User talk:Dave.Dunford
 First steps tutorialOur first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy.  Getting helpMore information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing. |
 Goodies, tips and tricks
 Made a mistake?
| |
| (P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?) | ||
Herby talk thyme 13:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Commons cat work
[edit]If you use that kind of thing my preferences -> gadgets -> HotCat is very useful indeed. Thanks for the work - cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The Swale ->River Swale
[edit]Dave, you have helpfully tried to sort out the classification of The Swale, Kent. But I believe you should revert it as there is no River Swale, in Kent. Referring to w:The Swale you will see that:
- The name The Swale refers to the strip of sea separating North Kent from the Isle of Sheppey.
Over to You. ClemRutter (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're right - I hadn't appreciated that The Swale wasn't a river. Will change category name. Should it still be a subcat of Category:Rivers of Kent even though it isn't strictly a river? Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The subcategory question- I haven't a clue! So I vote for the status quo. We include the Thames- which is marginal- it is tidal till the barrier so technically may be sea/ so we could include The Swale. If The Swale doesn't go there- where do we hook it? 8600 years ago it was a River. It had the same status as the Wantsum Channel. Speed 1610 shows the Medway joining the West Swale and the West Swale joining the Thames. Let sleeping dogs etc. ClemRutter (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
You have created several new sub-categories, one for each river, most of which contain only one or two images. While I appreciate the hard work, I am not sure it is useful. With such a sparse category, isn't it easier to see a gallery of all rivers in Devon with the exception of the River Dart? I thought we were only supposed to create sub-cats for overpopulated categories. --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hiya - I created these categories mainly to deal with the overpopulation of Category:Rivers of England, rather than of the separate Rivers of <county> categories. Creating categories for all the represented rivers of England seemed the most logical way of doing it, so that Category:Rivers of England could contain a sensible list of all rivers (rather than a mixture of links to categories for some rivers and then a load of files showing various random rivers around the country). At the same time I created Category:Rivers of England by county and reorganised all the Rivers of <county> categories in the same way. I'm fairly new here (though not to Wikipedia) so apologies if this isn't as sensible as I thought. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support your approach totally. Three years down the line and these categories will be overflowing. Users that want a image of the River Torridge will search for the category- not trawl through a page of disjointed images. ClemRutter (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing images
[edit]
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
Here's how:
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
[[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]][[Category:Comets]]
This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.BotMultichillT 05:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Image:A6 Chapel-en-le-Frith.JPG is uncategorized since 5 February 2009.BotMultichillT 05:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Image:153711 bd531be6-by-Dave-Dunford.jpg is uncategorized since 5 February 2009.BotMultichillT 05:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)- Image:Courts.svg was uncategorized on 12 October 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Image:Harridge Pike From Hollingworthhall Moor.jpg was uncategorized on 23 October 2011CategorizationBot (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Image:WoodheadDerbyshire.jpg was uncategorized on 7 November 2011CategorizationBot (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 15:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
TUSC token f76972ff4262380b2aaec258331cdecd
[edit]I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
|
Turkey Brook 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 its entry. 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! |
Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
|
|
Category:Rowarth,_Derbyshire 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 its entry. 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! |
S a g a C i t y (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
|
File:StCuthbertsWaySign.JPG 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
-mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
|
|
Category:River_Wye_(Wales) 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 its entry. 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! |
Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!
[edit]
|
The Category Barnstar | |
| For adding sort keys to the categories I created for the Grade II* churches in Derbyshire! Thanks for cleaning up my mess, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Dave, are you familiar with the Valued Images process? It recognises the most useful picture within a particular scope (the full criteria can be found here). I was wondering if you would consider nominating your picture linked in the heading? It's the best picture Commons has of that house; when there's only one picture it's not as straightforward as rubber stamping it, as the picture must also "illustrate its subject well". I reckon your picture is good enough and useful enough to make it through the process if you're interested. Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]I took a punt on the image and it was promoted. If you have more pictures like that, why not consider nominating them as Valued Images. Nev1 (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations! The image you created was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
56 Hillside Road, Overton west view.
You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!
[edit]https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb
This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.
To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!
