User talk:Multichill/Archives/2012/December

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Notification about possible deletion

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Ido vlag.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Ido vlag.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)‎ | +/−

russavia (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Tonny by wols.jpg

Beste Multichill, deze foto File:Tonny by wols.jpg staat op [[1]]. Die site heeft een licentie die, denk ik, niet strookt met wiki's licentieeisen. Daarbij komt dat er bij die foto staat dat die ouder is dan 70 jaar, echter de man stierf in 1977. Moet weg toch? --VanBuren (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I figured it out. Cheers. --VanBuren (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Bijltjespad.JPG

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Bijltjespad.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)‎ | +/−

Kattenkruid (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Starr 070821-8077 Celosia sp..jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Starr 070821-8077 Celosia sp..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)‎ | +/−

Thiotrix (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Starr 030923-0208 Tamarix aphylla.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Starr 030923-0208 Tamarix aphylla.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)‎ | +/−

Thiotrix (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

RCE uploads

Hallo Multichill,

Bij deze en deze afbeelding met lege auteur gaat er iets mis daar, de categorie is zichtbaar. Zou je dat even kunnen bekijken?

Ander puntje: Ik was wat afbeeldingen aan het verwerken, en het lijkt me toch handiger om via het possible rijksmonumenten sjabloon alles in (rode) plaatscategorieën te zetten. Dus: "Possible rijksmonuments in Amsterdam". Zo kunnen geïnteresseerden nu al per plaats zoeken. En dan later de stap richting lijsten maken. Wat denk je hiervan?

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hee Bas, even gekeken en kan het zo snel niet vinden. Kijk ergens overheen. Wellicht dat ik het morgen zie ;-)
Ik ga {{Possible Rijksmonument}} aanpassen. Multichill (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, when there is a large number of images for a single monument, please put them in a special sub-category. Category:Nieuwe Kerk (Amsterdam) now has 992 images in the main category, the vast majority black and white ones of small details and building/restoration work in progress. These are very specialized indeed, and the vast majority of users will not, I'm sure, be bothered to look through 1,000 images to find the general views in colour. This comes up nearly every time there is a large scale upload, but you still continue overwhelming popular categories in this insensitive manner. I have sorted the Oude Kirk into managable bits (from 468), but I certainly can't face doing this one, and on the evidence of past examples, neither will any one else. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}. Come on John, read your own message, did you forget that this is a wiki? And just with other uploads I'm not going to sort this out, I'm leaving that up to other users. Multichill (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Which doesn't happen, as we know from past examples. Do you actually have objections to doing it properly in the first place? Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The Netherlands has, unless maybe some other countries, a lot of active volunteers who are sorting out these images. They enjoy all the nice new images and provide, unlike people from some other countries, positive feedback and suggestions on how to improve. Multichill (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
They are allready categorized up to the right church, a little bit of cat-a-lotting and they can be exactly in the way you like it. Look at it from the bright side, isn't it wonderfull that we've got 1000 historical images from this important building, all categorized down to the right church, people can find amazing 1910 and 1880 pictures among them. Enjoy their value. And indeed there's a lot of work to be done, lots and lots of images have to be identified, we've allready been able to identify ca. 7000 images (e.g. find the correct monument nummer). And yes, we wont be able to identify all images, but with these 7000 identified images we've been able to illustrate around 300 monuments which didn't have an illustration (and that's a lot considering we're allready at 70% coverage). If I see 300 historic pictures in a category where I didn't expect them I think: "wow wonderful that all this material even exists, even more wonderful that we're able to freely use and distribute them". Basvb (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with small categories, as I made clear above. No, with thousands of images from this source, and tens of thousands more still swamping categories from previous mass uploads, I'm not going to do it, though I have done a lot of diffusing, which very few people do. Multichill's "fuck you" attitude is certainly no encouragement. At least this lot only seem to affect one category at a time, unlike the Walters upload, which swamped all sorts of by subject categories. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if you post messages like this on my talk page you'll won't get a nice response from me. Multichill (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Coordinaten van RCE uploads

