User talk:Jacquesverlaeken

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Jacquesverlaeken!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Babel user information
fr Le français est la langue maternelle de cette personne. en-3 This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English. nl-2 Deze gebruiker heeft middelmatige kennis van het Nederlands. de-1 Dieser Benutzer hat grundlegende Deutschkenntnisse.
Users by language

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Dalaas Klostertal 2010.jpg

Hello. The composition of the picture is very nice. Unfortunately, you overdid it using the Brightness/Contrast button, and now the image is overblown, sadly. Could you dail it back a notch (or two)? Thanks in advance. Kleuske (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for comment, it is the first feedback I receive. I can reduce the contrast (which I wanted to see better the mountains) but I have to learn how to modify a picture once on Wiki! ==Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Austri 1850 ANK1MIII.jpg

Thanks for the very useful postmark id! Arno-nl (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

For my records, I identified Zengg on a yellow 1 kreuzer - a difficult stamp - , which I have now added to the Austrian page in French. You have a lot of uploads on South america etc, which I am interested in also. Strange enough, there is very little from Austria. Very grateful for such positive feedback!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Category

Hi! You created Bronze statues in the Czech Republic recently. I've deleted it and moved the content to Category:Bronze statues in the Czech Republic. This is probably what you intended to do? Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, the problem was the surprizing lack of the Czech R. in the category!! Not able to create the Subcategory, I was compelled to initiate a Gallery. Regarding Galleries, a lot of work is possible (and perhaps) needed. There are surely more than my 2 pictures for Bohemia/Moravia!! A possibility is to create 13 galleries as per the recent Czech R. split. I believe in the real interest of galleries! Categories are just a start!! They present the pictures completely in disorder!! With my regards, pleased to make your knowledge! You make added value, not like some (administrators?) who care only about an image being in "center" or "left"!!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

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. Trijnstel_talk 15:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

To be recognized is a honour that I really appreciate. Thanks!!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Landsknechte

I put this comment on your Kirchheim painted house photo."On the left pillar of the painting is a Landsknechte mercenary soldier".I watch your photos the Panasonic Leica lens is excellent but has to be in able hands.Nice work Best regards Notafly (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Also a stamp collector.Great stamps too.

• Thanks for this description contribution, and for this appreciation! Regarding pictures, I use Adobe to improve the image focus (size reduction) when possible. Regarding the file size, I am hesitant to shot > 3 M for fear of the battery discharge during a day in trip.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Hi. Please be more careful with categorization issues. "Category:History of Austria-Hungary" which you created is just same as "Category:Austria-Hungary". Everything related to every former country is history, so there cannot be anything related to Austria-Hungary which is not history. In the case of postmarks, category "Posmarks of Austria-Hungary" will cover these postmarks just fine. Second thing, you cannot include categories created for modern countries (like "Category:Postmarks of Croatia") into categories for former countries like Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, etc. "Postmarks of Croatia" would feet into categories "Croatia" and "Postmarks by country". If some files from that category are from Austro-Hungarian or Yugoslav period then you should include each of these files into categories like "Postmarks of Yugoslavia" or "Postmarks of Austria-Hungary", but you should not include whole "Postmarks of Croatia" category there. PANONIAN (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hello.I agree with your point about history of A-H. Regarding the second point, the categories I had added refer to Galleries, which include files covering a large period, not just that of the independent state. I want a short link to the Austria-Hungary period, which existed only for the Czech Lands and Ukraine. I feel that all postmarks galleries - created and split under my initiative according to the current modern state (which is verifiable) - should link (as a whole) at least to the Empire of Austria and A-H as relevant. To make that link for individual stamps is fine of course, but not enough. I have made today a step in this direction for the Croatian gallery, but I am ready to wait for your concurrence to proceed further. Note also that I had asked (in 2012) for a definition of the Category Postmarks of Austria-Hungary, created without a definition in 2008. This is mainly because the French Catalogs refer to Austria-Hungary ONLY for the occupation stamps during WWI, hence this persistent ambiguïty. With regards.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

My point is that history and geography should not be mixed. For example, if you want to split category "Postmarks of Austria-Hungary" into more categories then you should use historical subdivisions of Austria-Hungary for that purpose; for example "Postmarks of the Kingdom of Hungary", "Postmarks of Croatia-Slavonia", "Postmarks of Carniola", etc. Serbia and Slovenia simply were not subdivisions of Austria-Hungary, so categorizing these modern countries under Austria-Hungary category is factually wrong. I would not object if you create new categories named something like "Postmarks of Serbia/Slovenia until 1918" and then to include these new categories into "Postmarks of Serbia/Slovenia" and "Postmarks of Austria-Hungary" categories. Alternativelly, you can categorize each file which shows stamp published in the time of Austria-Hungary into both categories: "Postmarks of Serbia/Slovenia" and "Postmarks of Austria-Hungary". I do not agree that categories named "Postmarks of Serbia/Slovenia/etc" are "covering a large period". Names of these categories are specifically impling that they are related only to modern countries. If there is intention that they indeed cover a large period then names of such categories should be different. At least, such categories should be split into two categories: "Postmarks of Serbia/Slovenia" and "Former postmarks of Serbia/Slovenia" in which case historical connection would be clearly defined in the category. PANONIAN (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I must admit that I was tired and I actually thought that postmark galleries that you made are in fact categories. Now I see that they are galleries, so forget my previos post. I would still think that you should categorize these galleries only under their country category, but I think that besides galleries named "Postmarks of Serbia/Croatia/etc" you can also create galleries named "Postmarks of Austria-Hungary", "Postmarks of Yugoslavia" and similar. Then you can post files from these periods in both relevant galleries. PANONIAN (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I just started new article for that: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Postmarks_of_Austria-Hungary Fell free to expand this article with stamps from other territories of Austria-Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this initiative!I have understood what you want. Of course, I will avoid to strictly repeat the sub-galleries when they exist, for example by making a strict selection, by having emphasis on postmark style etc. Needless to say that the scope is enormous! We will see. - While the attribution to a current country is generally undisputable (thanks Wikipedia!), for old regions I have to rely on Mueller and Klein, which have different systems. - I lack precise documentation for the Kingdom of Hungary after 1871. - We have here a good example of how constructive discussion results in solutions!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey. Dear Jacquesverlaeken, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

