User talk:Chris j wood

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image:Burnham Market 1.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading files on Commons.

Please use {{GFDL-self}} instead of plain {{GFDL}} for own files.

EugeneZelenko 14:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Boston water taxis.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 05:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm really busy in this period. Now the image looks ok, sorry again :-( Bye, --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token d7f5c2049ee971f4a59fff00acf7f2a5[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Hi[edit]

I'm almost tempted to template this one :). Working on cats on Commons you may care to look at my preferences -> gadgets -> Hotcat. Works well and makes it quick & easy. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Image:Montebello fire after.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright Image:Montebello fire after.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. For images, you may find Commons:Image casebook useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

--Túrelio (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Montebello fire.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright Image:Montebello fire.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. For images, you may find Commons:Image casebook useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

It's licensed NC and ND on Flickr. --Túrelio (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DCP 6031.JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhmmmm... you're right :-) Problem solved, thanks for the help ;-) If you have other problems like that, feel free to report them to me :-) Thanks again! --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 18:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FI[edit]

Because of your uploads, I have created the page Fry's Island. Thanks for your image contributions! Ceranthor 16:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DCP 6405.JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 17:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Old debate?[edit]

Hello, would you say a word in this debate, please? Category talk:Train stations in Switzerland Thank you.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geograph files[edit]

Hi, I noticed you've nominated a number of Geograph images for deletion - as you had already uploaded a superior version of same image to Commons directly.

Duplicate files should be marked for speedy deletion with {{duplicate|Better file}}. Easiest thing would be if you can just provide a list of the files, then I can get that sorted.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cable car pylon - geograph.org.uk - 2813847.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 15:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My error in editing file - now fixed -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


File tagging File:TPL folibus.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:TPL folibus.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:TPL folibus.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Steve Morgan (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


File tagging File:TPL tram.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:TPL tram.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:TPL tram.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Steve Morgan (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding File:TPL folibus.jpg and File:TPL tram.jpg, in response to your message on my talk page:

As I see it, your mistake was accepting the claim by the original uploader ("ToBeDaniel") that he was the author of those photos. You say that the files were "appropriately licensed", but I say: No, I do not believe they were appropriately licensed, because I do not believe that ToBeDaniel was actually their author and, in that case, he does not have the legal right to place the photos in the public domain. The Lugano tram system closed in 1959, which I would imagine is before ToBeDaniel was even born, which would mean it is impossible for him to be the author of that tram photo, and that he made a false claim of authorship (or failed to understand what "author" means, for photos uploaded to Wikimedia sites). I tried to place the notice on his talk page, but it didn't function there, probably because it was a Wikipedia user page, not a Commons user page, but I've checked again now, and I found he does have Commons account (even though that is not where he uploaded these two Lugano photos), so I've now placed the notification template there. Anyway, it really doesn't matter whether you followed the proper Wikipedia/Commons process. My tagging/notification was really about the files, not about you. I believe the files are not legally licensed and should be deleted unless either the uploader or you can provide convincing evidence that either (1) he really was the photographer (author) or (2) that the true photographer released the images into the public domain. Steve Morgan (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schlossbergbahn_(Freiburg)[edit]

Category discussion warning

Category:Schlossbergbahn_(Freiburg) 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Schubbay (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campione d'Italia 03.jpg[edit]

File:Campione d'Italia 03.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

84.61.133.39 11:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I merge your comments of various image into Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Casinò di Campione. :) Raoli ✉ (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Maxim75 (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for using my Panoramio photos for illustrating Wikipedia articels. Feel free to upload any other from Panoramio. You may also like http://www.geolocation.ws/ - a website maintened my myself which tries to index CC photos from Panormio, Flickr, Geograph.co.uk and others

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. odder (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Territet-Glion 04.JPG commentary[edit]

