Marcbela
Art Longsjo
editHi Marcbela, are you living in Fitchburg? I just read there is a memorial built up for Art Longsjo in Fitchburg. I am looking for a photo of it. Can you help me? --Nicola (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not in Fitchburg. I used to live in that area and know of the memorial you are speaking of. You might want to do a web search for it.--Marcbela (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanl you :) --Nicola (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Category:Railroads_of_Massachusetts 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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! |
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!Dear Marcbela, Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. 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). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. 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 in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012. Kind regards, |
|
- Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 20:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Autopatrol given
edit
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 00:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
"old commercial blocks"
editI note that you've been adding a lot of categories about "old commercial blocks". Is there some criterion for what makes a commercial block "old" (particular year, something like that)? - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Generally "pre-war" (before 1940), low-rise buildings with commercial space at least on the first floor. --Marcbela (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
"Industrial heritage"
editI notice you are adding a lot of categories related to "industrial heritage". Are there any criteria for which industrial buildings are considered "heritage"? - Jmabel ! talk 01:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- The worldwide category seems to be years old but only now has got subcategories for many countries, states and subdivisions. Dozens of my pictures, mostly of defunct or repurposed factory buildings, have been categorized. Many of those buildings are on national (NRHP), local (NYCLPC) or professional (HABS/HAER) heritage lists, which strikes me as a reasonable criterion. I intend to insert the new categories for my geographical areas of interest into additional local parental categories (mostly "History of" cats) and move a few more pictures into or (more rarely) out of local branches of the "Industrial heritage" tree. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- But I see you adding it to categories like Category:Factories in the United States. Clearly (for example) a brand new electronics factory would not normally be classified as part of the country's "industrial heritage". At this point, Category:Industrial heritage threatens to become synonymous with Category:Industry. - Jmabel ! talk 05:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Or even more so Category:Mill River flood (1874). How is a flood part of "industrial heritage"? It wouldn't even belong anywhere under Category:Industry. - Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- The 1874 Mill River flood was caused by a mill dam that collapsed. It was built to power various factories. A list of topics is here:List of industrial archaeology topics.--Marcbela (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Topics of interest to archaeologists aren't the same thing as "heritage". Can you give any examples of differences between Category:Industry and this Category:Industrial heritage? - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't be misled by the term "archaeology". Industrial archeology deals with both "above-ground" and "below-ground" topics. The "archaeology" part refers to the scientific study of the physical remains of the industrial past. For instance, many older industries do not contain written records, or they are sparse at best. The term "industrial heritage" is often used interchangeably with "industrial archaeology", particularly in Continental Europe. Category:Industry does not necessarily refer to resources associated with historical industries.--Marcbela (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Again: if every factory in the United States falls under "Industrial heritage", what aspects of industry do not? - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Modern-day factories are not "heritage", just as there are aspects listed under Category:Industry that are not "heritage" such as Category:Ministers of Industry or Category:Industrial snow. Also, there is much more than just factories or manufacturing that is considered Industrial Heritge. It also comprises transportation, public utilities and power sectors, as well as things such as warehouses and worker housing. There is no exact cut-off point when something "new" becomes "heritage", however.--Marcbela (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is starting to remind me of Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/01/Category:Historic buildings in the United States a year ago. If there isn't a defined boundary, the category loses usefulness and we'd be better off without it. Something more definite, like "Industrial sites of the 19th Century" and similar for other defined times might be useful. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Jim, my thoughts exactly. And, Marcbela, still nothing you say here explains why you placed Category:Factories in the United States in Category:Industrial heritage in the United States, and your 02:35, 25 January 2014 remark seems to argue against your own action in that respect. Jmabel ! talk 06:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Again: if every factory in the United States falls under "Industrial heritage", what aspects of industry do not? - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't be misled by the term "archaeology". Industrial archeology deals with both "above-ground" and "below-ground" topics. The "archaeology" part refers to the scientific study of the physical remains of the industrial past. For instance, many older industries do not contain written records, or they are sparse at best. The term "industrial heritage" is often used interchangeably with "industrial archaeology", particularly in Continental Europe. Category:Industry does not necessarily refer to resources associated with historical industries.--Marcbela (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Topics of interest to archaeologists aren't the same thing as "heritage". Can you give any examples of differences between Category:Industry and this Category:Industrial heritage? - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- The 1874 Mill River flood was caused by a mill dam that collapsed. It was built to power various factories. A list of topics is here:List of industrial archaeology topics.--Marcbela (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The groupings under Category:Industrial heritage are of particular value to an industrial researcher. For instance, if someone wanted to research the variety of historic industrial resources that exist in Pennsylvania, and started in Category:History of industry, they would not get very far, as there is nothing specific to PA there. If they started in Category:Factories in Pennsylvania, they would not know if there are any and historic canals, grain elevators, mines or other items there also. Thus, Category:Industrial heritage in Pennsylvania is a more appropriate place to begin this type of search. The vast majority of files within Category:Factories in the United States (and each individual state category) are currently "historical" in nature and from the past (hence, the "heritage" part). Thus, they are of great value to an industrial history researcher. Alternately, these 1,000s of individual images could be separately placed in their respective Category:Industrial heritage in the United States by state. However, the few "contemporary" images within Category:Factories in the United States are still of great value to someone who is studying the continuum of a particular industry or individual company, such as Category:Factories in Wisconsin which contains an obviously modern-looking image of File:PierceManufacuringPlant.jpg, a company with dating to 1913.