User talk:XrysD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikipedia!!![edit]

Hello XrysD! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical
Wikimedia.png

Re: File:Generalgouvernement fur die besetzten polnischen gebiete.png[edit]

The title in top right corner is in German. Several cities use German names in addition to Warsaw / Warschau; I think in all cases we should use English first, and then list German in smaller print and italics underneath (if at all). German names include: Krakau, Jaroslau, Stanislau, Neu Sandez, Neumarkt, Tomasow Mazowiecki (or is it a mispelling? should be Tomaszów Mazowiecki), Petrikau, Lawitsch, Sokolow-Wengrow, Cholm, Lemberg. Province names are also in German (Galizien). I ilinkeda few cities I recognized, some I would have to go to German wiki to decypher back into English/Polish (note that for the most part, English language does not translate city names). PS. I am all for keeping German administrative names.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While it is possible some (German?) historical maps use the Germanized names for German WWII maps, I can assure you that those names are not standard in English language for those cities (hence they are on English Wikipedia under the Polish/English, not German, names). I do agree that we should have a list of German names for administrative WWII purposes; in fact I've created several related articles, with Administrative division of Polish territories during World War II being the main article. Note two German maps long overdue for English versions there... :) And provinces such as Bezirk Bialystok should be under German names, certainly. But a WWII Poland map for English Wikipedia should have an English name (which is usually same as Polish) and a German name. The clutter shouldn't be too bad, if the German name is kept in a smaller, italic font. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not a map expert and my comment was based on my understanding of the WP:NCGN. I think that if possible and doable without cluttering the map, we should have all relevant names (English, German and Polish). I know that may often be not possible. Thanks for your hard work; we have very few good mapmakers here and I am very glad you share your skills with us! Let me know whenever you will be looking for Poland-related maps and I can be of any assistance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry XMAS from User:Piotrus. 12:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
My philosophy is that we need to make articles - and maps - as friendly to the end reader as possible. Some may know only modern English names, some may now local or historical ones; a good article - and map - will carter to all of them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hungary 1941-44 K.K.[edit]

Hi, I hope this really helps you.

K.K. stands for közigazgatási kirendeltség which literally means something like Outer Office of Administration or Delegation of Administration. The three of them were administrative divisions of the Kárpátaljai Kormányzói Biztosság (Regent's Commissionariat of Subcarpathia). (Here Regent is the head of state of Hungary, a kingdom without a king.)

K.K. were regarded equivalents of megyék in statistics. They exercised a limited part of functions run by megyék in other Hungarian territories. They were subdivided into járások just like megyék. But their internal structure was different having no home-rule at all.

In theory, Subcarpathia (the area populated by Ruthenians) was planned to become an autonomous region. In turn, its megyék-equivalent administrative units (K.K.) were planned to have a limited competence compared to megyék. Majority of megye-competencies were planned to be exercised on regional level. But the main difference was K.K. had no elected body or officers, it was merely depending on the regional authority.

However, as autonomous regional authority was not created (mostly because of war conditions), the region was administered by centrally appointed officers. This led to that both the region and its megye-equivalent local governments (K.K.) had less autonomy then local authorities in other parts of Hungary. Practically, K.K. was an administrative territorial unit depending on the regional Kárpátaljai Kormányzói Biztosság which in turn depended on the Hungarian government.

On a map, K.K. should be shown as megye but the three of them together should be shown as a region, a territorial level that does not exist in other parts of Hungary.

(In case you need any further info please contact me at hu:Szerkesztővita:Peyerk again.)

--peyerk (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

k.e.e. vármegyék[edit]

Yes, right. "k.e.e." stands for "közigazgatásilag egyelőre egyesített" and means "administratively temporarily merged". "K.e.e." always stands together with "vármegye" as "k.e.e. vármegye" or "k.e.e. vm." as its abbreviation. These administrative units were completely equal with simple vármegyék. The naming was used to express the hope that Hungary could regain its lost territories and all former administrative units could work as before. Between 1923-38 Hungary had 25 megyék, 7 of wich were called k.e.e..

And indeed, between 1938-41 Hungary expanded in four steps so the majority of k.e.e. vármegyék dismerged in 1938 (5 of the 7). But at the same time 3 were created along the new borders. In 1940, one of those created in 1938 dismerged due to Eastern expansion towards Romania. So between 1940-45 there were four of them.

In 1945 Hungary lost all territories gained after 1938 and returned to the administrative division of 25 megyék with one exception: distingushing between k.e.e. megyék and others disappeared expressing that Hungary has no further dreams about regaining lost territories.