[edit]
You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.
Dear Dave.Dunford,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.
Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.
Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
|
|
File:Parish Room of St Crux, York Geograph-4057802-by-David-Dixon.jpg 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Schlosser67 (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I know my eyesight's not so good these days, but what colour is this phone box? Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Rodhullandemu: It's red. But Category:Red telephone boxes is a supercategory of Category:K6 telephone kiosks, to which this category also belongs, so I removed the higher category per the instructions at COM:OVERCAT. Sorry, should perhaps have explained in an edit summary (but HotCat, the category tool I use, doesn't give you the chance). Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm. Not all K6's are red- there's at black one at St Paul's Cathedral, for example. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that occurred to me. But Category:K6 phone box, Hadlow Road station struck me as anomalous at Category:Red telephone boxes, which otherwise contains only files and high-level subcats and no other direct subcats referring to specific kiosks. None of the other categories for individual boxes in Category:K6 telephone kiosks is also in Category:Red telephone boxes. Perhaps one for discussion at one or other of the category talk pages, but I think my reasoning is sound. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm. Not all K6's are red- there's at black one at St Paul's Cathedral, for example. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2020! Please help with this survey
[edit]
Dear Dave.Dunford,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2020, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again for a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 200K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world.
You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey.
Please fill in this short survey and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2020.
Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team, 08:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I reverted the above file to the version from Geograph because your higher-resolution version was a much tighter crop. Commons:Overwriting files only allows overwriting to make minor improvements, and I think that crop is a major change. If you want to use the picture on Wikipedia, you can upload it under a new filename so that both files are available on Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2022! Please help with this survey
[edit]Dear Dave.Dunford,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2022, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again for a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 150K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 35 countries around the world.
You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey.
Please fill in this short survey and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2022.
Kind regards, Wiki Loves Monuments team, 09:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Pub cats
[edit]Hi Dave - thanks for your work on pub categories today (some examples are coming through on my watchlist). Just to let you know, I'm getting ready to upload a large batch of Hampshire pubs today, so I'll try to get all the categorisation right, but you might want to keep an eye on my Uploads screen and make any necessary tweaks. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Dave, regarding pub categories, I'm questioning if Category:Pubs in Southsea is really necessary as I find it makes it harder to actually find the pub I want. Southsea doesn't need it's own full hierarchy of categories outside of the Portsmouth hierarchy IMHO. I find the boundary of Southsea is also ambiguous towards Fratton, Milton, Eastney and Craneswater.--TimSC (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @TimSC: No real opinion on this either way (I don't know the area well and I didn't create the category, I just moved the pubs that had "Southsea" in their category names out of the Portsmouth category and into it, as that seemed the logical thing to do). I'd have no problem if the categories were merged. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I started getting the category removed but I didn't finish the job. I'll try to get it done this time!--TimSC (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- @TimSC: No real opinion on this either way (I don't know the area well and I didn't create the category, I just moved the pubs that had "Southsea" in their category names out of the Portsmouth category and into it, as that seemed the logical thing to do). I'd have no problem if the categories were merged. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Black and white photograph categories
[edit]I am worried that you have categorised around 17 of my photos of Chesterfield Parish Church as black and white photographs. None of the uploaded photographs taken by me are actually black and white. I tint them all - some very slightly sepia, some so sepia that they are definitely brown, not black and white. I accept that colour-blind people may not be able to see that (my son is colour-blind and would not see that slight colouration), but just because some people cannot see it, I don't believe that we should pretend that the tinting is not there. In the case of my photographs, that tinting is part of the artwork, complete black and white colouring being too hard an effect. My main concern is that because the pictures are now categorised as black and white, future editors may come along and "correct" my work, taking the colour out of my pictures, in the belief that the tinting is some kind of error, or fault of reproduction. I am happy for my pictures to be called sepia, but I object to the black and white category. I shall revert your changes, but I should be happy for you to re-categorise them as sepia. Storye book (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- By all means take them out of the categories and recategorise if you wish. I took "black and white" to mean broadly "monochrome" (or "not colour"). There aren't categories for "Tinted photos of Derbyshire" or whatever. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)