Multichill, de meeste coordinaten van RCE uploads zijn foutief. De meeste van Baarn liggen in Harlingen zie hier, van Baambrugge in IJsselstein en Harderwijk, en hier. Is er soms iets fout met de omrekening van cooridnaten? HenkvD (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoi Henk, ja, het was mij ook opgevallen. Ik heb geen flauw idee wat er fout gaat. De coördinaten komen op volkomen verkeerde plekken terecht, maar zover ik kan zien wel altijd op de correcte locatie voor een ander Rijksmonument. Ik was al naar een ander sjabloontje gegaan en deed al wat grove filtering (heel veel kwam onterecht in Amsterdam terecht), maar de foutmarge is echt veels te hoog. Ik had het er al even met Bas en Rudolphous over en heb besloten om op nieuwe uploads het sjabloon weg te laten. Het bestaande sjabloon is hidden gemaakt zodat we later kunnen beslissen wat we met die foto's doen. Multichill (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, dat is voorlopig het beste. Bedankt voor je snelle recatie. HenkvD (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Starr 030705-0019 Euphorbia cotinifolia.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Starr 030705-0019 Euphorbia cotinifolia.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)‎ | +/−

Lankiveil (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

RCE uploads

Hallo Multichill,

Bij deze en deze afbeelding met lege auteur gaat er iets mis daar, de categorie is zichtbaar. Zou je dat even kunnen bekijken?

Ander puntje: Ik was wat afbeeldingen aan het verwerken, en het lijkt me toch handiger om via het possible rijksmonumenten sjabloon alles in (rode) plaatscategorieën te zetten. Dus: "Possible rijksmonuments in Amsterdam". Zo kunnen geïnteresseerden nu al per plaats zoeken. En dan later de stap richting lijsten maken. Wat denk je hiervan?

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hee Bas, even gekeken en kan het zo snel niet vinden. Kijk ergens overheen. Wellicht dat ik het morgen zie ;-)
Ik ga {{Possible Rijksmonument}} aanpassen. Multichill (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, when there is a large number of images for a single monument, please put them in a special sub-category. Category:Nieuwe Kerk (Amsterdam) now has 992 images in the main category, the vast majority black and white ones of small details and building/restoration work in progress. These are very specialized indeed, and the vast majority of users will not, I'm sure, be bothered to look through 1,000 images to find the general views in colour. This comes up nearly every time there is a large scale upload, but you still continue overwhelming popular categories in this insensitive manner. I have sorted the Oude Kirk into managable bits (from 468), but I certainly can't face doing this one, and on the evidence of past examples, neither will any one else. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}. Come on John, read your own message, did you forget that this is a wiki? And just with other uploads I'm not going to sort this out, I'm leaving that up to other users. Multichill (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Which doesn't happen, as we know from past examples. Do you actually have objections to doing it properly in the first place? Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The Netherlands has, unless maybe some other countries, a lot of active volunteers who are sorting out these images. They enjoy all the nice new images and provide, unlike people from some other countries, positive feedback and suggestions on how to improve. Multichill (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
They are allready categorized up to the right church, a little bit of cat-a-lotting and they can be exactly in the way you like it. Look at it from the bright side, isn't it wonderfull that we've got 1000 historical images from this important building, all categorized down to the right church, people can find amazing 1910 and 1880 pictures among them. Enjoy their value. And indeed there's a lot of work to be done, lots and lots of images have to be identified, we've allready been able to identify ca. 7000 images (e.g. find the correct monument nummer). And yes, we wont be able to identify all images, but with these 7000 identified images we've been able to illustrate around 300 monuments which didn't have an illustration (and that's a lot considering we're allready at 70% coverage). If I see 300 historic pictures in a category where I didn't expect them I think: "wow wonderful that all this material even exists, even more wonderful that we're able to freely use and distribute them". Basvb (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with small categories, as I made clear above. No, with thousands of images from this source, and tens of thousands more still swamping categories from previous mass uploads, I'm not going to do it, though I have done a lot of diffusing, which very few people do. Multichill's "fuck you" attitude is certainly no encouragement. At least this lot only seem to affect one category at a time, unlike the Walters upload, which swamped all sorts of by subject categories. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if you post messages like this on my talk page you'll won't get a nice response from me. Multichill (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Coordinaten van RCE uploads

Multichill, de meeste coordinaten van RCE uploads zijn foutief. De meeste van Baarn liggen in Harlingen zie hier, van Baambrugge in IJsselstein en Harderwijk, en hier. Is er soms iets fout met de omrekening van cooridnaten? HenkvD (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoi Henk, ja, het was mij ook opgevallen. Ik heb geen flauw idee wat er fout gaat. De coördinaten komen op volkomen verkeerde plekken terecht, maar zover ik kan zien wel altijd op de correcte locatie voor een ander Rijksmonument. Ik was al naar een ander sjabloontje gegaan en deed al wat grove filtering (heel veel kwam onterecht in Amsterdam terecht), maar de foutmarge is echt veels te hoog. Ik had het er al even met Bas en Rudolphous over en heb besloten om op nieuwe uploads het sjabloon weg te laten. Het bestaande sjabloon is hidden gemaakt zodat we later kunnen beslissen wat we met die foto's doen. Multichill (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, dat is voorlopig het beste. Bedankt voor je snelle recatie. HenkvD (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Starr 030705-0019 Euphorbia cotinifolia.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Starr 030705-0019 Euphorbia cotinifolia.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)‎ | +/−

Lankiveil (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

RCE uploads

Hallo Multichill,

Bij deze en deze afbeelding met lege auteur gaat er iets mis daar, de categorie is zichtbaar. Zou je dat even kunnen bekijken?

