User talk:Gerrit41

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Gerrit41!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Gerrit41!

Tip: Add categories to your images

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:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Flockyarn.JPG[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


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 17:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read COM:OVERCAT[edit]

Hi, it might be a good idea to read COM:OVERCAT before changing categories. Commons is category based system, not a tag based system. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ik zie dat je een snelle leerder bent. Een textielspecialist is hier zeker meer dan welkom. --Foroa (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Bedankt voor het compliment. Het heeft even geduurd, maar vooral dank zij jouw tip lukt het nu beter (maar ik moest wel veel opnieuw bewerken). Gerrit41 (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Het aanzetten van HotCat en Cat-a-lot in menu "my preferences/Gadgets" zou je wel veel kunnen helpen. Beste. --Foroa (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nogmaals bedankt. Dit scheelt echt veel tijd.Gerrit41 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the textile jungle. Its good to see some intelligent work- if you want a chat in Engels/Duits/Nederlands o Flams- pop over to my talk page. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Judging by your recent edit to File:MTR Textile 2.jpg‎, you still don't quite get how categories should work here. Category:Romania is redundant to the category for the specific museum, and while Category:Textiles may be too broad, the solution to that is to replace it with something more specific, not to remove it. Please be especially careful about removing categories until you have a better grasp of the system. Adding a wrong category is no big deal (easily fixed). Removing a correct one is a much bigger problem: if no one spots it right away, the information is probably lost, since it will only be found if someone examines the history of the page. - Jmabel ! talk 04:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Gerrit41 is actually doing very well. The problem is that he is a bit too much focused on his technical speciality. While cleaning out the generic textiles category, which can be very frustrating because of the millions of non precise cats and overcats, he has a problem with pictures that don't really focus on the textile itself and where the textiles are more creating a "textile ambiance". We should have some sort of category such as "textiles on display", "textile collections" or something to collect such type of pictures. --Foroa (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

First the categorization scheme.I would say :one mistake, not bad. With alittle bit more concentration you can have zero mistakes next time. (Teacher is one of my former professions). Then the category Textiles. I think the pictures should have a clear connexion to textiles in any form. If textile is the main isue it is clear. But if the textile is only padding I think it has tobe moved to another (sub)category. Mostly I move them to Colorful textiles which fits for almost everything. But this was not possible with the black and white German pictures.All these pictures have at least two other categories, so they are not lost. In these pictures the textiles were "Nebensache" and did in my opinion not belong to Textiles. The same goes for people in costum, they don't fit in Textiles but have to be recategorized to a costum type or a country.I agree with Foroa that it had been possible to create a new category and the title "Textile collections" sounds good to me. Gerrit41 (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you found this group- Category:Images from KIT, Voorstelling Activiteit / Functie - bont-, haar-, wol-, veren-, stekelsbewerking there are some useful images but as yet they are not linked to the textile tree. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing "unidentified" categories[edit]

Hoi Gerrit41, it seems you like to remove "unidentified" categories from images. Please be aware that this is only meaningful (and helpful) if you add correct categories instead …

Some examples:

If you are not able to identify a machine yourself, then please leave unidentified categories in place. Otherwise it's nearly impossible for other users (with better knowledge) to make the needed changes (to really identify an object), because the images in question are not findable in the relevant "unidentified" category any more (because you removed them from there). Generally, please have a second look at Foroa's COM:OVERCAT hint above. Thanks --:bdk: 19:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing flax category context from images[edit]

Hoi Gerrit41, could you please explain this edit, and this one too? Did you read (or at least check) Linbasta before? --:bdk: 18:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo
These pictures have nothing to do with the production of flax. The buildings only have a name with flax in it.
Gerrit41 (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, these images are connected with flax production. We have Category:Flax kilns now (with currently 11 images). Please don't empty this category. --:bdk: 12:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo If I look for pictures about toothpaste production then I want to see not the buildings but the machines, the raw material and so on. But I am a technician and I believe most people on Wikimedia are hobbyists, folklorists and historians. I will not empty this category nor any other. I will use Wikimedia from now on as a consumer and nothing more. 81.207.177.105 18:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Gerrit41 (I assume that IP was really yours),
your comment sounds as if you're the only one who knows the facts … which appears, ahem, rather beside the point, given the factual errors you made (not only a few) e.g. with identifying images of machines as ploughs, dump rakes etc., when they actually show different machines (see the thread above). Anyway, the main problem I tried to point out is that your categorization attempts caused "loss of relevant context" in several cases. We are glad about every file that is in good categories (as correct and precise as possible), and which is thereby findable (note: categories also work like "tags" for internal and external search, especially if file descriptions are weak and don't contain the relevant key words). Category removal (if not completely wrong) without adding better/more precise categories instead usually results in "lost" images therefore.
Examples: If you remove "Unidentified machines" from a file, and only put it into another, e.g. location based category, then the information, that it's showing some kind of machine (of whichever type) is lost. If you remove "flax production" from a file showing a building that was specifically built for and used within the flax drying process, then the flax context is lost. And yes, even if these flax kilns are not used in modern production in the flax regions of France/Benelux, they present a relevant part of flax production history in Scandinavia.
Let's take one of your own images as another example: File:Hardness meter.jpg is in Category:Textile testing equipment. What would you say if someone removed that category (and thereby the textile context) and put the image into Category:Hardness tests, Category:Measuring instruments and Category:Round objects instead? (ok, that's not the most vivid example, but it's illustrating the basic problem, hopefully). --:bdk: 22:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol[edit]

Hello Gerrit41, I have given you autopatrol rights. Your edits won't show as "unpatrolled" any longer. Cheers --Funfood 15:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence Funfood

Gerrit41 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

waste container[edit]

Israel Batch 1 (879).JPG

are you really sure this is a waste container? can you give a reference or a source? I think this is neither architectural element, nor waste container. Please don't change category, until you are sure to know the right one. giving a wrong category doesn't help at all...

Djampa (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pictures and images[edit]

Hi!

Category:Pictures and images is nonsense. I have removed this category attempt from all images you have touched with it. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hallo,

Thank you for changing. I have no idea how I succeeded to make this category. I only know for sure I never typed Pictures and images in CataLot.

Gerrit41 (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't replace unidentified categories with already identified location categories[edit]

I've reverted a number of your edits where you've replaced a category for unidentified objects with a less correct location one. First, IDing a location does not ID the objects in questions. Second, it seems that you have not bothered to check if a location category exists, as you added a less correct (town) location to images which already had a specific building (in said town) location. Please be more careful in the future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)