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 * 2026

Information on temporary account IP viewer rights

Hello Andy Dingley,

On November 12, temporary accounts will be enabled on Commons. The IP of unregistered users will then be hidden for most users. You, as a patroller or license reviewer, are eligible to request the new temporary account IP viewer right, if you need it to continue fighting vandalism and abuse on Commons. If you want to request the right, please file the request here. Please be aware that you also have to accept the Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy in your preferences. For more information about temporary accounts, look at the project page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Family doing laundry outdside (14071772716).jpg and others

Hello,

I see you reverted my {{No source since}} tagging of File:Family doing laundry outdside (14071772716).jpg. Please know that I did not tag this and other files simply because the Flickr account has since been deleted, but because that Flickr account itself was problematic, posting historical or old-looking photos with no source information. See this discussion for more details. If you believe a particular file should be kept despite this lack of source information, please use the "Challenge Speedy Deletion" button to convert it to a standard deletion request. In the meantime, I have restored the tag.

Thanks, Phillipedison1891 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Yacàwotçã (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Yacàwotçã (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Voting in recent DRs

Your lack of more than a millisecond’s analysis of 1) the AI generated files I uploaded to illustrate notable examples of AI generated content; 2) the context the files are being used in, and 3) the DRs themselves (which are revenge nominations by someone who’s mad I nominated their genuinely un-useful AI files for deletion) is extremely disappointing to say the least. Don’t vote in a discussion if you’re not willing to at least put in the bare minimum of effort. Dronebogus (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

So make a credible rationale for why we can, and should, keep them. Particularly as you seem to be expecting editors at the DR to do analysis of how valuable these seminal artworks are. If you want them kept, help people out and don't expect them to do all the legwork for themselves, because that doesn't happen.

I still think these should be deleted as AI slop. You don't seem to disagree with that much, but you're relying on two other claims:

• They're valuable commentary on a notable topic. Is the film even notable? Aronofsky is, but you'd still have to show that for the film itself. Showing that the advert meets a similar level? Even less chance. Then you'd be using an argument that's a WP:NFC claim anyway, and that just doesn't fly at Commons. Besides which, three images for NFC on one topic? Such an argument also carries zero weight for any claim that this is a valuable, albeit AI, illustration of Franklin.
• Your remaining claim seems to be that anything which has gone anywhere near AI can no longer have any copyright claim attached to it. Commons can steamroller the US film industry, noted for their happy, sharing culture of their own IP. That's not getting anywhere past COM:PRP. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

1: AI content doesn’t have copyright outside of the UK and Hong Komg. That’s standard policy here. We upload third party AI content all the time. 2: if you look at On This Day… 1776 and the AI generated commercial they both have enough citations you could realistically spin them off into their own articles. That seems notable to me, Dronebogus (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Some changes this week

Hello Andy Dingley, you make some changes this week to vehicles in the Musée National de l'Automobile.

1. Deletion request to Category:Lotus 33 (Musée National de l'Automobile) in the Musée National de l'Automobile (for pictures made in the museum) and changes in Category:Lotus 33 (Musée National de l'Automobile).
   Please note that in the last category there are also pictures made at the Paris Motor show, definitely outside of the museum. According to the main categories which you added all pictures must show: 1960s Lotus automobiles in the Musée National de l'Automobile, 1960s automobiles in the Musée National de l'Automobile, 1963 automobiles in museums, Formula One cars in the Musée National de l'Automobile. It was a hard fight for me in the last years to correct all such mistakes made by User:Finoskov in these categories.
2. You created Category:1960s Lotus automobiles in the Musée National de l'Automobile without Category:Lotus automobiles in the Musée National de l'Automobile. Regards --Buch-t (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. I'm receptive to any ideas you have for how best to do this.

• I see no point in having Category:Lotus automobiles in the Musée National de l'Automobile. All of their Lotuses are from the 1960s (AFAIK). I created one 1960 Lotus category for the museum, which is also in Category:Automobiles in the Musée National de l'Automobile and sorted as L for Lotus. In which case, creating the category for all Lotuses in all decades there would have no point, other than to add additional layers of navigation overhead.

The only drawback to this is a truly trivial aesthetic one, of the wording used for the link from the all-cars page including the prefix '1960'. This is just one of the limitations that we have to work around with Mediawiki. It's a lot less of a drawback than the extra baggage of additional navigation layers which are adding nothing.

There is a similar issue with Category:Violet-Bogey type A torpedo (M.N.A.) and Category:O.M. type 665 SS MM roadster (M.N.A.1322) 1931, where these are the only cars of that marque in the museum, thus I did not create the intermediate categories for them.

