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 * 2020 * 2021 * 2022 * 2023 * 2024 * 2025

Category:Scans from 'All About Railways'

The template needs attention. Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe. But the fix for that would be on the template, not by stripping it from the category. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:Scans of correspondence from the West Gloucestershire Power Company in the 1940s

Template:Scans of correspondence from the West Gloucestershire Power Company in the 1940s 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 template, 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. 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!

Adamant1 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Scans from 'All About Railways'

These templates put the categories into Category:1935 books not the appropriate one of Category:1935 books by country. Can you alter the template? Rathfelder (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Trivially so.

Although it doesn't belong in Category:1935 books by country, so why would you even do that? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The same issue with several similar templates. This should be in 1935 books from the United Kingdom as it now is. Thank you Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• This is vandalism. Cut it out. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  These templates are defective. If you want to keep them can you please mend them. And please dont be insulting. Rathfelder (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

They are not defective. They operate perfectly and simply, as originally intended. If we have since introduced some subcategories, then they might at most be in need of updating to match. That is an easy task (easier than the multiple changes otherwise needed). You could do it yourself, or I would be happy to do it for you, if asked.

But what is not acceptable is for your disruptive editing and now vandalism (a term I do not use lightly). You know that you are causing some friction here, and you're doing it repeatedly, and now you've chosen to start a third batch of it, all because you are seemingly incapable of editing collaboratively (read the many complaints on your own talk page). So cut it out.

If you want such changes, either do them right, or ask and I'm happy to assist. But any more of this and I will seek admin sanctions. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I am doing my best to sort out vastly overpopulated categories of books by date into books by country. That is not intended to be disruptive. I would be very grateful if you can alter these templates so that they also do that. I'm afraid I know nothing about templates. Thank you for those you have already fixed. Rathfelder (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Could you fix Gnome Monosoupape cover.jpg so it goes into Category:1917 books from the United Kingdom? Rathfelder (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

and Scans from 'Internal Combustion Engines', Wimperis, 1915 in 1915 books from the United Kingdom? Rathfelder (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Or could you tell me how the templates can be amended? Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Mediawiki template syntax is ghastly and unfriendly. But this is a fairly simple change. You can just edit the template, then search for [[Category:1917 books for the place to edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think I have succeeded, but its not at all obvious! Rathfelder (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

But I am stuck with Category:Scans from 'Heat Engines', 1913, which appears in Category:1909 books and I cant see why. Rathfelder (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Read the description, such as at Category:Scans from 'Heat Engines', 1913

This is a 1909 book, published in 1909. The particular edition scanned was the 1913 edition, but that's not, AFAIK, significantly different. There was an earlier 1889 edition under a different title, but that is quite different.

So overall, I'd categorise this under 1909. Up to you. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesnt make sense to call the category 1913 and then put it in 1909. They should match, and I dont mind which way. But I meant I couldnt see see where the date came from in the template.

Scans from Railway Magazine should be categorised as a magazine, not a book. Rathfelder (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Scans from 'Minimum Gauge Railways', 1898

I've edited this so it is categorised as Category:1898 books from England, but it doesn't appear there. It appears in Category:1898 books. Your advice would be very welcome! Rathfelder (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be correctly categorised (see Category:Scans from 'Minimum Gauge Railways', 1898), so I expect that was a caching problem with the categories that include it. Give it a while, it will appear. Try Ctrl-F5 in your browser. What it probably needed (I've just done this) was a null edit to Category:Scans from 'Minimum Gauge Railways', 1898 : edit it, add some blank lines to the end of the category and save it. It won't appear in the history log (whitespace all gets trimmed anyway) but it forces the cache to refresh. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Rathfelder (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:Post boxes by county

Would you please edit the template "Post boxes by county" so that there are no more overcategorizations? For instance, if "Post boxes in $COUNTY" is already a subcategory of "Objects in $COUNTY", then "Red post boxes in $County" need not be another subcategory of "Objects in $COUNTY", but only of "Post boxes in $COUNTY" and of "Red objects in $COUNTY" (if the latter exists). Likewise for the subcategories by reign and type. --Schlosser67 (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with 'objects in' or 'red objects in'. So I'm not sure what you're asking here? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

It has got to do with the transcluded categories, as far as I understand it. Perhaps the object categories were a bad example. But look e.g. at Post boxes in West Yorkshire. There are subcategories for types, reigns, and locations. So far, so good. But there are also categories like King Edward VII red wall-mounted post boxes in West Yorkshire using your template which should be moved into some of these subcategories, and should not appear in the main category any more (which is overcategorization). With your template, however, this overcategorization is forced. Does that clarify the issue?

I believe it would be a pity to remove the template from these categories, but as it is, I find building proper category trees difficult with it.

Now that I am writing this, may I also recommend adding Type C, Type K, Penfold (pillar), and Franked Mail and Parcel post boxes to the list of types? --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Your template introduces a whole lot of overcategorisation (which is frowned upon in the Wikimedia Commons universe) and on occasion also completely wrong categories. Please repair it so that we can (re-)establish proper category trees! --Schlosser67 (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

So what is this 'overcategorization' ? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

See Commons:Categories#Over-categorization - a file or a subcategory should not be both in a category and its parent. Everything should only be in the most specific category. Example: if something is in Post boxes in West Yorkshire by reign, it need not be in Post boxes in West Yorkshire, too. I hope it is clearer now.

As for an example of wrong categories, if your template is used, Type K post boxes in West Yorkshire ends up as a subcategory of Post boxes in West Yorkshire by reign which does not make sense - there may be such post boxes with different cyphers at least in the future. --Schlosser67 (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2025 (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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Affected:

• File:Account, face (West Gloucestershire Power Company).jpg

And also:

• File:Account, reverse (West Gloucestershire Power Company).jpg
• File:Extension to supply (West Gloucestershire Power Company).jpg
• File:Schedule of charges, page 1 (West Gloucestershire Power Company).jpg
• File:Schedule of charges, page 2 (West Gloucestershire Power Company).jpg
• File:Schedule of charges, page 3 (West Gloucestershire Power Company).jpg
• File:Schedule of charges, page 4 (West Gloucestershire Power Company).jpg
• File:War surcharge (West Gloucestershire Power Company).jpg

Yours sincerely, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)