User talk:Rodhullandemu

• Archive

Lochs of North Ayrshire

Could you let me know why you removed 'Lochs of North Ayrshire' from a loch that is in North Ayrshire? 92.2.1.44 19:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at it again if you can tell me which loch you have in mind, but I have been going by the online database provided by the geography dept. of the University of Edinburgh. I'm assuming they know more about it than I do. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rod, I have been working on the recording of the hundreds of Lochs in North, South and East Ayrshire for some time. You have been removing these categories from large numbers of my photographs. I have always had trouble with the Wikimedia categorisation system, but these groupings seem better than 'The Lochs'. RSLlGriffith (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're saying here; what I have been doing is creating new categories to cover specific lochs, and these will be put into council area categories rather than do that for each image individually; the images inherit the classification via those categories so as to avoid overcategorisation. As to which area a lake is in, it's sometimes unclear, and I go by the reliable sources. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

River maps

River Wye

The Wye has got me thinking about some potentially useful content: That is maps of the rivers. There is some stuff in Category:Maps of rivers in the United Kingdom, would it be useful to have a set in basic style of File:MapOfRiverCamelCornwallUK.jpg? I could produce a ton of those from the OS data.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be very useful, if time-consuming, to have maps as you suggest. I'd do it myself but am no good with graphics. Certainly I think we have enough structure now to have maps of the major river systems of England, Scotland and Wales. I'm hoping to tackle Northern Ireland next, followed by the rest of Ireland. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The map to right was 30 minutes work - and is a reasonable starting point for these I think. Any comments?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's an excellent rendering, but perhaps some labels might assist a viewer e.g. of counties and ideally also of tributaries and notable settlements- perhaps by adding notes would not clutter the image so much? Let me know what you think - and a Happy Christmas! Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My initial thoughts - labels (absolutely), a thicker border for the England/Wales border, adding a within-UK locator inset and highlighting the drainage basin by using a different colour for it. Plotting the watershed will be the time-consuming element of that. I'm not sure about how to handle towns at present, but I'll have a play.

And have a good Christmas too :)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've updated map to tweak the England/Wales border and show the catchment. I need to get my head around labelling properly, but I think the basic map is fine now. As an aside, my workflow gives me a decent estimate for the area of the catchment. eg I make the Wye 4,140km², the Usk 1,560km² and 696km² for the Taff. These figures are classic OR, so they can't be used for WP, but still they are interesting.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year, and the latest map is a big step forward. I look forward to seeing labels, but outlining the catchment area is a useful addition. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thinking more about labels - I wonder if it would be best to drop the minor streams? That would give a cleaner background and therefore more space for the river labels. The minor streams aren't needed to define the catchment now either.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree, if we don't have articles for them. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Noted

Just for clarity and the record. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Noted 2

Dear user Rodhullandemu! Please stop to delete my pictures! --Origati

These are presumably copyrighted works of art displayed in public places- we need to know the countries where they are located. Please see this policy for reasons. You may object to deletion on the pages for each image. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Interieur Tram Mulhouse.JPG

Hello

I just found the location of the picture, thanks to Google Street View (because I've never been in Utrecht) and thanks to File:Tramway Citadis 302 Mulhousien Utrecht.jpg which gave me some other clues. Indeed, I followed the tram line from this picture on Google Earth and then found some building looking like the ones we can (hardly indeed) notice around the tram. Then it's all good .

I try as soon as possible to locate pictures on my own, especially in the area where I live (in Southern Alsace, in France), but sometimes I don't find the place, then I add the "Location possible" tag. I really do understand that you work on the "Location possible" category, and indeed it's a good think trying to empty this category a little. But when I add "Location possible" I try to make the uploader be aware of the fact he could help on geocoding the picture, with very precise coordinates if possible (and with "Location" rather than "Object Location" because we can't see roundels on Google Earth plug-in when there is only "Object Location"). The example of File:Tramway Citadis 302 Mulhousien Utrecht.jpg is very good because after adding "Location possible", an user added very precise coordinates 2 months later, it's the best we can hope for Commons pictures even if it takes time ^^

And the "Location possible" make things easier to find pictures that need a review in a category because it's a template, and then very convenient with CatScan tools. That's why I restored the tag on this tram picture and put some "Estimated location" tags on other pics just to make other people work on this later, especially if they live near the place. I hope it's ok for you, and you do a great job thanks for all! Have a nice sunday and best wishes for 2012! ^^ Jeriby (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Krz oktaederluecke.png

File deletion warning

File:Krz oktaederluecke.png 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!