I saw your commentary to the photo of a funicular in Glion. It would have been better to put it on the discussion page. I don't know if you have been to Glion, if yes, the picture shows the disused railway coming from Territet going to (?). Traumrune (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make a commentary to the photo. I made an edit comment explaining why I'd removed Category:Funiculars in Switzerland from the image. Basically because the image is not of a funicular. This is a clear case of an error in categorisation which I corrected as best I could. I see no reason to take such a correction to a discussion page.
No, I have never been to Glion and I do not know what this image is actually of, although I do have a suspicion. As I explicitly pointed out in my comment, this is why I have not updated the text or categories to say what the photo is of.
With regard to this being a disused line, well it might be. But the state of the rails suggests otherwise, and none of my reference books make any reference to there being a disused line in either Territet or Glion. -- Chris j wood (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, next time I go to that part of Switzerland I will make inquiries - if I don't forget ;). I had hoped you know Montreux. Traumrune (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cable cars[edit]

This is also a cable car. Please read this article: Cable car in English wikipedia and look at the pictures. And look also at the pictures in Category:Cable cars. --Enfo (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removed out of context reply; hadn't spotted your other change when I replied
I see that you reverted my removal of Category:Cable cars from the Category:Telefèric del Port cabin which I had created the day before. I did this because the text for Category:Cable cars says Cable cars are rail vehicles that .... I agree that the Cable car article in Wikipedia seems to disagree with that. But this is Commons, not Wikipedia. And categorisation needs more precision than WP articles, because you cannot explain in text. -- Chris j wood (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I categorized according to the images I saw inside the category (go to category Cable cars and look which images are there), because I'm not a native English speaker, I just studied the language. Because I don't know the real use of terms, I searched the more appropriate category, but if it doesn't match, no problem in suppressing it. But now "cable cars" is also a subcategory included in "cableways"... --Enfo (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Categorization[edit]

Hi, thank you for categorizing the Zurich tram photos. May I suggest that you use HotCat to do that? I think this is easier both for you, and for me because I can then see in the edit summary what you changed (I have all my uploads on my watchlist). Again, thanks for your work. darkweasel94 16:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Chris j wood,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Max-Frisch Platz / Zürich Oerlikon railway station[edit]

Ich vermute das du manchmal in Zürich bist / I think sometimes you are in Zürich.

Also you look as though you understand English as happily as German which is easier for me. And you take good pictures.

Is there any chance that you might get a chance to upload a picture of Max-Frisch Platz that I can add to a translation I've been working on on .... the Great Man aka the Grumpy old Genius? It is a new Platz that I think they plan to "open" behind a major railway station in ZH (but not the Hbf) in 2015, so maybe now it is still a building site. But there might still be a good picture or two to be had.

Well, it's a long shot but sometimes long shots work out. Thanks for thinking about it.

Here's a five year old newspaper article in case your curiosity has been triggered:

http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/eingangstor-zu-neu-oerlikon-1.4138870

Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ford categories[edit]