---

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey! Dear Jacquesverlaeken, Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests! In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days. And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy! Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:1936 Reich 30Pfg Reinickendorf Mi523.jpg

And also:

• File:1936 Reich Mi518 Elbing Elblag.jpg
• File:1938 Reich3Pg Zehdenick Mi513.jpg

Yours sincerely, JuTa 13:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Same argument: the design is unusable because of a clear, large cancellation. Do I have to remind that the purpose of a postal cancellation is to prevent the re-use of the stamp? Why would it not be the same for copyright issues? Regards.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I note that the issue is resolved with a caution for the US 95 years rule (2014).

File:Kuks 1924 300 heller Kukus.jpg

File:Kuks 1924 300 heller Kukus.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!

Gumruch (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• My argument for the 1924 300 heller Kukus is that the design is cancelled by a clear, central cancellation.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

File:1859 Uruguay 240C Mi13a.jpg Forgery - others?

This file shows a typical Geneva forgery, I moved it to the correct section and in the related page as well.Arno-nl (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for this confirmation and details! I renamed the file as well. Please feel free to check the last uploads (80 C Mi9a and 100 C Mi16a).

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jacques. The 16a is genuine, some indicators (Serrane pages 357 and 358): The letters R and E of the left CORREO touch at the bottom, The letters N and T of MONTEVIDEO touch at the bottom, The inner rectangle left distance to the outer rectangle is about 2,5mm and the right distance to the outer rectangle is about 3mm. 97 rays. The final S of CENTESIMOS is slanted to the left and does not touch the extension of the solid inner rectangle, the center circle is shifted to the left, the wavy lines are frequently broken (in good impressions). The overall image and color is also ok. Arno-nl (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Are both 80 centimos Uruguay stamps genuine?

They do not convince me 100%. I will send my copy to Moorhouse for expertise, in most cases when there is doubt the stamp is not genuine, but the classic Uruguayans are exceedingly difficult.Arno-nl (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A letter with Yvert 8 (80 c) and a same oval cancel but 19 AGOSTO 1859 (instead of 24), signed by Diena, has been proposed by Corinphila for 3000 SF in 1974. Mine (unused) has been pencil noted "Auth". These are just positive indications. Curious to see the Moorhouse reaction.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Stamps category

This edit provides rather a distorted view of what is currently recommended per COM:MAXSIZE. Things have chnaged quite a bit since the 9 year old posts that you seem to have taken as the basis for the change. Suggesting such limitations when they are purely arbitrary does not seem like good advise to me. It would be preferable to indicatentaht your suggestions are useful sizes based on experience and not the be all and end all but also point readers to COM:MAXSIZE where the maximum limit is explained. Currently the advise your provided is an artificial ceiling. Don't you agree? Ww2censor (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree. I did not want to indicate a limit, just to indicate indeed a practical experience with many uploads (mines and others). It should be emphazised that 10-30 kB or so is a disgrace for stamps images. Feel free to combine the concepts!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds like good advise. Let's work out some more suitable revised guidelines, which can apply to both the enwiki and commons, as Philafrenzy mentions below. Ww2censor (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Stamp scans - Utopia?

I reverted you on this. Most stamp scans are not too large even if very high resolution as the originals are small. Covers are slightly different as we don't expect users to wait a long time to scan a cover as 2400. There should probably be a discussion about this at the Philately Project on Wikipedia. Remember that we are trying to capture detailed images for the benefit of posterity when computer capability will be much higher. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not remember that as I have never read this in a Wikimedia policy! Anyhow, the current proportion of scans of stamps > 1 Mb is minuscule. My intention was to deal with the reality of today, not to surf in utopia. I have even seen people reverting to a very small image because their system did not display correctly a few Mbytes! In practice now, I am scanning at 600 dpi rather than 400 for the benefit of posterity (I like that feeling). Written for my records, I do not expect further discussion in this user page on the topic. Regards.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Postmarks of Uruguay

Thanks for your recent Uruguay uploads. FYI in postmarks - I added to descriptions regarding postmarks. An incomplete list:

• Ciphre and Numeral in oval

A=Montevideo B=Salto C=Paysandu D=Rio Negro E=Soriano F=Coonia G=San Jose H=Canelones I=Florida J=Durazno K=Tacuarembo L=Cerro Largo LL=Lavalleja M=Rocha N=MALDONADO & ARTIGAS O=Rivera P=TREINTA Y TRES Q=FLORES

• TPO

G19 belonging to the Central Western extension railroad for the Montevideo - Mercedes connection

• River steamers

F24 cancellation belonging to the ESTAFETA FLUVIAL NUEVA PALMIRA F47 belonging to Steamer VAPOR LUNA C1 or C16 cancellations belonging to the Estafeta Fluvial Pueblo Guaviyu & Estafeta Fluvial y Ferrocarril P. de los Toros a Salto

• Railroad

Nine bars E38 cancel belonging to SORIANO for the train that departed from Casada de Nieto

• Literature

Uruguay - The Travelling Post Offices (2nd edition) Jay Walmsley Publisher: Jay Grace Walmsley; 2nd edition edition (August 1, 2012) ISBN-10: 0955583829

Excellent, noted in one of my xls sheets! By the way, do you intend to continue the Uruguay gallery for more years (I mean after 1894)? I could contribute (as usual) with some good cancels.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad you like the info. My focus is mainly on material before 1900 - so no did not intend to.Arno-nl (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Category redirect

Hello, Jacquesverlaeken. You recently redirected Category:Nude women in art by material to Nude females in art by medium. This caused a few problems: (1) the redirect target is not a category. (2) no category by that name exists. (3) categories should not be redirected at all; instead, we use the template {{Category redirect}}. I've reverted the category to the last good state, so that you can decide what, if any, existing category is an appropriate target (or create it if it doesn't already exist). --R'n'B (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, the intent was good (to rationalize the categories in that area, including a difference already made partially between women and females), so I restart in a more classic way.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Paintings of nude standing females in the 19th century

"19th-century paintings of nude standing females" would probably more clearly express the intended meaning... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I hope that you refer to the description (definition) text. As the same words are used in another order, if it sounds better for US-British minds, no problem. But regarding the categories (ranging from 15th to 21th c), there are several criteria for the choice of their name, which I can explain if needed. More generally, I feel that if a category contains more than 200 media, it is high time to create rational (not subjective) subcategories with a definition (not like "buttocks" or "facing left" or "erotic"...). After long analysis of the situattion, I retain by century, by country, by posture, by medium, by author as meeting my criteria for rationality and independence (in a mathematical sense: there is no redundancy or coverage). For example the difference between women and girl is subjective, unless the creator made a clear indication himself. Bathing outdoor and in nature have a clear coverage - they are related cats. In fact, the Wikimedia system does not allow a clear understanding of the complex relations as defined in any THESAURUS theory. Thanks for your positive feedback. Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are so abstractly philosophical that I have a very hard time following them. The basic issue is that they're women on paintings painted in the 19th century, but NOT necessarily 19th-century women (many are figures from ancient history or classical mythology, or vague allegories, or from an undated orientalist never-never land)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand now better your concern. As my proposed definition states Oil paintings of nude standing females (women, girls) created in the 19th century. Frequent theme of the Academic art., and by looking at all parent categories, there is very little possibility of confusion. I propose to group those century related cats in a parent Paintings of nude standing females by century of creation. There are many similar categories referring to centuries(sculptures, statues...). To understand why I am reluctant to change the cats names, see the lookups that appear using HotCat: all possibilities which start with the same words (partial sequence) appear, which is a fantastic help for the edition.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The original intention behind the category might become clearer in context -- but it would be even better, of course, if the category didn't have a confusing name, and so was instantly understandable... AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Linear postmarks vs Straight line cancel

Hello Jacques, i noticed the page Postmarks of Bolivia, nice work. A section is called linear postmarks, I think the more correct philatelic definition here is straight line cancel, often abbreviated as 's/l' at auctions. Arno-nl (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have made a 3-lingual description of the category. The use of 'Marques postales linéaires' is well established in the French catalogs. I leave to our English colleagues the need (if) to change the cat name. Let us note that they are in common use before the adhesive stamps, so they are often not cancels but truly informative postmarks. For me, a cancel purpose is to prevent the reuse of a postage stamp. Thanks for this feedback!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

File 1861 Uruguay 60C Dolores Mi14.jpg is a Fournier.

This file shows a Fournier creation, both stamp and cancel are illustrated in his album on page 153. Arno-nl (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Schopfloch: Im weißen Rößl?

