User talk:Apdency

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

Archives[edit]

2009 - 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013

Fire-damaged cat[edit]

Dag Apdency: jij hebt foto's van Groesbeekseweg 152 van vóór de brand als :Category:Fire-damaged buildings in the Netherlands geclassificeerd. De foto's tonen echter géén fire-damaged building, maar de tekst duidt op fire-damage in hun geschiedenis. Als de geschiedenis meetelt, zouden wel heel veel gebouwen in die categorie komen. Vergelijk bv. met Foto A en Foto B waarvan slechts éen in Category:Rijksmonumenten under construction is. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Aanvankelijk dacht ik ook dat categorieën die in hun naam een toestand aanduiden, alleen maar afbeeldingen zouden bevatten die die toestand laten zien, totdat ik Category:Destroyed buildings in the Netherlands zag, waarin ook gebouwen worden getoond die nog overeind staan. Maar als voor 'Fire-damaged' wel zo'n 'visueel' criterium is vastgesteld, moet ik me daar natuurlijk aan conformeren. Apdency (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Category:Destroyed buildings in the Netherlands: eenmaal gesloopt is er geen gebouw meer, maar slechts een foto-archief. Er kan natuurlijk herbouw plaatsgevonden hebben. Waarom daar ook herbouwde gebouwen in de categorie staan: de cat van het betreffende gebouw niet uitgesplitst in sub-cats misschien?
  • Of er zo'n visueel criterium is vastgelegd weet ik niet, maar ik zou daar wel voor kiezen. Fire-damaged is, net als under construction een tijdelijke situatie. Category:De Onderneming (Schaijk) zou als voorbeeld kunnen dienen: de foto's van 1971 (de romp en ruineresten) ieder afzonderlijk in cat fire-damage plaatsen; of samen in een subcat Category:De Onderneming Schaijk, fire-damage 1971; en de hele molen (zw-foto's van vóór de brand en de kleurenfoto's van na de brand) in de huidige cat. Wat denk je daarvan? --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Mijn idee is tot nu toe geweest: 'under construction' is een duidelijk tijdelijke situatie, 'destroyed' en 'fire-damaged' daarentegen kunnen heel goed definitief zijn. Dat even als verschilaanduiding.
Maar kun je daar praktisch wat mee? Jouw benadering zou kunnen, daarnaast zou je bij gevallen als de Groesbeekseweg 152 de afstand tussen een term als 'fire-damaged' en de getoonde ongeschonden toestand kunnen vergroten door een categorie voor het gebouw zelf aan te maken. Een categorie waar dan wel 'fire-damaged' aan hangt, die echter niet aan de plaatjes hangt. Dan geef je te kennen dat er sprake is of is geweest van brandschade. Apdency (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Dacht hetzelfde, en heb vandaag foto's gemaakt Smile. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

File:SPD Bundestagwahlposter 2009.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:SPD Bundestagwahlposter 2009.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 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 | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

File:CDU Bundestagwahlposter 2009.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:CDU Bundestagwahlposter 2009.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 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 | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Isselburg municipal election posters 2009.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Isselburg municipal election posters 2009.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 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 | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

File:CDU EP 2009 elections poster.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:CDU EP 2009 elections poster.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 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 | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Papegaaiposter Bond tegen het vloeken.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Papegaaiposter Bond tegen het vloeken.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 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 | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JurgenNL (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Built in the Netherlands in 1970[edit]

Is een sub-category van Category:1970s architecture in the Netherlands. Het lijkt mij toch echt dat daar geen schepen in thuishoren. Die indeling komt wel eens meer voor, maar als we dat doen moeten we alle Nederlandse schepen onder architectuur brengen en dat zal niet de bedoeling zijn. Nog afgezien van het werk. ;=)) --Stunteltje (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

In een categorie die al hangt onder "Ships built in the Netherlands" en "Ships built in 1970" kan een categorie "Built in the Netherlands in 1970" er ook wel bij, dacht ik zo. Dat er nog een stapje hoger ook het woord "architecture" voorkomt lijkt me van minder belang. De vermelding van die term in categorieën zou ik sowieso relativeren. Zie bijvoorbeeld Category:Destroyed in the Netherlands in 1954. Als je zoiets aanmaakt komt er (als je het betreffende sjabloon gebruikt althans) een Category:1950s architecture in the Netherlands boven te staan. Apdency (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Harderbos.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Harderbos.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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)