Ander puntje: Ik was wat afbeeldingen aan het verwerken, en het lijkt me toch handiger om via het possible rijksmonumenten sjabloon alles in (rode) plaatscategorieën te zetten. Dus: "Possible rijksmonuments in Amsterdam". Zo kunnen geïnteresseerden nu al per plaats zoeken. En dan later de stap richting lijsten maken. Wat denk je hiervan?

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hee Bas, even gekeken en kan het zo snel niet vinden. Kijk ergens overheen. Wellicht dat ik het morgen zie ;-)
Ik ga {{Possible Rijksmonument}} aanpassen. Multichill (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, when there is a large number of images for a single monument, please put them in a special sub-category. Category:Nieuwe Kerk (Amsterdam) now has 992 images in the main category, the vast majority black and white ones of small details and building/restoration work in progress. These are very specialized indeed, and the vast majority of users will not, I'm sure, be bothered to look through 1,000 images to find the general views in colour. This comes up nearly every time there is a large scale upload, but you still continue overwhelming popular categories in this insensitive manner. I have sorted the Oude Kirk into managable bits (from 468), but I certainly can't face doing this one, and on the evidence of past examples, neither will any one else. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}. Come on John, read your own message, did you forget that this is a wiki? And just with other uploads I'm not going to sort this out, I'm leaving that up to other users. Multichill (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Which doesn't happen, as we know from past examples. Do you actually have objections to doing it properly in the first place? Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The Netherlands has, unless maybe some other countries, a lot of active volunteers who are sorting out these images. They enjoy all the nice new images and provide, unlike people from some other countries, positive feedback and suggestions on how to improve. Multichill (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
They are allready categorized up to the right church, a little bit of cat-a-lotting and they can be exactly in the way you like it. Look at it from the bright side, isn't it wonderfull that we've got 1000 historical images from this important building, all categorized down to the right church, people can find amazing 1910 and 1880 pictures among them. Enjoy their value. And indeed there's a lot of work to be done, lots and lots of images have to be identified, we've allready been able to identify ca. 7000 images (e.g. find the correct monument nummer). And yes, we wont be able to identify all images, but with these 7000 identified images we've been able to illustrate around 300 monuments which didn't have an illustration (and that's a lot considering we're allready at 70% coverage). If I see 300 historic pictures in a category where I didn't expect them I think: "wow wonderful that all this material even exists, even more wonderful that we're able to freely use and distribute them". Basvb (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with small categories, as I made clear above. No, with thousands of images from this source, and tens of thousands more still swamping categories from previous mass uploads, I'm not going to do it, though I have done a lot of diffusing, which very few people do. Multichill's "fuck you" attitude is certainly no encouragement. At least this lot only seem to affect one category at a time, unlike the Walters upload, which swamped all sorts of by subject categories. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if you post messages like this on my talk page you'll won't get a nice response from me. Multichill (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Coordinaten van RCE uploads

Multichill, de meeste coordinaten van RCE uploads zijn foutief. De meeste van Baarn liggen in Harlingen zie hier, van Baambrugge in IJsselstein en Harderwijk, en hier. Is er soms iets fout met de omrekening van cooridnaten? HenkvD (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoi Henk, ja, het was mij ook opgevallen. Ik heb geen flauw idee wat er fout gaat. De coördinaten komen op volkomen verkeerde plekken terecht, maar zover ik kan zien wel altijd op de correcte locatie voor een ander Rijksmonument. Ik was al naar een ander sjabloontje gegaan en deed al wat grove filtering (heel veel kwam onterecht in Amsterdam terecht), maar de foutmarge is echt veels te hoog. Ik had het er al even met Bas en Rudolphous over en heb besloten om op nieuwe uploads het sjabloon weg te laten. Het bestaande sjabloon is hidden gemaakt zodat we later kunnen beslissen wat we met die foto's doen. Multichill (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, dat is voorlopig het beste. Bedankt voor je snelle recatie. HenkvD (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Starr 030705-0019 Euphorbia cotinifolia.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Starr 030705-0019 Euphorbia cotinifolia.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)‎ | +/−

Lankiveil (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

RCE uploads

Hallo Multichill,

Bij deze en deze afbeelding met lege auteur gaat er iets mis daar, de categorie is zichtbaar. Zou je dat even kunnen bekijken?