Im weißen Rößl (English: White Horse Inn)I put a note on the page.Probably an inn serving stagecoach (Postkutsche) travellers. It may be listed in a Baedecker (Verlag Karl Baedeker),if you can find one.White Horse Inns are common in England on major roads or important junctions. I was born near one in Derbyshire which is why I know.I enjoyed your very good September photos. Best regards Robert Notafly2 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, it is indeed plausible. A post-office was opened only in 1861. However one can read 'Ross' (horse), left of the door; Rössel (my German dictionary) means actually a little horse; 'Rössl', as in the famous lyrics, could be local language. I do not understand why it does not appear in the Cultural monuments (de wiki). I am very glad of your appreciation of the last photos, more are to come!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your grandfather was a landscape painter

Who was your grandfather and do you have some pictures/photos of his paintings to upload, if they are free of copyright? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Omer De Landsheer is born in Sint Lievens Houtem (East Flanders) on 1-3-1898; President of the "Kunstschilders Gewestelijke Groep Beersel" (Pajottenland, Brabant) where he was active since the 1950s until his death on 22-2-1981. One landscape is in Beersel collection (I just found it on the web!). Painting was a passionate freetime hobby. He interpreted existing photos mainly, and gave a number to each oil canvas (> 1000). Of course I can take pictures of the few that I selected and received from him, but I do not know (yet) how to manage the copyrights. Thanks for your question.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:1948 Blankenberge Esplanade en construction.jpg

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for this feedback, I had given some information about author of the picture (1892-1957). I have replaced PD-old license with PD-heirs. Is this good enough?

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• • Looks OK now.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Juršinci Ptuj Sideway Christ Mary 203.JPG

Resolved

Category:Categories with a gallery for a better choice of sub-categories

Please dont remove this category as you did from several categories. I explained in the talk page and one year ago in Commons talk:WikiProject Gallery pages why I created these galleries at the top of main categories. To help users to choose the right sub-category. And I gathered them in this category to see what galleries exist and pick good ideas. Regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your revert on Categories with a gallery...

Hi,

What discussion are you refering to? I saw no new discussion since March 2015 but maybe I'm missing something.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello

See the Discussion page on this cat. I have just attempted to present a development on my thoughts a couple of minutes ago (22h22). For the moment I conclude that this cat has no real operational relevance. Regards,

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI: East Timor

[1] East Timor is in Asia. Greetings, --JPF (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not familiar with ex Portugal colonies; for my catalogue, it is even in Oceania! Thanks for this feedback.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Architectural elements in Israel

It's also still a country. Please don't remove by country categorisation when adding by continent categorisation (and please undo the removals you've already done). —LX (talk, contribs) 12:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course it is a country, but in Asia. This position (need to maintain redundant cats) can be discussed! See Category talk:Architectural elements by country where I gave my opinion on February 23. Regards.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Postmarks of Poland gallery rearrangement

Hello Jacques! I am confused as to the arrangement of this item: Postmarks of Poland, 1850-1919. The title is 'Postmarks...' next there is a grouping by area but then there is no alphabetical sorting by town, which one would expect, but partly by kreuzer/heller currency and later by date. I would like to suggest an improvement: Postmarks

Area (alphabetically)

Town (alphabetically)

Year

Thanks!Arno-nl (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you! Being not familiar with the Polish names, the sorting I used is indeed by chronological order, which has also some significance (It shows the evolution of postmarks by type). I suggest that you first add a wiki link to the current name (as used in Galicia, Prussia era etc) - as I do for more recent work - before trying to sort by Polish name. By the way, you may consult or contribute to the wiki SOTW for a more systematic view of postmarks by country/town.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The SOTW? Smoke on the water, stuff of the week, slap on the wrist... ?? Arno-nl (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

http://stampsoftheworld.co.uk/wiki/Stamps_of_the_World --- should really be better known!!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Frage Vienna area-Wien Umgebung

Hallo, kannst du mir bitte erklären, was das jetzt genau ist: [2]? Bwag (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Brunnen in Wien-Umgebung. See the map in the Category:Fountains in Lower Austria. I have just found that the area will be split in 2017 among the other regions. Thanks for your question, I had invented a plausible English translation for it.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, passt! - Bwag (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Houses in Austria by city

Hi, Jacquesverlaeken. I re-established this category, because there's no apparent reason to delete it. If you would like to remove it, please discuss it first, such as at categories for discussion. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Same problem for similar cases like Fountains in Austria by city

You removed yourself the reason for my change - what is a city in Austria? - and my suggestion to limit it to the States capitals. Another possibility is to mention by municipality (instead of by city) which is a clear concept in many countries (Gemeinde, commune etc). It is not up to the users to make such interpretation. See the examples for Sweden in the root Category:Categories by city (flat list). Such a simple change would satisfy me (see my user page) in terms of ambiguïty removal, although I do not see interest of such cat. All Fountains or Houses etc in any country can be (are) associated to a populated place (city, municipality, village etc) without the need to add this cat. Perhaps that you can define this cat and explain its added value? Thanks. Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer you. What is a city anywhere? There are many places categorized as cities in Austria, including in "by city" categories. You haven't said why this is a problem. Are you saying that these places have been categorized incorrectly up to now? OK, but if you're going to change something that has been done for a long time, you need to explain why it's wrong and discuss it before making such a big change (as another editor and I already said at Category talk:Houses in Austria by city). A good place to discuss this would be at either the Village pump or at Category talk:Cities in Austria (a category that has existed since 2004). Until there is a discussion, please do not remove anything from being categorized as a city. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Houses vs. residential buildings

Please stop moving images of houses from house categories to residential building categories. A house is one type of residential building, so the whole house category can go under residential buildings. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Residential buildings include more than houses. They include any kind of building where people live. This includes apartment buildings, monasteries, orphanages, and more. Look in Category:Residential buildings to see other examples.

