User talk:Natubico

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Natubico!

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.

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Natubico!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dead flowers on a mowed verge.JPG was uncategorized on 13 October 2009.

File:Leaf buds in spring.JPG[edit]

This is Cornus mas; I've renamed the file to File:Cornus mas flowers by Natubico.JPG. It would help with identifying your other photos if you could add locations to them, please! - MPF (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bssn d'Argenteuil by Gustave Cailleboitte 1882.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 03:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Rotterdam_canals[edit]

Category:Rotterdam_canals 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 ∙ +/−

ErickAgain 09:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 00:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

You have made changes to a number of images where you changed a category to Category:Black and white pictures Delft buildings in 20th century. This category does not give a description of the content of the image, only the appearance, and in this way does not add anything substantial that may be useful as a category. It is as if you would categorize all coloured images as such. I don't find this very helpful. I hope you understand. --VanBuren (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with VanBuren on this. There are thousands of black and white images from Delft and other cities in the Netherlands uploaded as a part of the RCE upload. I guess 400.000 in total. I think these kinds of categorisations aren't really usefull, if you want black and white images from Delft simply look in the Buildings in Delft category, there are loads of them, and they are very easy to spot. Another thing is that I expect this category wont even nearly get all black and white images in it. Currently the Amsterdam category holds 7 images, although I believe there are over 7000 black and white 20th century images from Amsterdam. A category with 0.1% of the relevant images is not that useful. I'm not sure but I think another problem is that VanBuren was working on cleaning out the Delft category, now that these images are removed from the Delft category they're not anymore in his working area. VanBuren is moving mountains in the Delft category, categorising thousands of images up to the correct building. This might take some time but I guess some space to work over there for him will give us a great categorised tree of building images from Delft. Basvb (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two documents related to Delft[edit]

Hi Natubico. I noticed that you removed two documents from the category Delft, see: ([1]) and [2]. On close examination it appears that the information is related to the profile of waterways in and around Delft, specifically as it says on the one document: "De Diepte van de Schie". You can look at these documents in greater detail here: [3] and [4]. I have placed them in a separate category. I hope this clarifies this. --VanBuren (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:(Black and white) pictures of Amsterdam buildings in the 20th century[edit]

Hoi Natubico, bedankt voor het helpen met de categorisatie, maar ik ben bang dat je een beetje verkeerd bezig bent. Categorisatie is er om foto's vindbaar te maken. Met een categorie als Category:(Black and white) pictures of Amsterdam buildings in the 20th century ben je de foto's alleen maar aan het verstoppen. Je moet heel erg opletten met doorsnedes. Over het algemeen is kom je in ongewenst gebied als je meer dan 2 onderwerpen met elkaar aan het combineren bent. In dit geval zijn het er 4 (Category:Black and white, Category:Amsterdam, Category:Buildings en Category:20th century). Multichill (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foto's worden onvindbaar wanneer ze (alvorens verder gecategoriseerd te worden) verdwijnen onder 'n stortvloed van duizenden archieffoto's van 'n bepaald afwijkend type.

Het zou bijzonder op prijs gesteld worden, wanneer degenen die deze duizenden (overigens in de meeste gevallen best interessante) foto's tot nu toe enigszins plompverloren in de hoofdcategorie van de desbetreffende plaats 'neerplempen', deze meteen al in een aparte (zo duidelijk mogelijk omschreven) categorie zouden inbrengen, zodat de hedendaagse foto's die al die andere bijdragers in de hoofdcategorie plaatsen, weer tevoorschijn komen en zo mogelijk door anderen verder gesubcategoriseerd kunnen worden.

Hopelijk kunnen de uwerzijds ingebrachte archieffoto's alsnog met 'n robot naar de Category:(Black and white) pictures of Amsterdam buildings in the 20th century overgebracht worden, vanwaaruit met name ook uzelf ze waar nodig verder kunt categoriseren.

Dat zou anderen 'n gigantische berg werk besparen.

B.v.d.,

Vr.gr.,

Natubico (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories with commercial content[edit]

I noticed you recategorized some of the contributions of this user [5]. You may not have noticed that the pictures contributed by this user contains commercial text such as a website address in a watermark. It is not wikipedia policy to provide a platform for organisations to market their acitivities. I have removed all categories related to Delft. In the mean time I will try to find out if this company is willing to upload these pictures without a watermark. --VanBuren (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Delft park in autumn.JPG[edit]

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 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Delft park in autumn.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.