I would like to see Category:Automobiles in the Musée National de l'Automobile expand so as to become an all-marques listing for the museum. Groups where there are multiples; single pages for single cars where there are not. That would have value to our readers. I found the structure very hard to follow before my recent visit because there was no complete list of marques. It is not useful to our readers to hide all the Audis from them (a marque with a long history under that name) and expect our readers to guess the decade they might be under! It's not too hard to guess that Lotuses were in the 1960s, but for Audi this would be guessing that a 1913 model was filed under 1924, for a maker far better known in the 1930s or 1980s. That's an unreasonable requirement.

• As to the Lotus 33 (and any general principles involved in that category) then it is (in the broad sense) the regular problem that we have to manage content which doesn't perfectly fit the structure we've built. In this case, the example of a museum exhibit that travels to other exhibitions.

I see no point to concerning ourselves with this. The issue is simply trivial. Mediawiki categorisation is also (as always) navigational, not defining. It just doesn't have the capabilities to cover such situations in a useful manner. Attempts to do so (not unusual here) just make navigation unduly complex. If we had content of this car racing in the 1960s, then that would be different. Even if it came out to events like Goodwood and was photographed in action there, it would be worthwhile to separate them. But for two images of the car in Paris, looking identical to how it looks when also at rest in a different museum, there is no point in splitting.

The category names are tautological anyway. If the content is so fluid that it can't simply be grouped under one, then why have the name of that venue in the category, implying that's where they are anyway? Are you advocating a training course being necessary for our readers before starting, lesson one being "The category with MNA in the name is the one that doesn't involve the MNA. You need to look instead at the one labelled twice as 'MNA in the MNA'." If we can't explain to our readers on sight that the category labelled 'MNA' is the one for images not in the MNA, then we've failed.

This is particularly bad if, like here, Category:Lotus 33 (Musée National de l'Automobile) becomes inconsistent with Category:Lotus 18 in the Musée National de l'Automobile in that the category with the simple name [<marque> <MNA>] transforms into being the one that isn't at the MNA. That is a broken and ridiculous naming system. The only thing worse is the one where trivial and overlooked syntax such as '(...)' means the opposite of 'in the'. There is no way that that system would be any sense to anyone other than you, completely ignoring our customer here, the readership.

As usual, our guiding principle should be that of defaults and refinement. For a museum collection, the default assumption will be that exhibits are in that museum. We make that the basic behaviour for the parent category (the top level for any Lotus 33 content within this collection). The exceptions to this then become the exceptions. If we have coverage of a museum collection car in its racing heyday, then we put those in a subcategory beneath. Likewise if one makes a loan trip elsewhere. But the starting point of this tree, for all exhibits equally, should be that its content of this car in this museum. If we distinguish anything within that, we make those the exception and leave the default in place.

I am open to any discussion of these issues, but I am unconvinced by your points here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

You created Category:1960s Lotus automobiles in the Musée National de l'Automobile with the main Category:Lotus automobiles in the Musée National de l'Automobile, but this category does not exist. It is a red category. Where is the sense to use red categories? You can remove the red category and this problem is solved for me.

When I look at your last edits then I find more examples where you use red categories without creating them: Category:Tower blocks in Somerset, Category:Telephone exchanges in Gloucestershire, Category:Methodist Chapels in Devon, Category:Lock-up garages in England. I am wondering. But this categories are not of interest for me.

Please look at Category talk:Musée National de l'Automobile. Last year, when there was the disput with User:Finoskov, I started to write my thinkings about the category system for this museum. He did not answer. Nobody answered. I did some changes but I did not change the wholly system. Now, 14 months later, it would be necessary for me to think from the beginning again.

Now to the bigger problem: pictures in museum and pictures made elsewhere.

To categorize images in categories where they are not right according to the category name or category structure, is deceptive. (In German de:Täuschung, I hope that en:Deception/deceptive is the right translation.)

When we have a category which is in main categories like „in the Musee Automobile“ or „in museums“ then I cannot accept pictures made elsewhere. We have to find a way to prevent incorrect category assignments.

I will be back next weekend. --Buch-t (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Questions to the museum in Mulhouse

I think that you was there this month. Do you have visited before? Any important changes? What is the actual method of describing the vehicles? Written like here? Or displays or headsets or QR-Codes? In 3 languages? With the number of Palissy like PM68001640 for Category:Bugatti Type 23 skiff torpedo (M.N.A.0306) 1920 (chassis 765) or the number of MNA?
Perhaps I can visit again this year. Regards --Buch-t (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

This was my first visit. Overall it was just as I'd been warned: an interesting collection of pretty cars, presented with almost no labelling and no interpretation or explanation at all. As a museum, it's rather missing the target.

By the way, what about the Category:Bugatti Type 37A there? Is there a category for that? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)