User talk:Mike Peel
|
|
| Welcome to my talk page. Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page, use headlines when starting new talk topics and sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. I will generally reply on this page to keep conversations together; please watch this page for a short time after leaving a comment. Uncivil comments will be reverted without response. Thank you. If you would prefer to contact me off-wiki, then my contact details and a contact form are available on my personal website. |
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Stourhead 2022 006.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Dunham Massey 2023 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Dunham Massey 2023 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At São Paulo 2023 091.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At São Paulo 2023 095.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Montevideo 2023 266.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Montevideo 2023 267.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Dunham Massey 2023 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At London 2024 099.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At London 2024 114.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Sudbury Hall 2023 086.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Tenerife 2023 881.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Museo Histórico Militar de Canarias 2023 461.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Wardenclyffe 2024 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At London 2024 248.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2024 275.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Stourhead 2022 027.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At New York City 2024 129.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At London 2024 084.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At London 2024 085.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At New York City 2024 054.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bust of Adrian Shooter, Marylebone station 2024 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Long Island 2023 251.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Long Island 2023 262.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2024 140.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Pi bot error[edit]
Hi Mike - your bot made an error in editing Category:Cecropis badia in this edit - it added {{Wikidata Infobox}}, which is correct, but it also removed {{Geogroup}}, a very important mapping tool, which it should not have done. Can you make sure it doesn't make this error again! Thanks - MPF (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @MPF: That's deliberate, everything that Geogroup does is in the infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't; it is the only way to map out geotagged files in the category. While this may not matter much with a small category like this one, it is an extremely useful tool for finding files that should be moved into subcategories. Example, if I find a file in Category:Anas superciliosa (an Australian species) that maps in UK rather than Australia (e.g. File:Australian Black Duck (5375549234).jpg), it needs to be recategorised into Category:Anas superciliosa (captive) as the species does not occur naturally in UK. If the Geogroup tag is removed this can't be done other than by examining every file in the category individually. It saves a huge amount of time and makes adding subcategories a lot easier. It is also very useful for finding files where the file's geotag has been entered incorrectly (e.g. forgetting a minus sign for western hemisphere coordinates); these are quite common. So please leave the Geogroup tag in, and restore any that the bot has removed. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @MPF: Look at the "WikiMap" and "KML file" links at the bottom of the infobox, and compare them to the links in the Geogroup template...? ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Managed to find those eventually, but it's a lot of extra work - click on 'Expand' (which then buggers up the category page file layout royally), scroll half-way to Australia, and then hunt for the link. And it shows the version including subcategories, not the one that doesn't show them, which is what I need. And then finally, click 'Collapse' again to restore the file layout. It is not a substitute for having the Geogroup on the category page. - MPF (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- You shouldn't have to expand the infobox, it should automatically be displayed alongside the category contents? There's a check-box on WikiMap to turn off subcategories, if you don't want those, although that makes no difference in this case. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it can be set to be permanently expanded, but as mentioned - it buggers up the page layout horribly if you do. And 99.99% of the time, you don't want it cluttering the page up. - MPF (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- It should just take up a column on the right-hand side, is it appearing differently for you? It's aimed to be fairly minimal, and a lot better than having text/templates at the top of the category page pushing the whole page down, while showing useful links and content from Wikidata (including which Commons images are used there and hence in Wikipedia articles etc.). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it can be set to be permanently expanded, but as mentioned - it buggers up the page layout horribly if you do. And 99.99% of the time, you don't want it cluttering the page up. - MPF (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- You shouldn't have to expand the infobox, it should automatically be displayed alongside the category contents? There's a check-box on WikiMap to turn off subcategories, if you don't want those, although that makes no difference in this case. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Managed to find those eventually, but it's a lot of extra work - click on 'Expand' (which then buggers up the category page file layout royally), scroll half-way to Australia, and then hunt for the link. And it shows the version including subcategories, not the one that doesn't show them, which is what I need. And then finally, click 'Collapse' again to restore the file layout. It is not a substitute for having the Geogroup on the category page. - MPF (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @MPF: Look at the "WikiMap" and "KML file" links at the bottom of the infobox, and compare them to the links in the Geogroup template...? ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't; it is the only way to map out geotagged files in the category. While this may not matter much with a small category like this one, it is an extremely useful tool for finding files that should be moved into subcategories. Example, if I find a file in Category:Anas superciliosa (an Australian species) that maps in UK rather than Australia (e.g. File:Australian Black Duck (5375549234).jpg), it needs to be recategorised into Category:Anas superciliosa (captive) as the species does not occur naturally in UK. If the Geogroup tag is removed this can't be done other than by examining every file in the category individually. It saves a huge amount of time and makes adding subcategories a lot easier. It is also very useful for finding files where the file's geotag has been entered incorrectly (e.g. forgetting a minus sign for western hemisphere coordinates); these are quite common. So please leave the Geogroup tag in, and restore any that the bot has removed. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Greenport, Long Island 2018 20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! RMLI Greenport 2018 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|