 

Hi, you're receiving this message because you lastly categorized this file I just nominated for deletion. Best regards, Perditax (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

More tips for coordinates

Hi. Thanks for your help with locating some of the images on Commons. It appears that some of the coordinates are very specific yet don't quite match the photos, and are not marked as estimates. A few tips that may help:

• You may want to mark general estimates with {{Location estimated}} so that other users know that it may need more precision later.
• On Commons, {{location}} is equivalent to {{camera location}} (why, I don't know): it is used to mark the spot that image is viewed from, not the location of the target subject in the photo. The template that you want, to mark the target, is probably {{object location}} or {{object location dec}} instead. (I think some user said that these don't show up in KML generated by some Commons helper tool. I don't know about that; and if some KML generator needs to be modified, then that is a problem with the KML generator. But using {{location}} instead of {{object location}} makes views inaccurate in any case, and explicitly shows "camera location" erroneously in descriptions.)
• Google Earth allows zooming in further than Google Maps satellite view, without the satellite image disappearing as in Google Maps. This will allow a user to see, for example, that the target in File:Normal Fire Tower Co 2.jpg is more like 40.5177°N 89.0013°E / 40.5177; 89.0013, rather than the cell phone tower next to it (which is 40.517607°N 89.000744°W / 40.517607; -89.000744 in the file description, but is not in the photo at all).
• You may want to limit coordinates to 3 or 4 decimal places in many cases. 6 decimal places implies that the point is within 5 to 10 centimeters; 4 decimal places implies something more like 5 to 10 meters. Most buildings are larger than 5-10 meters just by themselves. en:WP:OPCOORD discusses this is more detail.

I hope this helps. If you have any questions, let me know! --Closeapple (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; it can be quite difficult sometimes (e.g. for suburbs or cities) to work out which coords to use and I tend there to give a general location and let the user decide on their preferred resolution. I also think "object location" is more useful than "camera location" because the latter is not always easy to work out because of lens focal length, etc- OTOH, the object subject of the image is usually pretty simple to pin down. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Seddon being sentenced to death.jpg

Hi I am making enquiries for a friend who would like to acquire the original Seddon photograph and I wondered if you could help. Many thanks Ron Barker (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to respond by leaving a message on my talk page. Ron Barker (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Difference b/w location and object location

Hi, May I know the difference b/w location and object location? I saw one of your edits here. --Vaikoovery (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The various templates are described here, but briefly, "Location" says where the camera was, and "Object Location" says where the subject was- but in most cases they are so close together that it's most useful to use only one set of coordinates. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rodhullandemu, I got the answer in my talk page by Closeapple. Thanks. --Vaikoovery (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Grannie Rock

Great picture. I would have spelled the name Granny Rock. Is there a reason it's Grannie? Something to do with granite? But it's sandstone. cf Grannie stone in Wikipedia. Ggriffit1 (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I found it as "Grannie" on some website- of course, it's not marked as such on any map. I may have assumed that it is granite due to its relative hardness compared with the surrounding sandstone- granite is not unknown in the area and forms the basis of some of the nearby docks. I haven't, as yet, found anything to confirm or deny this on the web; however, I have plenty of spare time and may need to go to the local librar. I'll get back to you. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Albert Dock Gates - geograph.org.uk - 1272528.jpg

thumb|Albert Dock Gates - geograph.org.uk - 1272528

Hi Rodhullandemu,

It seems the above was removed by error from Category:Pumphouse (Liverpool). I restored it and redirected the duplicate category at Category:The Pumphouse there. I'm sure there is a pumphouse elsewhere than in Liverpool. --  Docu  at 08:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It was not moved in error. Category:Pumphouse (Liverpool) contains images that have nothing to do with the Albert Dock pumphouse, which is the one to which Category:The Pumphouse should refer. In time, when this job is finished, all will appear clear, but assuming I've made an error in the course of a work in progress without asking me about it isn't helpful. Meanwhile, you've left images on a category redirection page, which is just wrong. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The redirect bot will eventually take care of that. Don't worry about it.

This one might have indeed been added to Category:Pumphouse (Liverpool) by mistake, but "Albert Dock Gates - geograph.org.uk - 1272528" and all others seem to show the same building. --  Docu  at 12:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The idea is to have a separate category for each of the Liverpool docks for which we have images, and then subcategories under each of those for separate buildings situated at those docks (including The Pumphouse, whose category may well need renaming in due course). If necessary I will go there and take pictures of those for which images are needed, but I would need to peruse a map and devise a strategy for this. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm glad that I didn't misidentify the building either. I wouldn't attempt to list images of building only in one or the other category though. In a category for a specific building, one would want to find a fairly complete overview about a specific building.

BTW Some time ago I went through Category:Ships at Liverpool and added a few where more than just the ship is visible to Category:Liverpool Docks. --  Docu  at 17:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)