitable. Electoral wards are extremely low recognition, when they doesn't share their name with a "real" geographic feature like a town or a suburb. Its unlikely most inhabitants of Three Fields would even know that's their ward!
While the district of Dover is a suitable unit for disambiguation, that doesn't mean its acceptable to use the term "Dover" to mean the district. The reader will naturally assume "Dover" means the town not the district and that easily causes confusion. If the district doesn't share its name with something else there is no confusion. Using "Dover District" instead of "Dover" immediately removes that concern.
As for Cookley, I assume you mean the one in Suffolk? That's listed as a hamlet. Not really a surprise is it?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I still don't really get why "Killerby, Darlington" isn't OK in your opinion but "Newbiggin, Dacre" or "Newbiggin, Temple Kirkby Thore" is. With Newbiggin its a similar size to Dacre and I don't think people would describe it as being in (or even near) Dacre and Dacre village probably only has about 20% of the parish while Darlington town is more like 90%!. I'd also point you to Dumbleton which contains formerly separate parishes for the argument that the borough was created from other units. Your statement "Electoral wards are extremely low recognition, when they doesn't share their name with a "real" geographic feature like a town or a suburb" is still contradictory to "The reader will naturally assume "Dover" means the town not the district and that easily causes confusion" which could also easily apply to parishes and wards. However because there isn't an agreed titles for the districts themselves we should probably wait until titles like Carlisle are agreed on first. I appreciate your attempts at trying to use common sense for titling, but this change seems to be unnecessary complication.
Cookley in Suffolk has a church so is technically a village. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
A large town like Dover has high recognition, a small village has low recognition. No-one will have heard of Dacre outside its immediate area, while people have heard of the Dover in Kent in Australia. That's a massive difference and if you cannot get your head around that distinction don't bother talking further about it.
A statement of fact like "Cookley is a city" has to come from a reliable source to be acceptable on Wikipedia. That particular statement is clearly untrue of course, but "Cookley is a village" and "Cookley is a hamlet" are both plausible. However policy means that "Cookley is a hamlet [According to OS]" is fine, "Cookley is a village [No source]" is not. The first is based what a Reliable Source tells us directly. The second is your interpretation of how a generic dictionary definition applies to a specific case - it is an unacceptable Synthesis of facts, which constitutes Original Research. If you can find a reliable source stating clearly that, for instance, "Cookley is a village [According to its parish council]", then that source justifies the statement.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
How well known isn't relevant, the difference is more so. 1 There is no need to have a longer name as just Dover will do due to the lack of ambiguity. 2 The district of Dover is also of low recognition like wards, I still don't see why you are asking for districts to have a longer name because of having a recognizable feature such as a settlement while you are asking for wards not to be used because they don't have a recognizable feature. As far as I can see you could make the argument that "Hayton, Carlisle" is recognition to someone outside Cumbria while Hayton, Allerdale isn't even to someone in Cumbria. You haven't addressed the issue of why you think using Dover or Darlington is confusing but not Dacre or Kirkby Thore or why unrecognizable districts are better but unrecognizable wards are. This seems to be over complicating things, similar to the fact that you criticized me for including Bolton Abbey on the DAB after being skeptical about the move of Mundham, which confused/surprised me. 3 It is difficult to draw a line on when to use a longer name, do we when Commons makes a distinction, do we when EN makes a distinctions or do we when other Wikipedias do or do we use other sources or make the assertion ourselves. Weather or not a distinction is made on Wikimedia or not doesn't change things in the real world. Newbiggin isn't part of the village any more when there is just 1 category than if it was split.
Oxford Dictionaries makes the point of what a hamlet is and this and this call it a village. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll make it simple: A district named for a town is a problem. A parish named for a village isn't a problem, and a ward named for a place isn't a problem. I am not going to talk to you further on those points, as I have clearly explained above already.
A ward not named for a place is useless for a different reason: No-one, not even an inhabitant, will have heard of it. If NO-ONE knows what the ward is, we shouldn't use it either so "Upton, Ambien" is a useless name.
A dictionary definition of hamlet (or village) is irrelevant, as it doesn't say anything about Cookley. The other links are suitable: As they say "Cookley is a village". That means we have reliable sources calling it both a hamlet and a village, so we can say both "Cookley is a hamlet" and "Cookley is a village". That's a conflict, but you don't use a dictionary to resolve it (instead use "consensus").--Nilfanion (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you still haven't really addressed why a district named for a town is problematic but not a parish or ward. I don't think we need to continue this discussion as we can't agree, WP would be a better place when we can at least decide what to do with the district of Carlisle first.
The dictionary explains what the difference is between a village and hamlet, Oxford Dictionaries makes this clear. Cookley therefore isn't a hamlet as it has a church. Consensus will probably determine that OD is a suitable source to determine what Cookley is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
A dictionary cannot be a source by itself. If there were sources saying "Cookley is a hamlet" and no sources saying "Cookley is a village", then we couldn't use the dictionary to override that. In this case the sources are split, and a dictionary definition could be used to support a preference for village. Also remember different dictionaries have different contents.
If I was to consider any dictionary as authoritative its the full 2nd Edition Oxford English Dictionary, not the simplified online versions. That states a hamlet is "A group of houses or small village in the country; esp. a village without a church, included in the parish belonging to another village or a town." If OED is taken as gospel that means two things: 1. Hamlets and villages have heavy overlap, as a "small village" can be a hamlet. 2. A small village with a church CAN be a hamlet ("especially without a church" does not mean "always without a church").--Nilfanion (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
In this case we could determine by consensus that the best source is the crisp definition, not the vague one which would make the status of Cookley crystal clear. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Nope. We would instead follow policy and look at what reliable sources say. That means you don't have a single place to look. Deal with it. The dictionaries help to interpret those sources, but I would never take a simplified dictionary definition over a full one.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not actually suggesting this but would something like on Commons places are generally disambiguated by the country (maybe with the exception of the US) (and always with commas if possible when using a higher level place), not the state (or similar) for example the Octons are at Category:Octon, England and Category:Octon, France, Gretna is at Category:Gretna, Scotland and Gosforth, New South Wales is at Category:Gosforth, Australia. This comment may also be of note. I don't think changing the established but just wandering what you think?. I would however support always using commas though even if other projects don't. If you look at Category:Picton and Category:Carlisle (disambiguation) its common to put the country to identify, but its not needed with Picton, New Zealand so no further detail is added. The other reason I would be against changing England for example is that it is common in speech and reliable sources to use the county to disambiguate just like "(element)" is the best for Mercury even though less specific terms like (atom) may be usable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Erin 1995 track.png