I made a good article on k.e.e. vármegyék in Hungarian: hu:Közigazgatásilag egyelőre egyesített vármegye. I can make a rough translation for you if you wish so but then you should make it real English.

I will check your map with pleasure.

--peyerk (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hungary map[edit]

Wow... It's a great job! What are your sources?

I will make a version showing corrections needed. There are many misspellings and some wrong borderlines but this is the only map of this quality I've seen on the Internet.

--peyerk (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I sent them in a single mail. Can you recieve and handle a 18M mail? --peyerk (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Design Barnstar.png The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Excellent work in creating so many fantastic administrative maps. This is to say "well done"! Pondle (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wales map[edit]

Absolutely outstanding map you created (Image:Wales_Administrative_Map_2009.png). Great work, XrysD. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly looks very nice, but the problem I see with it is that, with the fancy font used and the relatively small font size, it has to be displayed in extremely large format in order to be readable. Personally I'd prefer a smaller map with either clearer names or a key with names - top marks for artistic merit though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This map appeared whilst I was away travelling for a few months so I've only just seen it. I agree with Dai and Ghmyrtle that it's a very attractive map and would like to thank you for your work on it. However, there is one important detail which needs amending. You have put "(CARDIGANSHIRE)" beneath "CEREDIGION". Unlike the other examples on the map, such as Sir Benfro/Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion is the sole official name of the county, in both Welsh and English. Could you please amend this so that it reads simply CEREDIGION? Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
More spelling: (I've not checked all the Welsh spellings) "Carmarternshire" should read "Carmarthenshire"; "Casenewydd" should read "Casnewydd"; "Rhondda, Cynon, Taf" should not have commas, and as with Ceredigion above, the Welsh spelling (one "f") is now the official one in both languages.
Point of style: for the map title, and for the counties/unitary authorities, you have Welsh above English; for the towns, you have English above Welsh. I think it would look better if the same convention were used for both.
I notice that in all cases except three, one town or city is shown within each authority. Assuming that this shows where the authority's headquarters are:
  • why does Ceredigion have two (Aberaeron and Aberystwyth) - I realise that the county council does have two primary offices, but one must be "in charge" of county-wide decisions (judging by this page it's Aberaeron)
  • why is there none for Monmouthshire
  • in Torfaen, why does the upper map show Cwmbran but the lower map show Pontypool (Torfaen CBC's HQ is in Pontypool)?
Otherwise: looks good, but you do have to enlarge it inordinately in order to read the text - to fit in my browser window it needs to be scaled down to 24%, and then the text is barely readable. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Excellent map. One more minor quibble, though. The initial O in "Ogwr" for Bridgend County Borough should be capitalised. You've got it right for the town itself! Skinsmoke (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Redrose64 and Skinsmoke - thanks for your comments on the Wales map, here are my responses:
  • Spelling mistakes for Carmarthenshire, Casnewydd and Ogwr have been corrected
  • I have deleted the English version of Rhondda Cynon Taf and removed the commas
  • I alternated Welsh above English and English above Welsh to avoid any perceptions as to which is the primary name and which is secondary (as far as I am aware they have equal status)
  • Ceredigion - the Wikipedia article doesn't distinguish between Aberaeron and Aberystwyth. However I am inclined to agree with you having read the linked article that Aberaeron may have a claim to be the main centre. I await complaints from residents of Aberystwyth to the contrary!
  • Monmouthshire/Torfaen - the admin centre of Monmouthshire is Cwmbran which is shown on the main map. The fact that this actually lies within Torfaen is what has confused things! I have change the UA and label colouring to try and bring Cwmbran more into Monmouthshire visually.
  • Map readability - this is a constant issue. Making a map that is readable at all scales is not easy so compromises have to be made. The font sizes were chosen so that the county names are readable in the thumbnail on the main page when the browser is runnung full-screen at 1280x1024 which I feel is a reasonable compromise

Map of Glamorgan[edit]

Hi XrysD, you've done some fantastic maps, including the excellent administrative map of Wales here.[1] A couple of us are working on a major revamp of the Glamorgan article, I wonder if you'd be interested in adapting the Glamorgan inset on your Wales map for the latter article? Many thanks.--Pondle (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I was thinking that we should retain the historic map image[2], but a larger version of the Glamorgan inset in your "Wales Administration Map" would look great in the 'Administration' section of the Glamorgan article. Of course, a high-quality relief map would be fantastic too, but that's probably asking too much! We appreciate you bringing your skills to bear on the article.--Pondle (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
History Barnstar.png The Mapmaker's Barnstar
For another excellent map, many thanks. Pondle (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

St Asaph[edit]