As for your comment that you can choose where to put a file because it is your photo, that is not true. After you upload a file, it is no longer yours alone, and anyone can make these changes. Every file should go in the most specific category. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand, and agree now. Note that there was no didactic link made between Houses and Residential buildings (see the history of those root cats). Would you thus admit that cats Residential buildings in ... be replaced by Houses in ... if appropriate? What is strange is that there are few pictures of houses in Lower Austria, so I thought that Residential buildings was more specific (or at least in usual usage). Except in towns, many arein fact behind Farmhouses. Regards. --Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if a building is a house and there is a category for houses for the location, then the file should go in the category for houses. If there's no category for houses in a city, for example, a file could be in "residential buildings in <city>" and "houses in <country>". If there's only one file for houses in the city, it's not always necessary to create a category for just one file. The same is true for any combination of places where one contains the other (continent/country, country/state, state/county (at least in the US, etc.)

Farmhouses are just houses that are on farms. They can go in a category for houses if there's no category for farmhouses for their location.

Let me know if I can explain any further. Regards. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Ruše Memorial Mother & Child 234.jpg

File:Ruše Memorial Mother & Child 234.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!

Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Ruše Memorial Man 235.jpg

File:Ruše Memorial Man 235.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!

Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of your photo

Der Jacquesverlaeken, Thank you for your picture of the vineyard near Bühl. I used it for my website. You will find it here: Wein aus Deutschland. Best regards, --Holger Casselmann (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a great pleasure to find old pictures (paper prints) worth a second life!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Kellergassen_in_Wagram

Category:Kellergassen_in_Wagram 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!

Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Cavalla rare blue cancellation.jpg

Hello Jacques,

I have a feeling this is a fine whiskers issue, so it should be Michel number Mi.5.II, issued in 1881 and rarer than Mi.5.I.

Best wishes for the New Year !

Actia Nicopolis (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I am delighted at your scrutiny, and agree that it is often difficult to distinguish the FJ issues, but there are indications that this Cavalla may not be a Fine whiskers. According to Ferchenbauer, there were no colour shades in this 1881 issue:

• 
  Reddish-brown Mi5IIA
• 
  Other shade (grey-brown?)- Fine whiskers??

The high quotation (2,000 ÖS) versus 150 ÖS asks also for prudence! Have a good 2017 year!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

They both seem to be fine whiskers edition. I tend to judge from the impression of the whiskers and not from the colour shade. See this: The Stamp Forum. It is quite helpful. Thanks for your wishes ! Actia Nicopolis (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are my additional 5 cents regarding the other factual differences of the issues:

• Issue date of the 15 soldi. The coarse print was first issued end of June 1867 (Hungarian postal area), the other post offices second half of 1867 and in 1868. The fine print was issued much later, the first known usage date is July 1881. A cancel date can give a first clue (see Ferchenbauer's catalog p.1183).
• Shades. The coarse print is mentioned in Ferchenbauer (p. 1184) as having 4 different shade: light and dark brown, reddish brown and grey-brown. The fine print is only mentioned in reddish brown.
• Perforation. Fine exists next to 9.5 also in L 10.5 (pretty scarce - p.1185).
• Paper. The paper used for the fine print is harder, thinner, smoother.

based on the shade I am inclined to say the right stamp with Cavalla is a coarse print (5Ia light brown) Arno-nl (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, Arno, I have similar information in my 1981 Ferchenbauer + the look is more coarse than fine. The case is closed!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	I praise their good work on the stamps of Austria-Hungary. Best greetings from Lower Austria. GT1976 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I continue to work mainly on postmarks, in parallel with the SOTW English wiki. But are there others (you say their good work!)?

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Bicycles - Vintage

I see you edited Category:Historical bicycles and/or Category:Vintage bicycles, so you may be interested in Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/08/Category:Historical bicycles and Category:Vintage bicycles. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. A discussion about not defined concepts is always of interest (when is an image or object historical or even vintage?). My point of concern in 2015 was the use of vintage in another domain as wine! There are two very different words in French: vendange (activity) and vintage as adjective. By the way, my shorter Harraps says a Vintage car is a car << 1914.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:Cleebronner Weissriesling Etiket.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Cleebronner Weissriesling Etiket.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:Cleebronner Weissriesling Etiket.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Rosenzweig τ 10:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I had somehow expected such a reaction, but how can I obtain a permission from a not identied creator? Why is such tag not placed on hundreds of other wine labels/bottles in Wikimedia?