The NHC report on Hurricane Erin of 1995 states that "Erin had maximum sustained winds around 100 mph (160 km/h) in a small area within its northeastern eyewall when coming ashore near Fort Walton Beach, Florida at 8:30 AM CDT, making it a Category 2 hurricane at landfall" ( and Therefore all Wikipedia languages put this hurricane as a category 2 (see en:Hurricane Erin (1995)). However, on the track you did in 2006, it is only showed as a category 1 hurricane. It is possible for you, or someone else, to make necessary correction to that track in order to remove any confusion for an ordinary reader of the article?

Thanks in advance,

Pierre cb (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: I'm not sure this can be done. The problem is the dots on the maps show the 6 hourly intervals, and the peak strength at landfall is an intermediate point 1.5 hours after the previous one. Displaying that extra dot could cause more confusion than it solves (as it would suggest that the storm stalled as it hit land).
I'd suggest you ask over at WPTC to see which of the two variants is involved, and if needed, one of the people who upload current maps could update Erin's (to a different file name). My personal opinion is that this dot-and-line style of map (dot-and-line) is dated, and a superior design ought to be developed. IMO a thick line would be an improvement and would more easily handle a case like Erin. Or even better, something like the NHC's wind field maps which give an impression of the size of the storm.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I did not think of the time step. I think I will just make mention of it in the text. Pierre cb (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Communities/Civil parishes

Just curious, what's the difference between a civil parish and a Welsh community, other than the name? Weren't Welsh communities called civil parishes prior to 1974? All the best Sionk (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