I'm slightly concerned about these categories: Is there any evidence the fords are given names? For example Category:Luton Ford implies the ford is actually named "Luton Ford". If it is not named, a descriptive category name should be used - which says it is a ford in Luton, not that it is Luton Ford.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. Mostly what I'm doing is trying to build a category structure. When I started, there were umpty-thousand photographs in Category:Fords in England, which made that category close to useless. In phase 1, I've moved them into Fords in CountyName categories, but that still leaves some pretty unwieldy categories. So phase 2 is to create categories for individual fords, where we have more than one photo for that ford (although I've also strayed into uploading newer images from Geograph if I thought they added something). I confess to not worrying too much about the name I gave the ford; usually one of the photos would quote a name that seemed sensible so I'd use that. In this case I suspect I read more into a photo description than I perhaps should.
Are you suggesting that Ford at Luton, Devon would be a better name?. My only problem with that is that you end up with a lot of categories starting Ford. I know I can deal with that with a pipe syntax, but that seems less elegant. And I tend to regard naming on Commons as a much less important issue than it is on Wikipedia. However if the consensus is that the descriptive names are better, I'm more than happy to go that way. -- Chris j wood (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understand your main point there, the Commons category structure is often very incomplete. Particularly when the category is a high-level one that the Geograph upload got placed in like Category:Roads in England.
I agree with Commons naming being lower concern than WP, but if there isn't a name actually in use we shouldn't invent one. My gut feeling for a category scheme for fords is use proper name if it exists, and if not <watercourse> ford in/near <location>. Of course, if the stream is unnamed that would be just Ford in/near <location>. If further disambiguation is needed, the street could work. Adding the watercourse will mean fords on more important rivers will have a category name relating it to the river.
As for consensus on Commons? I doubt this matter will be discussed outside of this thread, real discussion is rare here unfortunately :(--Nilfanion (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've renamed all the ones that clearly need renaming in Category:Fords in Devon. More than I expected, I must confess. Where at least one of the original photographs uses the same 'X Ford' name as the category, I've taken that as confirmation that the given name is correct and not renamed. Of course that does rely on the photographer getting it right. Do you think that is reasonable, before I go back and revisit the counties I've already done. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have to say Category:Ide Ford was a particularly bad one - Category:Ideford is somewhere else entirely!
That's probably a reasonable cut-off, as at worst it means we are following someone else's mistake - instead of making the error ourselves. A more stringent standard would be better longer term, but also just gets in the way.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beeston transport interchange 2016-05-01 13.52.32.jpg[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know I delete this file you uploaded, a diagrammatic poster of the Beeston NET stop. This is because there is no freedom of panorama in the UK for 2D graphical works. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Penlee Memorial Garden 2017-06-26 10.32.15.jpg[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T168949

Your file's actually fine, but the server's not rendering it right. I'm trying to get this fixed. Guanaco (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd assumed I'd uploaded the wrong image, but I can now see that if I view it in a different resolution, it is fine. Never seen that before. Anyway I've withdrawn the deletion request in the hope you can sort the rendering. -- Chris j wood (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't touched MediaWiki code in years, but hopefully the dev team can figure it out. Bug's reported. Guanaco (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization question[edit]

Could you please link me to a policy or guideline explaining the sort of categorization sorting you are doing with time stamps? I would like to understand the rationale behind it. Ainali (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ainali: I'm not aware of any policies or guidelines in this area. Generally I only do it to a category where I am adding one or more photos, and where I cannot see any kind of previous ordering of the files within the category, either by using the | symbol or by naming standard, and where there is no obviously better ordering that could be used. In the case of Category:Duvholmen I had added File:Views from the Stockholm Helsinki ferry in Sweden 07.jpg (not named by me) to the category, and when I came to look at the category the files were just in an arbitrary order based on no particular naming standard. The category subject is a fairly small location, and there didn't seem to be any better ordering that worked for it (eg. by geography or function). I took the view that sorting by date at least gives some sort or order, and cannot possibly be worse that an effectively unordered set. If you feel that is wrong, please explain, and I'll try and take your comments on board. -- Chris j wood (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I feel it is wrong per se, it was more that it was the first time I have seen anyone do that sort of sorting during my ten years here and was wondering if I had miss some important policies. Personally, I feel that alphabetical sorting would be the most obvious, especially since that is the one that is used on probably more than 99,99% of the files. But I am open to new ideas, but it should probably be discussed on the village pump before something is implemented. Ainali (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But alphabetic sorting on what?. Let me be clear, in no sense am I proposing that everything should be sorted on date. I think a call needs to be made for each category, and I only put in date sorting where I feel that makes sense. There are other alternatives. For example where a category contains images of buildings in a street, I have sorted on building number. But just doing an alpha sort on the filename only really makes sense if the filenames have been sensibly chosen. Whilst this (usually) is the case for sub-categories, it rarely is for photographs, which tend to be given all sorts of arbitrary names, sometimes even just the name generated by the camera. -- Chris j wood (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless anything else than alphabetical order is used, and it not documented on the category page, the result is even more arbitrary to a user, since there is no way to tell why the files suddenly is in a different order. Especially if they sometimes are by date and sometimes by building number (and sometimes by something else someone thought made sense at the time) but there is no way to tell which. At least for alpha sorts, they are future proof, since we don't rely on new users having to know what way any aritrary category are supposed to be sorted on. Ainali (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do accept that (the "why on earth is it in that order" question) but I'm not sure what the use case is where people need to know what order they are in. If they know the filename, then they would presumably search rather than manually scan categories, and if they don't know the names, I'm not sure how it helps them knowing why an image called File:D810 0250 (14745253993).jpg comes after one called File:810 1765 Ljusterö August 2015 (20490022359).jpg (to pick some perhaps slightly, but not very, extreme examples). By all means ask the question on the village pump. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually a quite good example. In what way does it help a user that they are sorted by date, if they do not know that they are? In a way, you are making edits, that makes files show up in watchlists for no good reason and (albeit of marginal importance) put load on the servers when there is no benefit for anyone. I haven't found any examples, but a possible scenario is also that your edits make files of a certain kind (possibly by the same uploader) harder to find if they are not all in one sequence. My point is mostly, that no one stands to gain from this arbitrary re-sorting unless you make an extra effort to clearly mark the categories as sorted in a differnt way, so you could just save yourself the energy completely if you are not willing to make that effort. Ainali (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