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Dominica - Stamp images

Hi Jacquesverlaeken, I noticed your recent Republica Dominicana stamps and see you list yourself as the author and the source as own work. You did not design the stamps so claiming to be the author is untrue though you did scan them. Making a "slavish copy" does not make you the author which is usually a designer or engraver on behalf of the country's postal authority. You should state that in addition to which you can of course state that you scanned the stamp in question. The source is where the original came from, it is also not "own work" but probably "a stamps for your collection". Additionally, because the stamps are in the public domain you cannot claim a Creative Commons license for the images because the correct license for these recent stamps is {{PD-Dominica}}. I reviewed some of your other stamps and see most are done in a similar way, like this recent one File:1901 5c RepDominicana plume Mi96.jpg. We need to be true and fully honest about the images we upload and it would be great if you could revise the details. While Katharinaiv's upload details are rather comprehensive, maybe too much information, it may serve as a guide for details, as an example look at File:DOMREP 1957 MiNr0586 mt B003.png. If you would like I can help you revise these. Thanks for your understanding. Ww2censor (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ww2censor, I understand your remarks. I was awaiting to find the correct license. I have thus made improvements as suggested. However the {{PD-Dominica}} is for the British Island, not the Republic! Thus I think it is getting worse! Regards. Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You are correct Dominica and Dominican Republic are different places so that template is not correct. In the meantime {{PD-old-50-1996}} will be better for any pre-1939 stamps but a local country template would be better. Let me check that out a bit further but in the meantime I've posted on the Village Pump copyright page requesting someone make us a suitable template. BTW, copyright there is 50 years pma or 50 years after publication for anon works. Ww2censor (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

We now have a {{PD-Dominican Republic}} copyright template you can use for these images so long as they comply with the terms. Ww2censor (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Stamps of Colombia

Hi Jacques! Thanks a lot for adding stamps of Colombia and adding to the gallery. Great to see there are more Wikimedian active enthusiasts of this fascinating area. Don't hesitate to put them up, I'll help to separate the forgeries. Arno-nl (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Postmarks of Austria - current territory?

'Official Cancellations or Postmarks stamped within the borders of the current territory of the Republic of Austria.' Why current? The modern Austria is much smaller then it used to be. All literature regarding postmarks refers to the territory within its historical timeframe. Take eg. Czernowitz (Bukowina) Muller 256d, now in Ukraine but former part of Austria-Hungary. Not part of the Russian Empire at the time, so where to put it? I strongly suggest to follow the literature. Arno-nl (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Because it is a significant added value for all those historical Empires, see also the German Reich, the Kingdom of Hungary etc. The postmarks in SOTW for ex. use the current ISO country code. Regarding the literature, I read CZERNOWITZ Mueller 475 noted as Bu-R/S which means Bucovine province in Austrian Empire, then Romania, then Soviet Ukraine (Mueller gives the 1961 status). Nothing prevents to update the volatile political status or obsolete information in literature. Thanks for your question, but I am very firm in my concept of current data!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jacques, the Müller no. 475 is mentioned in his volume regarding cancellations on stamps ('Handbook of Austria an Lombardy-Venetia cancellations on the postage stamp issues...' p. 25). When cataloging a stampless letter don't use this book. Müller wrote a different book for this type of material: Müller, Edwin (1960) Handbook of the pre-stamp postmarks of Austria, Collectors Club, Cosmos Press, New York (see p. 119).Arno-nl (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

NB: the 1961 Handbook provides indication of which postmarks have been (also) in use in the Pre-stamp period (* xyz P, without points of course). Jacques 7-1

Hello Arno, indeed! Czenowitz is also #744 in Bucovina province for the period before 1900. I do not have the book for pre-stamp postmarks. But this detracts from your original concern. Please see the Galleries, there is one on Austria-Hungary postmarks for the historical situation, and more usual ones by (current) countries as you know.

By the way, are you volunteer for a Peru gallery? Regards, and have a good 2019 philatelic year!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

So many tasks so little time... Best regards Jacques, a happy philatelic year to you too :-) Arno-nl (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

1865 postage due stamps of Colombia (sobreporte)

Hello Jacques,

I have examined the two stamps you uploaded: 25c: Forgery. 50c: This looks genuine to me. It shows the significant original characteristics. See the remarks I added in the picture of the three sobreporte stamps I uploaded. Regards, Arno-nl (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Images from Corinphila: possible violation of copyright

Jacques, I noticed you uploaded images from auction catalogues/websites of Corinphila. Unless you have permission this is a violation:

Copyright: © Corinphila Auctions AG, Zürich 2014. The contents and structure of all websites provided by Corinphila Auctions AG are copyrighted. Any use of information must be approved in advance by Corinphila Auctions AG.

The images I upload are 99% from my own collection, to avoid these issues, the remaining 1% I asked for permission. Arno-nl (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed the rarities I upload since years come from Corinphila Auctions mainly. However they are not downloaded from a website provided by Corinphila Auctions, but scans I made (as is clearly noted in the descriptions). I have not found a copyright caution in those (old) catalogues, which are like Books. You are right that I should clarify the case with Corinphila, hoping they agree (in my mind, this is a positive publicity for them, and not a source of income!). I will now have a look on those websites, perhaps the answer is already there.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

For the records, from the Wikimedia copyright rule as of 15-01-19:

It is ?OK to upload:

   ..
   Mere mechanical scans or photocopies, made by somebody else, of an object or design old enough to be in the public domain (usually 70 years after the death of the author, but see Commons:Copyright rules by territory for a country-by-country list).