Hi Xrys, it seems that there may be a small error in your historic Wales administrative map: apparently St Asaph was formerly part of old Flintshire.[3] I've checked it out and it seems to be true[4]--Pondle (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wales again[edit]

Hi Xrys, Wales is now a GA nominee, which has led to a discussion about your administrative map. If you have time would you mind drawing a smaller version, where the English placenames are more prominent? Thanks again.--Pondle (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I just add a comment? Your map is graphically superb, but I think if you do redraw it you should consider using a more orthodox font, chosen for its clarity and readability - and be prepared for it to be reduced in size on the page. Personally, I wonder whether, in fact, it might be better to simply show the boundaries and numbered areas on the map itself, with the names listed in the key. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to add my thanks for the updated Wales map and your past work on the Glamorgan map. Cheers. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Late thanks from me too, the changes made does make it easier to read the English names on the map. Thankyou for taking the time to make the changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure guys! In the process I have discovered a new font which I think I will use in other maps now as it is clear and distinctive. XrysD (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrative Map of Ireland 1899 and Map of England Administrative Counties 1974-1996 please[edit]

Hello. I am a fan of your great maps you do, especially of the UK. I'm not meaning to bother you, but if you have any time, please make maps of Administrative map of Ireland 1899 , and Administrative counties of England 1974-1996. I would like to see how they turn out. Thank you. Rick Khoury (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Map of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia[edit]

Hi XrysD, I'm following up your offer to make a map for the subject article. I consider the main map should at least include all the towns that were German area commands (Belgrade, Niš, Šabac and Kraljevo), and I agree that there should be no 'territory' label on the map itself. Maybe the Banat should be identified, though, even if by a shaded area or border line. If you think it wouldn't be too cluttered, it might be worth including all the towns where there were German district commands, Požarevac, Zaječar, Leskovac, Valjevo, Kragujevac, Kruševac, Ćuprija, Kosovska Mitrovica and Užice. Let me know what you think? Thanks for the offer, I know it is a painstaking job. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant! That was quick. Thanks very much. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Would you mind adding Pancevo and Veliki Beckerek in the Banat? Pancevo was an area command initially, and Veliki Beckerek became an independent district command. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi XrysD, I have added the refs regarding Pancevo and Veliki Beckerek if you are still happy to add them in the Banat. Cheers. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Peacemaker I can't edit the file as DIREKTOR is up to his old tricks of changing map colours to his personal preferences (that don't add any value) and so replacing my version. As he doesn't have the source file used to generate the map his version is also of lower quality. I've reverted back and asked him to justify his changes so some sort of compromise can be reached, but he just reverts it back each time and doesn't give a valid reason for the change. I'd hoped he'd got over this sort of disruptive behaviour, but apparently not. XrysD (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully Director will allow you to make the changes so we can keep the high quality source version. I really appreciate what you have done with this map. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Map colours[edit]

  • @"Please stop changing map graphics based on your personal choices of colours. I do not agree with your choices and they add no value to the map!"
  • Neither grey nor white add or subtract any value from the map. Both are "personal choices of colours".
  • @"If you have a valid reason to change it related to the content (and personal colours preference is not valid) then state it. Then we can come to some compromise. Otherwise there is no reason to change the graphic."
  • I am not changing the graphic on a map, I am posting a different version of your map.

As regards the reasons why I prefer a version of your map with a slight graphics modification. I have already explained on the article talkoage, and I assumed you read it. I will elaborate here as well.

Infoboxes have special, framed segments for maps. These segments have a white background. When a map also has a white background, it blends with the infobox (and indeed the article) more seamlessly, and does not appear to have a double border. A map with a white background uses the structure of the infobox itself as the border. On a thumbnail, this is not visible as much as in an infobox where the border stands well away from the image itself. In addition, the highlighted content in the map, i.e. its subject, stands out more vividly with a background similar to the background of the infobox and article.

These are not subjective observations, they are real, objective reasons as to why a white background is superior to the default #BFBFBF grey of Photoshop. I am not attempting to impose my view on others, but am merely seeking to improve the map and the article by making minor, but noticeable and objective improvements to an excellent set of maps. I hope you will see these are in no way attempts to "usurp" your authorship of these public domain images, but are sincere attempts at further perfecting an outstanding map design. I greatly respecvt your efforts and admire your work, and wish to set it into the foreground and make it stand out even more than is already the case [5]. -- Director (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