I just want to thank you for the great work you have done categorizing the files in Category:Stockholm archipelago. /ℇsquilo 15:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

God Jul and thanks Chris J. Wood. Bengt Nyman (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for all the wonderful photographs. I have enjoyed the challenge of identifying them. God Jul. -- Chris j wood (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate files[edit]

Hi Chris, I understand you have come across a number of photographs of mine which have been uploaded once by myself from flickr and later slightly modified and uploaded by somebody else from Panoramio. If, at your convenience, you care to send me a list of these filenames I will be happy to nominate the approprierat ones for deletion. Thanks for all your fine work labeling and categorizing many of my photographs from the Swedish archipelago. Bengt Nyman (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bengt, I've tabulated the duplicates I've found so far in User:Chris j wood/duplicates. If I find any more, I will add them there. -- Chris j wood (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t do…[edit]

…this, unless there’s material to populate a sibling Category:Trams on route 166‎. In either case, if you moved these three subcats, you should have moved also the eight images you left at Category:Number 166 on trams. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuválkin: Sorry, but I don't understand that. You seem to be saying that the category Trams with fleet number 166 should only exist if we have images of trams on route 166. That seems a very strange way of doing things. At the very least if we are going to do that, we need to rename Category:Trams by fleet number to something more accurate (say Category:Trams by fleet number, where the fleet numbers happen to correspond to route numbers). -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuválkin: The point about the eight images is a good one, and I have now recategorised them as you suggested. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm saying that: No need to dissiminate Category:Number N on trams into any possible subcat unless we have some material that’s not suitable for the new subcats. In the case, all we had about trams with 166 were fleet numbers: no route numbers, no other misc. things. In my opinion, these 8 images and 3 subcats should have been left where they were. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuválkin: So what we do about Category:Trams by fleet number then. If we do as you say, the danger is that it will mislead people into thinking it actually categorises trams by fleet number, rather than just a subset of trams by fleet number where the fleet number meets some otherwise undisclosed and arbitrary criteria (that it is also, somewhere in the world, a route number). Sorry but IMHO that just cannot be correct. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuválkin: Those examples are equally wrong, if they are indeed populated in the way you describe. The Category:Number 9906 on aircraft represents the intersection of Category:Numbers on aircraft and Category:Number 9906 on vehicles. That intersection exists quite irrespective of whether there happen to be any watercraft or rail vehicles numbered 9906, and the category should therefore be populated irrespective of whether watercraft or rail vehicles exist. The point you make about incomplete catagorisation is not relevant; of course the wiki is a work in progress and always will be, but there is a fundamental difference between something that hasn't yet been done, and something that is deliberately done wrongly. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, my original suggestion aims for easy, sensible browsing; I don’t think that this kind of dissimination is wrong, just premature. However, three points:
    • Maybe consider stop saying that this kind of “incomplete” categorization is wrong. That’s umpleasant and goes against your correct assessment that Commons is a work in progress.
    • People searching for media in Commons are expected to be rational human agents, not pure logic bots. When not finding Category:Trams with fleet number N for a given value of N it is expected that one would, instead of assuming that such fleet number is never used for trams, rather go looking for Category:Number N on trams, and then, if needed, for Category:Number N on vehicles, and then Category:Number N on objects, etc. This kind of dissimination you’re doing and which I spoke against might not be wrong, but it’s not really critically useful or needed, either.
    • When creating new subcats for route numbers and fleet numbers under any Category:Number N on trams (either the kind I aprove of or not), please make sure you move all the contents. Clumping all kinds of number N on trams in a Category:Number N on trams without subcats may be bad (even if I think it’s okay), but leaving in it some files and subcats after you created Category:Trams with fleet number N and Category:Trams on route N is undisputedly bad (I just now had two dissiminate one photo and 2 subcats in №81 — maybe there’s more).
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuválkin: Dealing with your bullet points in the order you present them:
  • Sorry if you find it unpleasant, that was not my intention. Shall we say 'unhelpful to the end user' instead.