A community is the equivalent level to civil parishes, but that doesn't mean that they are CPs. Before 1974, Wales was divided into CPs. Those CPs were abolished and replaced with communities (which may or may not be the same). Saying Welsh communities are a type of civil parish is similar to saying a £1 note issued by the Royal Bank of Scotland is a type of £1 coin. While it has equivalent value, it isn't a coin.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/03/Category:New York

Hi, Nilfanion. Thanks for closing this cfd. If you'd like any help renaming the subcategories, let me know. Also, do you think the old page should be turned into a disambiguation page? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I intend to get on with this over the next day or so.
I think that the main cat should be turned into a disambiguation, otherwise the whole exercise is a waste of time. However, I've held fire for the minute on conversion to a dab. My biggest problem with category moves (and the reason I object to specific ones) is I don't like breaking incoming links. Category:New York will have a lot of inward links. I want to leave it alone for a few days, to see which are corrected, which aren't and how. That is useful data, for all the similar discussions that are open/could be held.
Feel free to give a hand with the subcats, should they be converted from redirect to dab as well? I'd say yes when there are both a NY (state) and NYC version of that cat.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Remember that Category:New York (disambiguation) exists so you can move that to Category:New York when ready. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Note, the following can't be immediately fixed due to template nonsense. When all other categories are sorted these can then be fixed:

  1. Category:People of New York (state) by county
  2. Category:People of New York (state) by city
  3. Category:Mausoleums in New York (state)
  4. {{US states}}
  5. {{NewYorkChurchesArcDecade}}

Category:Furriers in New York (state)

Hello Nilfanion, why state, not New York City? -- Kürschner (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Kürschner:: Before I moved it, it was already in categorised as a state not city category. As New York City is in New York state, any Furrier in New York City is automatically a Furrier in New York state. If the city category is useful, the state category is also useful.
If those furriers are all based in NYC, feel free to create Category:Furriers in New York City as a sub-cat and move them all there.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I only categorize into cities and countries, it is work enough. I do not want to serve categories between. I will do so. Please, delete the empty categories, therfore nobody other will start to fill them. Thanks. -- Kürschner (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Kürschner: Categorizing by state is important for United States work. It is more important to categorize US things by state than by city. We usually don't want to have "by city" topics without the intermediate "by state" categories. If you're going to work with US categories by location, you need to account for the state level. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't say you need to, but it is highly desirable. In this case, now we have both NY (state) and NYC, both should be used: US->NY(state)->NYC. The intermediate state-level categories will not be deleted.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
It is a large, world wide category, "furriers by city". I think, it is more important to have the same system in this category for all countries then you explained. I would not like it, but I do not die if it is not. But consider, I started all these categories and it is my special field. Thank you.. -- Kürschner (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Just having country and city is OK, if that's all you want to do. However, if relevant intermediate categories are used its even better. Having Category:Furriers in New York (state) is better than having all of those directly in Category:Furriers in the United States. Most countries have intermediate tiers, its not unique to the US.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
It looks good, .... -- Kürschner (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

CPs and unparished areas

I have now finished checking Category:Unparished areas in England and User:Nilfanion/Unparished areas. I can't say for definate if I have got them all but I checked both against w:Unparished area. I have left you with some suggestions there and at the talk page.

Because I have now categorized the CPs and unparished areas I would suggest that your bot now adds images to the correct cats. Have there been any new CPs since I last asked you in May?

We will probably have more CPs created in April, I wander if Bulkington, Topsham, Sidbury, Burton and maybe even Bedworth and Spalding will become CPs this April, lets see if at least one of those become CPs this April. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I have found a few, see User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes, unfortunately LGBCE doesn't show them anymore, hopefully this is just the website having problems, rather than that it has been taken down, but I think that unfortunately it probably has been taken down. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Maps for merging district

I note from yesterday's BBC news and Somerset County Gazette that the councils voted for the proposed merger of en:Taunton Deane and en:West Somerset, although this still has to receive central government (en:Sajid Javid) approval (likely to be given in my opinion). We have just started a discussion (at en:Talk:Taunton Deane#Merger with West Somerset) about the work that will be involved in this & I was wondering if you could help with the maps or suggest who might help.

