User talk:Andy Dingley

2007 2008 October, 2009 April, October, November, December, 2010 January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2011 2011 January, 2011 February, 2011 March, 2011 May, 2011 June 2011 * 2012 * 2013 * 2014 * 2015 * 2016 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019

File:Tanks FT-17

Hello Andy Dingley
So that I can improve myself in the modifications and categorizations that I carry out on a daily basis.
Would you be able to tell me the nature of my error (link) with the indication of categorization : 1920 Renault vehicles, for the file Tanks FT-17.jpg categorized as : Renault FT in Polish service and whose description indicates : Battle of Warsaw 1920 ?
Your cancellation notice indicates : They're still not 1920. Personally, unless otherwise stated, there is nothing to confirm that the tanks are of a date other than that of 1920 which is indicated in the description.
Thank you in advance for bringing me your shared knowledge so that I don't make that kind of mistake again and to improve in the accuracy of the contributions that I make.
Regards, —— DePlusJean (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• What does "1920 Renault vehicles" mean? Does "2019 Renault vehicles" mean "any Renault photographed in 2019", such that if they were photographed in a museum today, we'd apply the same category?

These are Renault FT tanks. They're photographed in 1920. But as far as I know, Renault weren't building them in 1920 (there was plenty of war surplus from 1918). Certainly we can't say with any confidence that they're 1920 tanks. If we did have a build date confirmed, then we might be able to say "1918 Renault vehicles", maybe 1917 or 1919. But 1920? That's unsupportable. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your indications which allow me to understand my errors
The categorization indication "1920 Renault vehicles" makes it possible to link a progress report on the products produced by the manufacturer over time. In this present case, the date of the year 1920 makes it possible to confirm the presence of this vehicle which is mentioned in the description made by its author (Andros64).
For your other questioning, I bring to your attention that there are many categories allowing to classify the photographs by dates of shots (Categories : Photographs, Photographs by date …) and thus to be able to perfect the classification of documents.
So it is because of your personal convictions that you have twice canceled my contributions (link) because they do not go in the direction of your thoughts knowing that no mention is made in the description of the file allowing the knowledge of your position on the subject. If, in fact, the vehicles shown in the photograph are not from the year of the date of the latter. The date indicated serves as a reference in the absence of contrary mentions. Even if I can agree with the arguments you make, they are a non-factual personal interpretation. In the concrete relating to this time, one can well imagine the courage of the photographer to take pictures of testimonies and avoid him to take the dates of construction of the vehicles present.
I bring to your attention the presence of the identical file : Ft17 dyneburg8.jpg, imported by Liftarn, which mentions the same subjects for the same periods among the articles to which it refers. The categorization allows you to be able to reconcile these files in order to be able to offer a quality choice for Wikipedia articles, for example.
I allow myself to mention the user and administrator Jarekt to read this message, to the extent of its availability, and for contributing to the subject of photo rankings (Revision #9646780).
Whatever our differences on the subject, I allow myself to wish you a happy holiday season
Yours, —— DePlusJean (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• What does "1920 Renault vehicles" mean?

This is not "Renault vehicles in 1920", it is (by our use elsewhere, throughout Commons and WP) "Renault vehicles of 1920", meaning that they are somehow connected themselves to 1920, i.e. built in 1920. This is more than simply an older vehicle being photographed in 1920.

As far as I know, Renault built no FT tanks in 1920. They had stopped by then. They had many of them, from WWI, and they (or the French government) were trying to sell them off as surplus. They are not "1920 tanks", they are not "1920 Renault vehicles".