You should have created a mass deletion request per Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request, not several individual ones using the same reasoning for the same source. These stamps, postmarks and forms, are in the public domain due to age, the writing and registered labels are not copyrightable. Such "slavish copies" do not create a new copyright. I think I have responded to all of them. Ww2censor (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on mass deletion (I still have to filter the past uploads). You stated Keep with arguments. This becomes unfortunately confusing, I think you need to be aware the Corinphila personnal message in extenso: Due to copyright reasons you are not allowed to use either images from the website nor the printed catalogue without permission. The copyright of publications from Corinphila expires after 100 years. We ask you to delete all your images of Corinphila Auctions from Wikimedia Commons and don't upload any in the future again. Please delete them until February 15. You don't have to be afraid of legal consequences, when you follow the instructions above. For your request, we hope you understand that we can't give you the permission to publish them. Best regards, from HKWI - Andre Schneider [schneider@heinrich-koehler.de]. Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand that to clearly be copyfraud. Essentially the same as museums claiming copyright on paintings that are in the public domain. They cannot create a new copyright on such "slavish copies". Here is an interesting article on the topic if you are interested. The Public Domain vs. the Museum: The Limits of Copyright and Reproductions of Two-dimensional Works of Art You might want to bring this up on the Village pump. Ww2censor (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/01#Corinphila_denial_of_permission_for_Auctions_scans for the situation as of 22 January (generally supportive). Note that I have not received any justification from Corinphila. 27-02

Based on the implementation of the new restrictive Swiss copyright law, we will have to consider whether that law overrides Bridgeman 'v' Corel. If it does, then such Swiss origin images will be ok to upload to the enwiki but not here. Has that law come into effect yet? Ww2censor (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Murska Sobota Memorial1941-1945.JPG

File:Murska Sobota Memorial1941-1945.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!

Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:70 years Germany Republic Hauenstein 521.jpg

I sent a question by mail on the museum website for their authorization. I expected this problem, as the FoP may not apply (the display is indeed not permanent).

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:70 years Germany Republic Hauenstein 521.jpg

File:70 years Germany Republic Hauenstein 521.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!

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Jacquesverlaeken,

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)

Drawings vs book illustrations

I noticed you have moved images from Category:Drawings to Category:Book illustrations (and their subcategories). But an illustration is any image that gives information about associated text. A photograph in a book is a book illustration. A drawing is an image that is created by hand with a pencil or pen. You'll notice that Category:Drawings and Category:Illustrations are not parent or child categories of eachother. Would you mind adding those images back to Category:Drawings and its relevant subcategories? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

My problem was to work on the 484 files under Drawings of women. I made the following comment on the created cat Book illustrations of women: This cat avoids to declare a medium, often unknown (a book illustration is not an original artwork). Example of the so-called Drawings of women for book images. Indeed many so-called drawings do not fit the definition of drawings (which I imported from Wikipedia). I am aware of the discussions about what is Illustration. See also the 3,447 files in Drawings: obviously many are not scans (or photos) of REAL drawings! By the way, I don't know how a drawing lands in a book!

My conclusion is: we should work on definitions, find the most precise cat and certainly reduce the amount of files in overcrowded categories! Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussions

If you want to discuss about any category, please use main window section "Nominate category for discussion". Then you get much more attention. This time I did it for your, see: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Cena do Porto de Santos, 1826--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Issue is resolved with Brasil explanations on apparent contradiction. pm

Moral Emblems and Other Poems

Hello, contrary to what you seem to believe, not all files in the related category are or include woodcuts. Please correct your related changes. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 21:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed there is at least one of 44 images which does not look like a print. I hope you agree that the woodcuts can be categorised as 19th-century woodcut illustrations - being created in 1882 ca -, which i have added as a parent cat to the Poems + may go to each of the woodcuts (although parent cats do not need to be repeated). The purpose is to reduce the amount of files now in Woodcut illustrations. Is it OK for you? See my very recent updates.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Gallery_pages_about_animals

Gallery pages about animals 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!

41.115.13.90 19:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:1929 Rose-rouge Italie 20 c Yv228.jpg

Yours sincerely, Ww2censor (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Gallery_pages_about_animals

Gallery pages about animals 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!

E4024 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:Moschendorf Der Uhudler 50369.JPG

Yours sincerely, Tokfo (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

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)

Copyright status: File:Bollenhut Das Original Jochen Scherzinger Kirnbachtal 278.jpg

(FAQ) 18:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Unjustified!! FoP of a steel sculpture!

File:Neunburg vorm Wald Pfarrkirche 40585.jpg and File:Neunburg vorm Wald Pfarrkirche 40584.jpg

Hi Jacquesverlaeken, I assume that both photos were shot from indoors, right? In that case, freedom-of-panorama of Germany cannot be claimed. So, a permission by the artist Erich Schickling is needed. For some of the images in Category:Erich Schickling the permission has been obtained by the Erich-Schickling-Stiftung. So, it might be possible to obtain it also for your uploads. --Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

My mail to the Stiftung: I am asked to provide a permit for 2 pictures of stainglass I have uploaded in Wikimedia, noting well the artist author:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neunburg_vorm_Wald_Pfarrkirche_40584.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neunburg_vorm_Wald_Pfarrkirche_40585.jpg

I am not familiar with this procedure. I am surprized that an artwork in permanent view as in a church would not be authorized for use in a non-profit environment! Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I hope so! I have made a mail to info@schickling-stiftung.de. I am not familiar with this kind of procedure.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I have received 8 March this information from the Erich-Schickling-Stiftung: Vermutlich gibt es diesen Unterschied bei den Bildern: Beim Osterfenster liegen die Rechte bei der Erich-Schickling-Stiftung. Wir haben das Foto selbst für Wikipedia zur Verfügung gestellt. Die Fotos von Neunburg stammen von diesem Ort, darüber verfügen wir nicht. Vielleicht müssen Sie zur Weitergabe dort anfragen. Mehr kann ich leider nicht helfen. Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

File tagging File:Neunburg vorm Wald Pfarrkirche 40584.jpg

Deleted since. Welcome to absurdity!!

