User talk:Pigsonthewing

'Muslim ban'Edit

Just inquiring as to why this is in quotes in e.g. Category:29 January 2017 SFO 'Muslim Ban' protest? From what I've been able to tell, there's no formal name for the protests -- just a common cause which isn't a "Muslim ban" per se. I imagine that's why it's in quotes, but it seems like if there's no real name for them, something more descriptive is preferable. I've moved the main category to Category:Demonstrations and protests against Donald Trump's January 2017 executive order on immigration. It's rather cumbersome, admittedly, and there may well be a better way. The two existing specific events are at "Protest at ___ against Donald Trump's January 2017 executive order on immigration". Thoughts? — Rhododendrites talk |  19:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: You've moved (e.g.) the files from a category with a specific date, to a category with just a month. Please fix that. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
"January 2017 executive order" is just a description of the executive order (an alternative to "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States", in an example of when the actual name of something makes a subject harder to understand) rather than, necessarily, the date of the protest. It's possible we'll see protests against the same in February, for example. But the SeaTac, etc. categories themselves are categorized in 2017-01-29. I don't know why the category name would also have to reflect the specific date unless we were, say, differentiating two different events at the same place on different days? — Rhododendrites talk |  20:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: You've moved files from a more-specific category to a less-specific category. There are going to be photographs from 28 January, and probably 30 and 31 January, as well as dates in February and maybe beyond. Once again: please fix this. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Who knows which locations will have events on different days? Making a category less specific isn't a bad thing if the specifics are handled by categories and there's no confusion between extant categories. I imagine you would not complain if the original category also included full GPS coordinates, time of day, time zone, county, city, state, etc. Right now each location has one category and one event. Maybe we'll get some pictures about a similar event on a different day in one or all of those, at which point it may make sense to spin out date-based categories, but why do that preemptively, when we don't know? Including the date serves to differentiate one event from another in the same location with the same title/subject. If there's nothing to differentiate, there's no reason to include details that are already handled by categories. We don't automatically include the full date in the title of every category about an event because there are other categories for that. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in your baseless imaginings. Please now fix the degradation of quality you have caused. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Village_pump#Question_about_full_dates_in_category_names. Participate if you wish. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: You moved files without consulting the uploader, and they asked for you to unmove them. Why can't you heed that request? The category created by Pigsonthewing would have fitted nicely under your banner category, and still can. It would be good of you to consider reverting your edits.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: ? Pigsonthewing is not the uploader. Certainly if an uploader had a particular naming scheme I would be sympathetic to the idea that some scenarios call for some sense of deference, but that's not the case here. For all the ones I double-checked just now (which is most of those I moved, but admittedly not quite all), the uploaders were Seagull123, Hinnk, and Dennis Bratland.
I don't think that reverting (and moving the files which have been added since) makes sense, as it would return the odd "'Muslim Ban'" naming, make them the only two categories in the parent category with this setup, and reintroduce superfluous data to the category name, forming an unnecessary compound category that serves no differentiation/disambiguation purpose (at least at the time) and is already satisfied by its membership in date-based categories. It's possible, a week later, that we now have images from other days at the same locations, in which case I've no objection to reintroducing the date for differentiation purposes -- as I've said would be sensible from the beginning. I'm turning in for the night shortly, but will look tomorrow to see if that's the case and will move accordingly. — Rhododendrites talk |  05:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Over a week has passed, and you have still not fixed the degradation of quality you have caused. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
As I said, I will take a look today if there's call for introducing a date to either of them yet, and will take care of it if so. It's certainly possible at this point. I'm not going to restore the original name or add a date if there's no reason to do so, as that would actually be degrading quality. Compound categories are not automatically "higher quality" than basic descriptive categories when there's no need for a compound. An informal name in scare quotes is not "higher quality" than a straightforward description of the subject. If you feel my reasoning is poor and actions were as egregious as all of your responses thus far have indicated, I would welcome more participation at some other venue with regard to whether/why there's support for the original category name as opposed to where it is now (especially after adding the date where applicable, if applicable, later today). I'm not going to continue replying here. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

BlacklistEdit

I see that you whacked the blacklist on uploads today. I am going to guess that it was a PITA. Do you see a means to have better warned/prepared/stated that you had hit the blacklist? Or a means to have warned you that you were going to do so? Did hitting the blacklist have you abandon your uploads?  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: It was indeed a PITA, and stopped my work. I raised the issue in Commons talk:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection#‎Blocked by spam filter. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The blacklist and its ability to block url shorteners is vital, however, I am guessing that we need to alert people to that waaaaay earlier than a fail at upload time, and it is unrecoverable. Think that I will poke a notice into phabricator.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Follow-up. Was the message that you received that simple? It should have also stated the problematic domain, well that is the default message. If yes, can I ask whether you are using language en-gb? I ask as I have expanded the base message to have some more helpful (hopefully more helpful) text, so that may be why the expanded text is not showing; though wouldn't explain why no domain name was mentioned.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The full error message was "Transfer failed [1] : /The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site." You can try this yourself in Flickr2Commons. My Commons preferences are set to "en" not "en-GB". AFAICT, this has not previously been an issue with uploads from this rich source, using identical boilerplate text. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fossilised woodEdit

Hi. I see that you have added files to [[Category:Fossilised wood]] but not created the category. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Spindle whorlsEdit

I think you've removed the category "Spindle whorl" from files using Cat-a-lot but haven't added the new category "Spindle whorls". --Simonxag (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

See Category:Spindle whorls in the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Pigsonthewing".