  • Rational human beings can only work with the information known to them. Somebody browsing the Trams by fleet number would have no obvious way of realising there is a completely parallel set of categories they could look in. In order to help them, we should therefore, where we can, categorise all trams with a given fleet number in the Trams by fleet number structure.
  • Not guilty. I did not create either Trams with fleet number 81 or Trams on route 81. According to the history both of those were created by you, back in 2014. Neither have I had any involvement with the two subcats or the image you moved.
Incidentally, I'm a bit doubtful of your move of RNV 4081. The contents of that category suggests the vehicles fleet number is 4081 not 81, despite the fact that the images clearly shows a number that looks like a fleet number of 81. May be the result of renumbering, or perhaps the operator truncates the number it paints on the vehicles, but my call here would have been to put the category in Trams with fleet number 4081 and Number 81 on trams. One of the things I've noticed in looking into this is that there are a fair number of images categorised in a Number x on trams category because of a number that is neither a fleet number nor a route number. Often this is clearly a running number, but sometimes something as bizarre as part of a phone number on an advertisement. No idea why anybody would think it is worth categorising on something like that, but it does go to show that there will be images directly in the Number x on trams category even where the fleet number and route number subcats are populated. -- Chris j wood (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renames[edit]

Hi Chris, Just a heads up as per Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_not_be_renamed? #2 I've had to decline the Arabic > English rename requests,
Theoretically you could use Google Translation but there's no guarantee that would be correct,
Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Hi Davey. I'm afraid my arabic is non-existent, so I cannot provide correct arabic titles for these images, and my experience of the likes of Google translate is that they are not up to the job. I'm happy to use them in translating into my native tongue, which is how I know these files are incorrectly titled, but I wouldn't be happy using them to translate into a tongue I don't speak and cannot check.
However I'm a little puzzled at your application of Which_files_should_not_be_renamed #2, which states Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized. Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages. In neither of the cases you declined (File:اسواق تجارية في لندن.jpg and File:شارع في لندن.jpg) is the language of the original title, or its capitalisation, the reason for the rename. The title of the first image is plain wrong as there is no way Commercial Markets in London can be regarded as a valid title for an image of a hotel in Manchester, irrespective of the language it is written in. The second case is more marginal, as Street in London is a very ambiguous, but not absolutely incorrect, title for an image of Park Lane.
I came across both of these, together with a third by the same submitter (of the well known Etihad Stadium in London !) whilst attempting to provide locations for images categorised in the Category:Unidentified locations in London, so my main thrust isn't the image name but the image's description and categorisation. But it sticks in the craw to leave images with mistaken or ambiguous titles, which would have been uncontroversially renamed if their original name had been in English, just because the wrong name is in a language I don't speak. I'm sure the current situation cannot be left as it is, with a title contradicting the description and categorisations, but I'm unsure how to proceed. What do you suggest?. Is there some way of requesting a bilingual (arabic/english) speaking editor or renamer to sort this out?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris, I do agree (and agreed at the time of declining) that having incorrect/plainly wrong file names is silly but I've interpreted NOT #2 as whatever language the file name is in - If it needs to be renamed it should be done so in that same language and that regardless of whether it's incorrect or not it shouldn't be renamed in English, But then again my interpretation could be wrong so I've asked at the Help Desk, If I'm indeed wrong on this then I'll rename them for you, Many thanks. –Davey2010Talk 13:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Chris, Just a heads up I've moved the files, Technically I was correct files should be replaced in the same language but in this specific case as neither of us speak an ounce of Arabic and the uploader's not been on in nearly a year or so it was decided they should be moved,
I'm sorry if it seemed like I caused unnecessary drama - In a realistic world I'd love to rename everything in English but ofcourse policy forbids it (and I'm pretty much the only person who helps ease the renaming backlog here) so I prefer to tread very lightly on things like this,
Thank you for your patience tho and again sorry for the unnecessary drama,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Best to get it sorted properly. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the Green Park[edit]