Denniss (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fungi in forest.jpg[edit]

File:Fungi in forest.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 ∙ +/−

Convallaria majalis (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

file rename[edit]

no. how about you create a category for nevada wildflowers and put it and similar files in there? Famartin (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also a possibility.

But in itself the relevant info should be added under "description" and not in the filename; this among others because otherwise the image takes in a lot more place on the page than necessary).

Natubico (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are a dime a dozen. I don't see any reason to not create a new category if you desire an "easy" way of finding something. It could easily be nested within the categories Flora of Nevada and Wild flowers. However, if you want such a category, you'll have to make it. I don't see an overwhelming need (nor do I wish to spend time doing it). BTW, there are PLENTY of photos which could go into such a category. FAR FAR more than just 4. You should look around some more, you'll find them. Famartin (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as your comment about relevant info location: It falls under "Criteria to decline: Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better." on the Wikimedia file renaming page. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_renaming Famartin (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Onion flower.JPG[edit]

File:Onion flower.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 ∙ +/−

Ю. Данилевский (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butterfly in grass.JPG[edit]

File:Butterfly in grass.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 ∙ +/−

LamBoet (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.^{[survey 1]} The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.^{[survey 2]} The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

↑ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
↑ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:City_views_of_Delft[edit]

Category:City_views_of_Delft 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 ∙ +/−

Tukka (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization[edit]

Hi Natubico,

adding the Delft category to pictures that are already in a subcategory of Delft is a form over overcategorization. See [6]. I've deleted this category again.

Regards, Tukka (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[7] What is the need for these 'corrections'? Tukka (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or this?? Tukka (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why certain images are added to two (or more) categories, among which the Delft category, is that visitors who want te see some interesting pictures of a town, shouldn't have to plough through the thousands of images in all categories to find what the are looking for, but should immediately find a selection of the most interesting, typical and beautifull images on the 'frontpage' or if one wants in the 'showwindow' of Category Delft.

As for the many images of StevenL that have been removed to Miscellanious-catagories it must be said that it still is a mystery, why somebody who sometimes uploads good pictures at the same time keeps uploading hundreds if not thousands of images that really are awful and of no value at all for showing the most typical facets of a town, but on the contrary can be made in as good as any town and therefore are not worth to spend internetspace and energy to on Commons.

Natubico (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Putting pictures both in a category and a subcategory is overcategorization. It's possible that you don't agree with this, but it is clearly explained here why that is not desirable. The pictures you refer to as awful are my pictures, copied from Panoramio by a bot. A lot of these pictures were made by a mobile phone with an app that makes a picture automatically every 5 seconds. It was not my choice to copy them to Wikimedia, but I felt a bit responsible for it and tried to categorize them. Tukka (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page like Delft might be an option for high quality pictures, so in case of pictures of nature of Delft, the page can be named Nature of Delft. Tukka (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That page already exists. But it's not the right place to catagorise awful and completely meaningless automatically made pictures in either. This kind of images has to be removed by the uploader, who didn't mean to upload them, himself. For if he doesn't, other users have to spent more and more time to this.

Natubico (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.

[2] Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

[survey 1]

[survey 2]

User talk:Natubico

Contents

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

File:Leaf buds in spring.JPG[edit]

File:Bssn d'Argenteuil by Gustave Cailleboitte 1882.jpg[edit]

Category:Rotterdam_canals[edit]

Autopatrol given[edit]

Request[edit]

Two documents related to Delft[edit]

Category:(Black and white) pictures of Amsterdam buildings in the 20th century[edit]

Categories with commercial content[edit]

Copyright status: File:Delft park in autumn.JPG[edit]

File:Fungi in forest.jpg[edit]

file rename[edit]

File:Onion flower.JPG[edit]

File:Butterfly in grass.JPG[edit]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

Category:City_views_of_Delft[edit]

Overcategorization[edit]

Navigation menu

User talk:Natubico

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

File:Leaf buds in spring.JPG[edit]

File:Bssn d'Argenteuil by Gustave Cailleboitte 1882.jpg[edit]

Category:Rotterdam_canals[edit]

Autopatrol given[edit]

Request[edit]

Two documents related to Delft[edit]

Category:(Black and white) pictures of Amsterdam buildings in the 20th century[edit]

Categories with commercial content[edit]

Copyright status: File:Delft park in autumn.JPG[edit]

File:Fungi in forest.jpg[edit]

file rename[edit]

File:Onion flower.JPG[edit]

File:Butterfly in grass.JPG[edit]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

Category:City_views_of_Delft[edit]

Overcategorization[edit]

Navigation menu

Search