--Marcbela (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to me that once you say that present-day images are useful to people who are researching history so let's put them in the history/heritage category, too, you get to where any even potentially useful distinction of "heritage" disappears. But it also seems to me like you and I are never going to reach agreement as to whether this category is appropriate. I had started out hoping that there were clear criteria as to what belongs in the category and I was merely unaware of the distinction being made, but it now looks to me like there is no distinction, and therefore I'd consider the category invalid. You obviously believe it is valid. I'd like to take this either to the Village pump or to CFD to get a broader discussion. Do you have a preference between those venues, or a suggestion of a different one? - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- How can you possibly consider the category invalid? I did not create it. Industrial heritage is a real thing. I did not create it. The whole point of categories is to make stuff easier to find, especially when you are not sure what you are looking for, or if it even exists on the Commons.--Marcbela (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't a matter of who created it, it's a matter of whether it is at all well-defined. But it's clear that you and I are not going to reach consensus. I intend to continue this discussion more broadly. Again, do you have a preference of venue? If not, I will opt for the Village pump. - Jmabel ! talk 00:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Here is your definition, directly from TICCIH: Industrial heritage consists of the remains of industrial culture which are of historical, technological, social, architectural or scientific value. These remains consist of buildings and machinery, workshops, mills and factories, mines and sites for processing and refining, warehouses and stores, places where energy is generated, transmitted and used, transport and all its infrastructure, as well as places used for social activities related to industry such as housing, religious worship or education. The historical period of principal interest extends forward from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the second half of the eighteenth century up to and including the present day, while also examining its earlier pre-industrial and proto-industrial roots. In addition it draws on the study of work and working techniques encompassed by the history of technology. Indeed, it is a wide category, but clearly defined. Integrating "Factories in...", etc into "Industrial Heritage in..." clearly meets this definition.--Marcbela (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- In that case, it would seem even broader than Category:Industry, and would exclude nothing that is in Category:Industry. So why not just make Category:Industry a subcategory of Category:Industrial heritage, stop sticking Category:Industrial heritage and other similarly named categories on bunches of subcats of Category:Industry, and then add Category:Industrial heritage to the relatively few other things that are not in Category:Industry but would be in Category:Industrial heritage? (Similarly for subcategories such as Category:Industrial heritage in Massachusetts vs. Category:Industry in Massachusetts.) Still, I personally find almost absurd a "heritage" category that effectively says that if I go out and do something at noon tomorrow, then at 12:01 it will be part of the "heritage". It's a distinction that instantly vanishes. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- And, again, I think more than two of us (or three with Jim) should be discussing this. Since you have not stated any preferred venue, I'll go to the Village pump. - Jmabel ! talk 19:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- In that case, it would seem even broader than Category:Industry, and would exclude nothing that is in Category:Industry. So why not just make Category:Industry a subcategory of Category:Industrial heritage, stop sticking Category:Industrial heritage and other similarly named categories on bunches of subcats of Category:Industry, and then add Category:Industrial heritage to the relatively few other things that are not in Category:Industry but would be in Category:Industrial heritage? (Similarly for subcategories such as Category:Industrial heritage in Massachusetts vs. Category:Industry in Massachusetts.) Still, I personally find almost absurd a "heritage" category that effectively says that if I go out and do something at noon tomorrow, then at 12:01 it will be part of the "heritage". It's a distinction that instantly vanishes. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Here is your definition, directly from TICCIH: Industrial heritage consists of the remains of industrial culture which are of historical, technological, social, architectural or scientific value. These remains consist of buildings and machinery, workshops, mills and factories, mines and sites for processing and refining, warehouses and stores, places where energy is generated, transmitted and used, transport and all its infrastructure, as well as places used for social activities related to industry such as housing, religious worship or education. The historical period of principal interest extends forward from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the second half of the eighteenth century up to and including the present day, while also examining its earlier pre-industrial and proto-industrial roots. In addition it draws on the study of work and working techniques encompassed by the history of technology. Indeed, it is a wide category, but clearly defined. Integrating "Factories in...", etc into "Industrial Heritage in..." clearly meets this definition.--Marcbela (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't a matter of who created it, it's a matter of whether it is at all well-defined. But it's clear that you and I are not going to reach consensus. I intend to continue this discussion more broadly. Again, do you have a preference of venue? If not, I will opt for the Village pump. - Jmabel ! talk 00:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- How can you possibly consider the category invalid? I did not create it. Industrial heritage is a real thing. I did not create it. The whole point of categories is to make stuff easier to find, especially when you are not sure what you are looking for, or if it even exists on the Commons.--Marcbela (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Posted at Commons:Village_pump#"Industrial_heritage". Please feel more than free to respond there, especially if you feel that I've misrepresented your position. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
|
|
Midgely Bridge 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! |
Regards, James(talk/contribs) 18:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 |
File:125 High Boston.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.
|
User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Md Rahat Islam 1997.
I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
edit |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 102 South Washington Street North Attleborough.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
edit |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rocks Bridge rivets.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
edit |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Smith Opera House.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.
|