Also, not all of the Renault FT were built by Renault. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand the background of your logic Andy Dingley
The purpose of my approach, and I only have one, is that we are going in the same direction, by combining our talents, in the interest of the community !
When you state the value of the category "Renault vehicles in 1920" by "Renault vehicles of 1920" while she is named "1920 Renault vehicles". When you mention construction, sale or inventory status. We are off topic.
I hope you haven't canceled my changes because the name of the category (defined and accepted by the community) does not correspond to your convictions. With the experience of your 145000 contributions, since 27 April 2007, you must understand that I am not responsible for the naming of the category.
The questions that make up the nature of the present action are :

• Does the photograph identify a Tank-FT ? The title of the photograph and the description mention : "Tanks FT-17".
    Yes, the photograph identifies a Tank-FT.
• Does the photograph identify the year 1920 ? The description indicates the mention : "Battle of Warsaw 1920".
    Yes, the photograph identifies the year 1920.
• Is the Tank-FT built by the manufacturer Renault ? Description and category mention : "Tanks Renault FT-17B" and "Renault FT in Polish service" respectively. The Wikidata Infobox template from the category "Renault FT" refers to the Wikipedia article : "Renault FT".
    Yes, the Tank-FT is built by the manufacturer Renault.
• Is a Tank a vehicle ? Following Wikipedia's directions : "A vehicle is a machine that transports people or cargo".
    Yes, a Tank is a vehicle.
• Do the indications provided by the photograph correspond to the category "1920 Renault vehicles" ? The year 1920 is indicated in the description. The name of Renault is mentioned in the description and in the category. A Tank represents a vehicle.
    Yes, the category "1920 Renault vehicles" corresponds to the criteria of the photograph.

I'm sorry, but at this level, there are no other possible interpretations.
Yours, —— DePlusJean (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• The Renault vehicles in this photo were not built in 1920. That is how we use categories named like this. This category is wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback
Having twice canceled my contributions on this subject and to no longer be bothered on this subject
Would it be possible for you to bring a notable source, for this photograph, allowing to validate the affirmation of your words ?
Thus, the action of providing a reference included in the page of the photograph would allow the community to avoid making the same mistake as myself and to continue to share educational content in the project. —— DePlusJean (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• That is not how BURDEN works. If you wish to make a claim ("These tanks were built in 1920") then you must provide sourcing to support it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Sea Alarm (tugboat, 1941)

Not all the photos of this tugboat show it at the museum, hence the reason I removed the museum category. After all, it would have been a normal functioning tugboat for most of its existence. Sionk (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, it's mostly (if at all) known through its connection to the museum in Cardiff.

Secondly, if it can't be included in a museum cat unless it has spent all of its life there (which we don't follow for any other exhibits), then why is it in the "museum ships" cat?

Finally, where are the images where she's not at the museum?

MW categorization is not defining – it's not powerful enough. So we should aim for useful navigation, and that means including it in the specific museum cat. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

About Shukhov Oka Towers

«I don't believe that both towers were built on the same bank».

I have to object to your reply, my dear friend. They actually WERE built on the same bank! The proof is these photos:

• 
• 

And also:

• https://cs11.pikabu.ru/post_img/2018/07/06/11/1530900823116358069.jpg — the «ring» near the tower is actually a base of the second one, which was destroyed in 2005.
• https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/880237/4163429.312/0_aedd6_dcea48e9_XL.jpg — the same.
• https://pastvu.com/_p/a/3/q/8/3q8a5wrc0gbtb0ga7l.jpeg — the construction of the second tower.
• https://pastvu.com/_p/a/1/r/f/1rfb9stghd78hirpbt.jpg — this photo also shows two 68 meter towers, which were located to the north.
• https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9931/4163429.313/0_aee06_47cd1442_XL.jpg — the remaining base of the one of them.

And these are the real photos, not a montage or something. Дмитрий Сазанов (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Interwar_tanks_in_museums

Interwar tanks in museums 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 Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Interwar_tanks_in_museums. 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!

Josh (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Destructor Bridge, Bath

Hi. The replacement Destructor Bridge, Bath has been given the same name, so we need to distinguish the category somehow. I wonder about 2 new sub-cats "Destructor Bridge (1905)" and "Destructor Bridge (2017)" - note no ", Bath". Do you have a strong opinion on this? Rwendland (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)