I've had a bit of a tidy up of this thread so I can follow what is going on!

Sorry again to ICLOK for overlooking the fact that he had been done a massive amount of work on the Forest of Dean, entering several hundred mines. ICLOK has indicated he's happy to have JR48 join in being regional editor for the Forest of Dean.

In order to make sure I don't forgot who is editing which region here's a quick recap:

South West England

carnkie
ferret
ICLOK
jr48 (Forest of Dean)
Roy Morton

South East England

AdrianP
Peter Burgess

Midlands

Barney

North West England

Colonel Mustard
Mr Mike

North East England

spary_lea

Scotland

Heb

North Wales

Manicminer
Simonrl

Mid Wales

royfellows

Where there is more than 1 regional editor per area it's (I hope!) by agreement of each of the regional editors in that area.

I've made sure that each of the regional editors has access to the Regional Editor forum http://www.aditnow.co.uk/community/viewforum.aspx?f=48 

It goes without saying that everybody is extremely grateful for the large amount of work all these editors have done and are doing on the site database. It takes a lot of time to enter accurate mine details, and when you look at the hundreds of mines these editors have added the time invested is vast. It also goes without saying there's no commitment or obligation, so if you've had enough just let me know!

---

Welcome Jimbo as Regional Ed for the NE. Thanks for volunteering :thumbsup:

Full list at present is:

South West England

carnkie
ferret
ICLOK
jr48 (Forest of Dean)
Roy Morton

South East England

AdrianP
Peter Burgess

Midlands

Barney

North West England

Colonel Mustard
Mr Mike

North East England

spary_lea
Jimbo

Scotland

Heb

North Wales

Manicminer
Simonrl

Mid Wales

royfellows

---

Hi Simon
I have been thinking. (dangerous practice!)

I feel that regional editors should be able to rectify situations wherby a mine is accidentally added twice, possibly due to alternative spellings, and then material uploaded to both.

So then the RE would have to decide which was the correct and most appropriate, put the other in as an alternative spelling, and then move all of the material over before deleting the duplicate.

What do you think?

Its possible that this functionality is already there, certainly the ability to delete, but what about resetting the picture links?

---

Sometimes there's an up-side to living in a region with relatively few mines!

Hi Simon
I have been thinking. (dangerous practice!)

I feel that regional editors should be able to rectify situations wherby a mine is accidentally added twice, possibly due to alternative spellings, and then material uploaded to both.

So then the RE would have to decide which was the correct and most appropriate, put the other in as an alternative spelling, and then move all of the material over before deleting the duplicate.

What do you think?

Its possible that this functionality is already there, certainly the ability to delete, but what about resetting the picture links?

This is on the cards... I hope I can get time to devote a full day to writing a new module before Christmas to allow photos to be moved (individuall or in bulk) between albums in the same mine (e.g. uploaded to archive instead of user or vice versa) and between albums in different mine (e.g. removing duplicate or uploaded to wrong mine).

But it's not there at the moment 😉 So if deleting a duplicate or incorrect mine please do bear in mind that until I write this new module then you'll also delete all the albums and photos in that mine :(

I'll post in the site updates section when I've written this new maintenance module...

---

I have been doing some more thinking. (It gets worse!)

I am now wondering whether in the event that a mine is added twice under different names or spellings, it would be better to leave say "B" alone, but to make a notation "See A".

Obviously, the RE would ensure that all uploads are under mine "A" , and that mine "B" is simply a redirect for the benefit of site visitors who only know the mine under name "B".

I think that this issue is worthy of some serious consideration and discussion, and that all REs should adopt the outcome as standard policy.

With respect, I suggest that we await postings of opinion on this, before the admins make a final decision.

---

I understand what you are saying Roy but I'm not clear how the REs can ensure that all uploads are under mine "A".

---

I think most of what you are saying Roy is also being discussed in the Pensilva topic.

---

I think we will always have to deal with duplication if only because of variant spellings Blackdene, Blackdean, or because someone thinks Blackdene fluorite mine is a different entity to Blackdene lead mine or whatever.