Hi Chris. I removed the picture from the category because the category "Green Park" is used for the Olympic Park of the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics, not for the park that is mentioned on the picture. You should find the correct category. Best regards. --BugWarp (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BugWarp - Ah, I see. Somebody slipped up there; Category:Green Park should have been created as a category disambiguator years ago. It is now, which means that any attempts to assign it to an image will be flagged up. I've moved your category to Category:Green Park, Buenos Aires and fixed up all the links. -- Chris j wood (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roundel on Southbound Platform at Bounds Green Underground Station (geograph 5977226).jpg[edit]

File:Roundel on Southbound Platform at Bounds Green Underground Station (geograph 5977226).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 11:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waiting room at Minorca station (geograph 3144177).jpg‎[edit]

I thought Crown Dependencies were treated as being part of the UK, or has something changed? Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the category structure under Category:Isle of Man by year is anything to go by. Each of the yyyy in the Isle of Man categories under that category are directly members of the yyyy by country and yyyy in Europe categories, and are not members of yyyy in the United Kingdom or similar. So the IoM is, at least in this case, being treated as an independent country. Why did you think Crown Dependencies were treated as being part of the UK; if there is a policy or consensus to that effect then I'm not aware of it, which is of course entirely possible. -- Chris j wood (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of sorting out a set of yyyy in rail transport in the Isle of Man categories, largely triggered by me noticing that another user had used cat-a-lot to move an image of Laxey station from Category:2012 in rail transport in the United Kingdom to Category:2012 in rail transport in England, which was clearly wrong on several different levels. I'll hold off doing any more until this gets sorted. -- Chris j wood (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris j wood: OK, that makes sense, stick with what's already been done. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peoples Vote March 2019-03-23 12.04.57.jpg[edit]

File:Peoples Vote March 2019-03-23 12.04.57.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

B dash (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peoples Vote March 2019-03-23 14.11.01.jpg[edit]

File:Peoples Vote March 2019-03-23 14.11.01.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

B dash (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peoples Vote March 2019-03-23 13.02.23.jpg[edit]

File:Peoples Vote March 2019-03-23 13.02.23.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

B dash (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Chris j wood,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Chris j wood,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Chris j wood,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CCFL 327[edit]

At Category:Lisbon tram 327 (standard) a source is quoted to say that the carbody is elsewhere and «the remainder held by the Crich Museum». Isn’t this the same as the National Tramway Museum? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin: - Yes, Crich Tramway Village is a marketing name for the National Tramway Museum (NTM), which is in Crich, Derbyshire. I saw the source you refer to, but we don't seem to have any pictures of 327 (or its remains) at the NTM/Crich. I've been gradually going through all the photos of the NTM, and normalising the tramcar ones into categories called something like Xyz tram nnn at Crich that have the existing category Xyz tram nnn as a parent, so we don't end up with pictures clearly not taken at Crich in a category structure about the NTM. I cannot do that for 327, because it would result in an empty Category:Lisbon tram 327 (standard) at Crich, which would likely be automatically deleted by a bot. I'm open to other suggestions as to what to do, but as we don't have a picture, does it really matter that we don't have a category?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: - Ok, I've done as you have suggested. Also copied this thread into the category talk page. - Chris j wood (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wil–Winterthur railway line[edit]