and probably some others I'm not aware of will need to be revised. Any help or advice gratefully received.Rodw (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed this already (why couldn't they stick with the more natural-sounding "West Somerset" instead of "Somerset West"?). In general the old map should be retained as it will still have historical value. The new districts should be shown on a new file. With my more recent map series (like the 2010 maps), I made a point of including a date. That simplifies things as the new map can be created and uploaded before the new district is "live", and on that date its just a matter of changing links. That's not true with the older series, that should be moved to a filename with a date.
In terms of identifying affected maps, its more complex than you think. Its not just Somerset maps that are affected. There will be affected maps for the whole of the UK, for England, for the SW, and adjacent counties too. On the plus side, many Somerset maps are unaffected - the constituency map is fine. SVG maps, especially those created by myself or derived from my work, should be easy to adjust. PNG maps can take more effort.
I suggest a page is created somewhere to list those maps:
  1. That need an updated map uploaded
  2. That need the old map moving to a timestamped name and an updated map uploaded
  3. Those maps that do not need the old version to be preserved, and the new map can be uploaded over it.
The 3rd group should only be used when the change exists, but is so minor that isn't worth preserving the old version. Who cares how this map displays Somerset?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to confirm I am fine with doing a lot of the actual map creation myself. However, it will be a lot easier if I know which maps need adjusting :)--Nilfanion (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

CIMSS images

Hi Nilfanion,

I was wondering if the information you provided at Template talk:UWiscCIMSS some time ago is still valid. The institution's copyright notice only seems to permit noncommercial use with attribution, which ordinarily would lead me to believe that many of the images populating Category:University of Wisconsin CIMSS images are not free for our purposes. Am I simply overlooking something that should be obvious? –Juliancolton | Talk 00:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: I no longer have OTRS access, so cannot review the ticket. My reading of the info I left is "most of our pictures are really the government's, so they are PD anyway. Help yourself". With regards to their current disclaimer, that's an odd one - and its a disclaimer not a copyright notice. In particular it permits commercial use under the same conditions as non-commerical use. That is because the only difference is a request for a donation. A request isn't an obligation, so you can use commercially without payment.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

New ward map

Hello Nilfanion, the wards have changed for the upcoming elections in Kingston upon Hull, would you be able to produce a new ward map to use in place of File:Kingston upon Hull UK ward map 2010 (blank).svg. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I will try to run through all the changes since my last sweep in the next couple of days. I'll make sure Hull is done as a high priority (probably tomorrow).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, though unsure how to colour it as the full council is being elected rather than 1 for each ward as usual. Keith D (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Kingston upon Hull UK ward map 2018 (blank).svg. There are a few options for colouring which boil down into two options:
  1. Just show the party with majority of councillors for the ward (or no overall control)
  2. Attempt to show the breakdown. w:User:Nilfanon/Elections demonstrates one approach - using stripes of appropriate thickness and colour.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects

We have had a guideline allowing the use of cross-namespace redirects from gallery page names to the equivalent category for some time, but now it has been deleted without discussion [1]. On the other hand we have a policy for speedy deletion of these redirects. I wanted to understand how this discrepancy arose [2]. I searched the archives for Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion for any discussion that resulted in the adoption of this policy, but I didn't find it. Is this the wrong place to look? I did find a comment you made concerning this issue, so I thought you might be able to help. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Somerset West and Taunton

The government has announced today that the new council for en:Somerset West and Taunton has been approved & will come into effect on 1st April 2019. Is there any chance you could do a map of the area combining the red bits on File:Taunton Deane UK locator map.svg and File:West Somerset UK locator map.svg?Rodw (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rodw: File:Somerset West and Taunton UK locator map.svg has now been created, not sure what changes are needed for the current districts? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:New York

Shouldn't Category:New York (disambiguation) be moved to Category:New York, or are you waiting until you have completed the other moves? Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you are going to go? It doesn't make sense to keep Category:New York redirecting to Category:New York (state). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Surely you can tell its a work-in-progress? Join in if you want. All the various x in NY subcats also need the same adjustments.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, I though so but just making sure, I'd be less worried about the sub cats, unless like Shetland Islands is due to the name, not just disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong New York