All I am saying is that imo it would a good idea to have the map blend more with the background of the infobox and article. Any modifications you might care to make to that effect are in-line with my suggestion. As the author, it should probably be up to you to judge which colour is more appropriate, according to what you have in mind for your work. I myself can barely distinguish between the F9F9F9 and FFFFFF (lets hope I shan't have to turn-in my driver's license :)) -- Director (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking my suggestions into consideration, the maps look excellent :). If there's anything I might still suggest, it would be that it might be a good idea to remove the borders. Both on thumbnails and in infoboxes there's already a frame, and a second one seems somewhat redundant and "in the way". There's a slight distance between the map and the infobox frame, granted, but not so much that the infobox segment couldn't serve as a frame. And I think it might be possible to make to fix even that with some clever use of infobox entries.
As regards the articles, they were a typical example of WP:OWN. There were people willing and able to do the research and correct and improve the articles, but they just could not get to it. Now improvements can continue "naturally", as they do all over Wikipedia. The relative obscurity of this article made it something of a "hold-out", hopefully that is now over (we'll have to wait and see). I still want a few more large-scale changes.. I'd like to do away with a few unnecessary stub articles PANONIAN created during the conflict, and introduce the German flag to the infobox to bring it in-line with the other half-dozen articles of the same sort. With proper maps in the infobox (as opposed to the previous ones), we may finally have a decent-quality article over there. -- Director (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • @"In general cartographic terms it is bad practice to not have a frame and I feel the gap between the image and the infobox frame is just too wide to not be noticeable." - I figured as much, which is why I posted separate "infobox versions" in the first place, though the idstance can certainly be removed almost completely anyway.
I was just about to say that I had moved the map images to the second map parameter ("image_map2="). The maps then fits very closely with the frame, and with a minor modification to the size of the infoboxes, the distance can be rendered even more negligible. (And, of course, in thumbnails there's already a frame.) -- Director (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Map of WWII Yugoslavia[edit]

G'day again XrysD! Love the map you did of WWI Yugoslavia. Nice one! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 16:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries mate! :) XrysD (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries[edit]

Thank you for the county map image...that is absolutely brilliant! :) thank you for spending the time creating that image, it is greatly appreciated. Just a couple of minor things...prior to the 1844 changes, a few parishes within the main 'body' of Worcestershire belonged to different counties...Halesowen & Oldbury (except for Cradley and the fragmented Warley Wigorn) was a detached part of Shropshire, Clent & Broome (just south of Stourbridge) - Staffordshire and Tardebigge (between Bromsgrove and Redditch) - Warwickshire. Just wondered if you can have a quick look at that please? Thanks for your hard work, the map looks fantastic! :) Bellow558 (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, no problem it's my pleasure! I'll take a look at the issues you mention and upload a corrected map ASAP. XrysD (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, changes done. For Tardebigge, the article on detached areas say only the Township of Tutnall and Cobley so I've only included that part in the exclave. XrysD (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there...thanks you very much for amending the map, it looks fantastic! :) cheers again...it's greatly appreciated! Bellow558 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Albanian Kingdom (1939–43), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dibër and Kurvelesh. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Districts of the Independent State of Croatia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Split and Sušak. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Province of Spalato, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vis, Split and Blato. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British rule in Burma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magwe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, XrysD. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Map request: Registration counties and districts[edit]

Hi there! Do you think you could do a map of registration counties and districts of England and Wales, please? 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 01:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸! Yes I think I could do a map like that. It would take a bit of research to put it all together, but it's something I'd be interested in doing. I'll take a look and let you know :) XrysD TALK 23:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, XrysD. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Fenway Park[edit]

Nice Graphic of the stadium! Are you planning to do the rest of the MLB stadiums?

Roberto221 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Roberto, thanks for the kind words :) Yes I plan to do all the current MLB stadia and then historical ones if I can find decent overhead photos to work from. XrysD TALK 11:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


I don't know if this would help:

Past:

Present:

Roberto221 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that Roberto - it will be a great help! :) XrysD TALK 22:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Taunton County Cricket Ground - Pitch Dimensions.svg[edit]

Hi XrysD, good work on this, but you've missed out the Sir Ian Botham Stand at the River End; you can see the building clearly on Google Maps, though it isn't obvious that it's a stand. Harrias talk 09:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, thanks for letting me know - I've fixed it now. Couldn't tell from the overhead - will check regular photos too next time as it's clear as day on those. XrysD TALK 09:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
No worries, it's excellent work. Easy for me to tell; I live a stone's throw from the ground, and for about four summers probably spent more time there than at home! Harrias talk 10:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Kit files[edit]

Files listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 May 27 if you are interested in preserving their usage.

Thank you. Nthep (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BedfordshireCCCChampionshipKit.svg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BedfordshireCCCChampionshipKit.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BedfordshireCCCKit.svg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BedfordshireCCCKit.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)