Tip

I don't think there's a need to put Stamps of Iran 1868-1925 into every single year or decade, because it looked messy and disorganized. At the moment, that category includes one century, two decades and three years, chronologically arranged perfectly and factually correct. --Orijentolog (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that you refer to the sub-categories of this cat, which I created to support the Gallery covering the same period. But I have never supported those who have invented the categories stamps by year etc, rather too complex for classic stamps. You should discuss this with the creator of those cats for Iran - user Rafic.Mufid. I guess he wanted to copy some examples like the Stamps of British Empire. Do you want to delete the links to those sub-cats or delete those cats? Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll give you examples that you figure out my point:

• This edit is fine, because all Iranian stamps from the 19th century belong to the Stamps of Iran 1868-1925. In other words, there are no any pre-1868 Iranian stamps.
• This and this edits are also fine, because again all Iranian stamps from the 1900s and 1910s fits into Stamps of Iran 1868-1925.
• This edit is not fine (so I reverted it), because it has parent category 1900s stamps of Iran, which is a part of Stamps of Iran 1868-1925.
• This edit is also not fine (thus reverted), because last years of that decade (1926-1929) do not fit under Stamps of Iran 1868-1925.

That's it, and there's no need to delete anything because all existing categories are useful. There are two other options: first one is to put every single year from 1868 to 1925 into Stamps of Iran 1868-1925, along with excluding century and two decades, and the second option is to rename Stamps of Iran 1868-1925 to Qajar stamps and keep it separately from years/decades/centuries. That's the case with Qajar architecture, I keep it separated from years and decades. --Orijentolog (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you to avoid stamps by year as sub-cats for the Stamps of Iran 1868-1925, but we must maintain the 1920s for coherence. Your second revert: I disagree with your narrow understanding of a related cat (formally not available in Wikimedia Hotcat, but often needed and used). Besides I have had a look to Qajar architecture, and felt uneasy not to find a clear path to western calendar periods! I do not support thus any of the 2 proposed options. Regards. Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I just passed editing some 200 stamps, and I recategorized them to Qajar stamps and Pahlavi stamps. All of individual stamps now have both dynastic period and year (or sometimes decade). That's the "rule" for all Iranian artworks (I personally edited many thousands), and as I told you before, we don't mix dynastic period with calendar cats. It is because sometimes dynastic periods fit under particular centuries, as well as some centuries fit under particular dynastic periods, so if we mix it there would be a lot of inconsistency, an utter mess. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding Qajar architecture, it's not intended at all to be related to western calendar periods, neither is (let's say) Baroque architecture in France. The category Baroque churches in France is closely related to 17th-century churches in France & 18th-century churches in France, but there's no mixing. The same is with Qajar mosques and 19th-century mosques in Iran, again related but no mixing. There are hundreds of such examples. --Orijentolog (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I see the result! We have a now an overcrowded Category Quajar stamps (118 images!). But if this is the Iranian way ... temps pis. I will try to understand what you mean by mixing: what does it mean in mathematical terms?. Closely related is very clear. Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

By "mixing" I mean putting century into dynastic period, or dynastic period into century. Let's say Pahlavi architecture under 20th-century architecture in Iran, or 19th-century architecture in Iran under Qajar architecture. Both are actually correct, but it leads to inconsistency and chaos. You can take a look at the Iranian way:

• Art in Iran by century
• Architecture of Iran by century
• Buildings in Iran by century
• Art of Iran by dynastic period
• Architecture of Iran by dynastic period
• Works in Iran by date

Thousands of artworks and buildings under strict order! :) And always dynastic period separated from calendar date. Qajar stamps may look overcrowded (there're also some 200 Qajar houses, so what :), but in future it may be separated by subjects. When I'm thinking about it comprehensively I get a headache: tens of subjects, tens of periods, hundreds of files... all give tens of thousands of edits to keep consistency and order. :( :) --Orijentolog (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

sculptures of Sophie Ryder

Hi Jacquesverlaeken, in order to be covered by Germany's freedom-of-panorama exception, depicted works of art need to be installed permanently in the public AND the photograph needs to have been taken from public ground (definition: de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium „öffentlich“). Please check for your images File:Sophie Ryder Kloster Eberbach Group 2013.JPG and File:Sophie Ryder Dancing Ladies 2013 Kloster Eberbach.JPG, whether both criteria are fulfilled here. --Túrelio (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I can't confirm that the sculptures are still there! Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)