User talk:Brookford

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

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for deletion[edit]

Hello!

As I said in one of the categories for discussion, please tag category redirects with {{SD|G2}} if you want them deleted. Since CSD G2 is a speedy deletion criteria there is no need for such a process. Happy editing!Jonteemil (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonteemil, thanks for letting me know ! --Brookford (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries :).Jonteemil (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Files that you have uploaded within 7 days also don't need a deletion request. {{SD|G7}} is enough :).Jonteemil (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thanks ! --Brookford (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:VAN DIEVOET arm(e)s.png 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!

Túrelio (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Van.Dievoet.Arm(e)s.png 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!

Túrelio (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please explain Category:Burgher arms[edit]

See here: Category talk:Burgher arms.--Carolus (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Metzger family.svg 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!

GerritR (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armes de la famille de Serhuyghs[edit]

Bonjour Brookford,
Je découvre quelques mois après votre modification des armes que j'avais dessinées. Je n'ai rien contre les corrections (même si changer les meubles ne me semble pas être une amélioration, c'est une considération esthétique et les goûts et les couleurs, vous savez, tout ça, tout ça...), mais là, la correction introduit un conflit avec le blasonnement indiqué dans la description.
Le blasonnement indique que les fleurs de lis sont coupées. Donc, sans pied. Ce qui n'est pas le cas de votre modification. Je rappelle que c'est à votre demande que j'avais fait ces armes au pied coupé.
Si vous avez une bonne raison de modifier l'image (les erreurs, ça arrive à tout le monde) alors adaptez la description en conséquence et les éventuelles catégories posées.
Bonne journée. Jpgibert (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Brookford,
Étant tombé par hasard sur l'image, je reprends cette conversation, initiée par Jpgibert que je notifie par la même occasion.
Si en effet, lorsqu'on modifie un blason il va de soi qu'une mise à jour de la description et des catégories s'impose naturellement, il est également à considérer qu'une intervention est nécessaire sur les pages qui, éventuellement, utilisent ladite image.
Dans le cas présent on peut constater que deux articles du wiki italien, pour illustrer un pied nourri ou coupé, utilisent (depuis janvier 2023) ce blason (page 1, page 2), et que là non plus, après plus de 6 mois aucune action n'a été entreprise pour compenser les erreurs induites par la modification de l'image.
La situation est identique concernant les fichiers dérivés "Blasons des sept Lignages de Bruxelles" (liens : Blasons des sept Lignages de Bruxelles Blasons des sept Lignages de Bruxelles (sans fond)) (à noter que le premier des ce deux fichiers est utilisé par deux articles).
Ensuite, après les vérifications d'usage, il apparaît que l'Armorial de Rietstap donne pour la famille « Serhuygs, l'une des sept familles patricienne de Bruxelles », de gueules à trois fleurs-de-lis d'argent (lire en ligne) ; ce qui m'amène, en vue d'orienter les futures corrections dans la bonne direction, à vous poser la question suivante : quelles sont exactement les références utilisées pour la version d'azur à trois fleurs ?
Cordialement, --Kontributor 2K (talk) 14:19, 29 november 2023 (UTC)