I think Category:Wil–Winterthur railway line is effectively a subset of Category:St. Gallen–Winterthur line; the German and English Wikipedias don't distinguish now and treat it as one long line. Any objection to a merge? Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Yes, I think I would agree. Certainly no objection to such a merge. -- Chris j wood (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Category:1660 in Northern Ireland[edit]

Category discussion warning

1660 in Northern Ireland 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--Sionk (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need your feedback![edit]

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Looking upstream from Sandford Lock (geograph 7133384).jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Looking upstream from Sandford Lock (geograph 7133384).jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Looking upstream from Sandford Lock (geograph 7133384).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 00:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification. A closer examination of the file showed this was the result of a mark-up corruption, presumably during the upload process. The necessary licensing information was present, but masked by a missing }} earlier in the file. Now corrected. -- Chris j wood (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester[edit]

You moved Winchester to City of Winchester but the gallery is about the settlement and district so per W:WP:UKDISTRICTS if there is no separate page for the district it should be at the shorter name just like w:York isn't at w:City of York as no separate article exists currently on the district though there is a proposal to create one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, as you quote policy and examples from Wikipedia rather than Commons. For the record, in this case, both w:Winchester and w:City of Winchester do exist. And in terms of Commons categories, both Category:Winchester and Category:City of Winchester exist and map exactly to the Wikipedia articles. To be honest I don't usually pay much attention to Commons gallery pages, as I think they are something of a busted flush, but in this case it was just wrong that the page you are referring to was in Category:Winchester when it contained photos of places that are simply not in the purview of that category (like New Alresford), so I moved it to Category:City of Winchester.
It just seemed natural to rename it at that point, especially as anything in Winchester is also in the City of Winchester (but not the other way around). I cannot find the proposal you mention, but I'd happily accept there being two gallery pages Winchester and City of Winchester with the appropriate content, so maybe it would be a good idea to go ahead with it. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: - Sorry, forgot to ping you. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See w:Talk:York#Separate articles for York and City of York?. There is Category:City of Winchester here because separate its bee separated from Category:Winchester as was done on Wikipedia in 2011. No separate gallery exists for the district so we don't need the "City of" disambiguator. Commons has fewer galleries than Wikipedia has of articles so often it makes sense to combined the gallery even if the category isn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: - 'City of' is not a disambiguator, it is part of the local authority area's name. If it were a disambiguator, we would write it Winchester (City of) or perhaps Winchester, City of. We cannot just dispense with a part of something's name just because it isn't ambiguous without it. My view is that in the case of York, a judgement call has been made that the 'natural city' and the 'local authority city' are close enough to each other to treat them as the same, and we are consistent (in terms of WP article, Commons category, and Commons gallery) in doing the same thing. In the case of Winchester, it seems the judgement call went the other way, and from what you say, that call dates back to 2011. Given that, it is surely sensible that we should be consistent (in terms of WP article, Commons category, and Commons gallery) here too. Which suggest we should have two Commons galleries, to go with our two WP articles and two Commons categories. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"City of" is a form of natural disambiguation, the name is generally "Winchester" or "Winchester District". Most unitary districts with city status like Nottingham use "City of" but again we don't have separate pages there so we exclude it. On a similar note w:category:Leeds deals with both the settlement and district. Commons galleries are far fewer and its more often better to just combine settlement and district but if you want to you could create a separate page for the district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category[edit]

When you want to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category, best practice is to mark it with {{SD|C2}} if it would be OK to re-create it in the future, given that appropriate content becomes available or {{SD|C1}} if it is an inappropriate category name that should not be reused. In particular, this is better practice than just blanking the category page, as you did at Category:Göteborg line 12. ("C1" and "C2" come from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion). Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chris_j_wood&oldid=853758131"