Ander puntje: Ik was wat afbeeldingen aan het verwerken, en het lijkt me toch handiger om via het possible rijksmonumenten sjabloon alles in (rode) plaatscategorieën te zetten. Dus: "Possible rijksmonuments in Amsterdam". Zo kunnen geïnteresseerden nu al per plaats zoeken. En dan later de stap richting lijsten maken. Wat denk je hiervan?

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hee Bas, even gekeken en kan het zo snel niet vinden. Kijk ergens overheen. Wellicht dat ik het morgen zie ;-)
Ik ga {{Possible Rijksmonument}} aanpassen. Multichill (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, when there is a large number of images for a single monument, please put them in a special sub-category. Category:Nieuwe Kerk (Amsterdam) now has 992 images in the main category, the vast majority black and white ones of small details and building/restoration work in progress. These are very specialized indeed, and the vast majority of users will not, I'm sure, be bothered to look through 1,000 images to find the general views in colour. This comes up nearly every time there is a large scale upload, but you still continue overwhelming popular categories in this insensitive manner. I have sorted the Oude Kirk into managable bits (from 468), but I certainly can't face doing this one, and on the evidence of past examples, neither will any one else. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}. Come on John, read your own message, did you forget that this is a wiki? And just with other uploads I'm not going to sort this out, I'm leaving that up to other users. Multichill (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Which doesn't happen, as we know from past examples. Do you actually have objections to doing it properly in the first place? Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The Netherlands has, unless maybe some other countries, a lot of active volunteers who are sorting out these images. They enjoy all the nice new images and provide, unlike people from some other countries, positive feedback and suggestions on how to improve. Multichill (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
They are allready categorized up to the right church, a little bit of cat-a-lotting and they can be exactly in the way you like it. Look at it from the bright side, isn't it wonderfull that we've got 1000 historical images from this important building, all categorized down to the right church, people can find amazing 1910 and 1880 pictures among them. Enjoy their value. And indeed there's a lot of work to be done, lots and lots of images have to be identified, we've allready been able to identify ca. 7000 images (e.g. find the correct monument nummer). And yes, we wont be able to identify all images, but with these 7000 identified images we've been able to illustrate around 300 monuments which didn't have an illustration (and that's a lot considering we're allready at 70% coverage). If I see 300 historic pictures in a category where I didn't expect them I think: "wow wonderful that all this material even exists, even more wonderful that we're able to freely use and distribute them". Basvb (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with small categories, as I made clear above. No, with thousands of images from this source, and tens of thousands more still swamping categories from previous mass uploads, I'm not going to do it, though I have done a lot of diffusing, which very few people do. Multichill's "fuck you" attitude is certainly no encouragement. At least this lot only seem to affect one category at a time, unlike the Walters upload, which swamped all sorts of by subject categories. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if you post messages like this on my talk page you'll won't get a nice response from me. Multichill (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Coordinaten van RCE uploads

Multichill, de meeste coordinaten van RCE uploads zijn foutief. De meeste van Baarn liggen in Harlingen zie hier, van Baambrugge in IJsselstein en Harderwijk, en hier. Is er soms iets fout met de omrekening van cooridnaten? HenkvD (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoi Henk, ja, het was mij ook opgevallen. Ik heb geen flauw idee wat er fout gaat. De coördinaten komen op volkomen verkeerde plekken terecht, maar zover ik kan zien wel altijd op de correcte locatie voor een ander Rijksmonument. Ik was al naar een ander sjabloontje gegaan en deed al wat grove filtering (heel veel kwam onterecht in Amsterdam terecht), maar de foutmarge is echt veels te hoog. Ik had het er al even met Bas en Rudolphous over en heb besloten om op nieuwe uploads het sjabloon weg te laten. Het bestaande sjabloon is hidden gemaakt zodat we later kunnen beslissen wat we met die foto's doen. Multichill (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, dat is voorlopig het beste. Bedankt voor je snelle recatie. HenkvD (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Starr 030705-0019 Euphorbia cotinifolia.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Starr 030705-0019 Euphorbia cotinifolia.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)‎ | +/−

Lankiveil (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)