Very often if someone puts a 'new' mine into the database they will put some content in it at the time, so if the regional editors can somehow amalgamate entries or move folders then that would probably be the easiest way to fix it.

A quick note to the contributor to say what's been done so they don't think its lost and add yet another would be a good idea too.

I have a duplicate now, Allenheads and Beaumont mines are the same working and both have content. Beaumont is the newer entry and has far less content. I shall add a note to the description redirecting further content to the Allenheads entry until it can be sorted.

---

Thanks sparty. I'll advise when the tools to move photos are finished. I'm also going to write an improvement to the 'add a mine' so if it finds a similar name for a very similar grid ref it asks the person if they're sure it's not a duplicate.

Roy, I can see the logic of what you're saying, but I think we might just create a rod for our own backs. If we've got 2 or 3 instances of the same mine with similar names then that's 6 albums and give people an album and they will upload to it 🙂 So we'd forever be moving things around.

There is perhaps middle ground though. Once the new admin tools for moving photographs are sorted the admin / regional editor could:

- delete the duplicates having moved all the content
- retain the duplicates, move the content and delete the albums so there is nowhere to upload to, and add a note to link to the correct entry

---

While not wishing to distract from the thread, is there a tool for us non-REs to move our own photos from one album to another which might be more appropriate (I'm thinking of the Archive/User Album debate) - and if not could we have one please ? It's very laborious to delete a photo and then upload it again.

Cheers

Grahami

---

Thats a good idea too! A couple of folk have said that to me on PM's, good idea.....

---

Definitely, I'll write that as part of the admin / photo moving tool so anybody can move their own photos. It's been on the cards for ages, but since we've always had the albums on here and photos are physically stored in folders corresponding to the albums it's a big task to write this bit since it needs to actually move files around and change things in various database tables 😞

---

Good work sir, I'm sure it will be excellent & very useful :thumbup:

---

Once the new admin tools for moving photographs are sorted the admin / regional editor could:


- retain the duplicates, move the content and delete the albums so there is nowhere to upload to, and add a note to link to the correct entry

That sounds like a good idea, if there is an entry (but no means to upload to it and a redirection to the main entry,) it might help stop people adding duplicates for mines with more than one name.


On a related issue I think we're beginning to have another issue with what constitutes a mine.
Where a mine has more than on entrance, were beginning to get entries for individual 'ways in' so we've got Rampgill Mine and Brewery shaft; Nentsberry Mine and Wellhope Shaft and I can think of several more where this is likely to be an issue in the future.

We also have the same working entered twice but as different types of feature
eg Threlkeld Quarry is in as a quarry and also as a museum
Nentforce Level is in as a 'mine' and also as a 'tunnel'

any thoughts.......

---

I realise we already have two regional editors for the North East,but I am willing to help in any way I can. The one thing I have is plenty of time.

Sparty,
I'm very dubious on the adding of shafts etc for the example you quote... however in the case of Cornwall we organised Basset mines around the shafts as at the lowest level as thats how the remains stand today and thats how someone coming to Lyles shaft for example might first experience the Basset mines for the first time say on holiday or doing a mining tour, then we added links up to section on Basset and an overall history of Basset mines with links back to the individual bits like Lyles, and in this case it stops confusion as at all points this huge mine site can be accurately be accessed on the DB and referenced to all its significant bits.
However that only works on a major site like Basset.

In the case of a mine with two entrances for example there only needs to be 1 entry on the DB and perhaps the second entrance referenced in the AKA field.... however I have noticed that people simply don't check before putting stuff on as well and I'm afraid we cant stop that.:angel:

The only way would be that an admin would have to give permission? Eg once the mine was entered it would sit in a buffer memory until one of us accepted/checked it. We would then approve it or not allow it but move pictures and the like to the right place!

But then thats a forced workload on the admins.... it would be fine with me but I'm not everyone!

Just a thought. 😉

---