The move from Category:Modernist architecture in New York to Category:Modernist architecture in New York (state) as executed on 17 July 2018 was almost completely wrong. The buildings are overwhelmingly in New York City (in a quick scan, I can find only three outside), and there is a category for that, Category:Modernist architecture in New York City, and that's where they ought to have been moved. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree those files should be in the NYC category. However I wouldn't say it was "wrong" to leave them in the NY state category. NYC is within NY state, so any building that is in NYC is also in NY state. The files were already categorised as being in the state, and the move just perpetuates that. I agree further work is needed to move NYC content to a NYC subcategory, but at this point, getting the state off the basename is my priority.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


Why the duplicate category names for the "New York City by month" categories? ----DanTD (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@DanTD: Not sure. Looks like the automatically applied edit summary is nonsense. The moves themselves are fine.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

New York again

[ You moved this to Category:2018 in New York (state). OK. So what about Category:2017 in New York, Category:2016 in New York, etc.? And what about the subcategories that are still in Category:2018 in New York? --R'n'B (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:HurricaneVince.jpg

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:HurricaneVince.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:HurricaneVince.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

B dash (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


Check out: Commons:Village_pump#Disambiguation. Thanks. Evrik (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi. My name is Mercy. I came across THIS file which, if my interpretation is correct, it was trnsferred from English WP to Commons, and you seem to have been the editor who transferred it. There are other files in English WP that seem ready to be transferred, like these 11:

1: Tumba Isabel L. Oppenheimer

2: Antonio Paoli

3: Amalia Paoli

4: Plaza del Caribe

5: Auditorium Juan Pachin Vicens

6: Auditorium Juan Pachin Vicens

7: Secretaria de Recreacion y Deportes

8: Mascara de Vegigante (Uso:Carnaval de Ponce)

9: Geronimo Lluberas

10: Electro (IWA World Heavyweight Champion)

11: Electro-Puro Macho

but I cannot find instructions on how's done. Some of these files were recommended for transfer years ago, so I am assuming there is not Bot that will do the transfer automatically after X period of time. Do you know if there are instructions and where they are located? Thanks Mercy11 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mercy11: As far as I'm aware there is no bot doing this automatically. I suspect that is because some in the WP community do not want it to be automatic. There are tools which can assist with manual transfer. See Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!! Mercy11 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

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 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 (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | 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)‎ | +/−


And also:

Yours sincerely, Ies (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back

Its nice to see you back, I wandered where you'd got to although I remember you saying that you're very busy ages ago. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've had numerous issues in past few months which have kept me away. I think User:Nilfanion/CP will be of interest to you: The places listed there are not listed in a civil parish cat.
I've noticed your recent activity on WP too, I'll have a look later and give any feedback.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes I do remember you getting a message about risking loosing admin tools due to inactivity but you hadn't yet this time. I personally think the "inactive admin" desysop is too high here, there's no big deal with having inactive admins. If someone is inactive for years then its understandable since they will be out of practice with the project but less than a year is unnecessary IMO. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Physical map of Devon - can you help?

Hi Nilfanion, I noticed your great map at File:Devon UK relief location map.jpg and have been looking for something like this for quite a while. I have looked at your source, OS open data, and have concluded that it's all gobbledy-gook to me, way beyond my computer/tech competence. Is there any chance you could help me to obtain such a map of Devon, ideally in even higher definition, just with coloured land as on your map, with rivers, but without any political borders or place-names? Many thanks, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

De-adminship warning (Feb 2019)

This talk page in other languages:

Dear Nilfanion. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2019 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for your service to the Wikimedia Commons community! 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm so sad (despite our differences) to see that you have lost you're admin tools but if you're too busy with "real life" things and you don't need it that much then I suppose its OK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Temporary cyclone south.svg

File:Temporary cyclone south.svg 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 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 (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | 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)‎ | +/− 18:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Nilfanion/Archive 6".