User talk:Ikar.us/Archiv

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

Neoclassical church[edit]

Hello Ikar.us, Just a word to say that I didn't forget your pending VIC. I've reserved a book from my public library (Robert Middleton, David Watkin, "Architecture moderne, 1750-1870 : du néo-classicisme au néo-gothique", Berger-Levrault, 1983 - translated from English) and they promised me that it will be available at the end of the week. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ikar.us, Concerning your pending VIC, I've got the book I was talking of, and also another one (by Emily Cole, in a French translation, but I saw it exits in German under the title Stilformen und Epochen der Weltarchitektur, Fleurus Verlag, 2005—I tell you in case you are interested by architectural topics in general). The review is difficult because the scope is very wide. There is a thread just opened on Coyau's talk page and mine (in French). As for me, I've begun to pre-select some images of such churches in various countries. If you agree, we could continue the discussion on your talkpage, in English. So may I do a suggestion? I would suggest to close the current nomination within this scope, because we are not totally ready to review it yet. Meanwhile, you can nominate it for the scope "St Stephan Catholic Church (Karlsruhe)". According to VI rules, there is no objection to a single image being nominated several times, each time for some distinct scope". For churches wich aren't cathedrals, there should be a good reason to nominate, "like being a pilgrimage place, being really famous, being architecturally exceptional, etc." but I think that it is the case here. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
You are really putting much effort in the case. Feel free to discuss with fellow experts in French.
I've not yet discovered the use of VI scopes that consist of one single object and single catagoriy with few pictures, so I won't nominate it for that.
Weinbrenner isn't a scope option either, his preferred composition with side wimgs isn't applied at St. Stephan.
--Ikar.us (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Louvre etc...[edit]

Hallo Ikar.us, I would like to address you many thanks for your explanations about scopes and other things concerning QI and VI. I understand now the much better what needs really "Commons", and how I can help. With you and other contributors, like Myrabella, I'm sure i shall progress. Merci de ta patience avec un nouveau membre encore un peu perdu !--Jebulon (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

closure of withdrawn VICs[edit]

Hello Ikar.us,
According to Commons:Valued_image_closure#Closing_valued_image_candidates, the final status has to be "opposed" "declined" for the closure of a withdrawn VIC:

status=declined
When the nominator has withdrawn (status=withdrawn) the VIC or (number of Symbol support vote.svg Support < number of Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose)

Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid. The VIC won't process an "opposed" candidate. Dod you mean "declined"?
And according to the template display text, VICbot would also process "undecided" candidates. Is the template wrong?
I regard this difference for important, because a declined candidate can't be renominated, while an unassessed one can.
--Ikar.us (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, I was in a hurry to meet VICbot passage and I made some mistakes, now fixed. --Myrabella (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
To answer your question, "An image which has previously been declined can be renominated within the same scope only if the issues leading to the original decline have been addressed." so there is always a possibility to renominate a withdrawn VIC without opposed vote. --Myrabella (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, but there's e.g. a statistic counting promoted, declined and undecided nominations, another reason to file the correct status. --Ikar.us (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The rule is clear: the final status of withdrawn images must be "declined". Maybe it has been written this way to encourage sportive spirit? (I don't know !) --Myrabella (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

closure of not-withdrawn VICs[edit]

A complement: to close a not withdrawn VIC, we have to use a special template to count the votes, e.g.:

{{subst:vicl|3|2|~~~~}}

Where 3 is to be replaced by the number of support votes, and 2 by the number of oppose votes. It results in the following:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose =>
promoted. -- TheVICloser

and then we update the status. --Myrabella (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

  • By the way, your recent VIC about St Stephan could have been closed as "undecided" without withdrawning it.
Another tip: to renominate an image, special templates have to be used too; the interest is to give a direct access to the previous review. All details on Commons:Valued_image_candidates#Renomination. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Dubai_Jumeirah_Beach.JPG[edit]

Danke für dein Supporting ... was die Geodaten angeht, so ist das Bild Jumeirah Beach in Blickrichtung Meer entstanden und das Bild Jumeirah Beach in Blickrichtung Hilton Hotel ... aber es liegen glaube ich nur wenige Meter zwischen dem von dir gewählten Punkt und meinem - oder lag ich so sehr daneben? Ich hab auch nochmal auf das Satellitenbild bei maps geschaut aber ehrlich gesagt ändert sich Dubai so schnell, dass man mit gelegentlich mit dem Wiedererkennungsfaktor Probleme hat. Trotzdem Danke für deine Unterstützung --Pe-sa (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, Deine Position lag zwei Kilometer entfernt, an dem Strandabschnitt, wo das "Logo Island" davor ist. Grüße, --Ikar.us (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh entschuldige bitte ... mein Fehler ... da lag ich dann wohl doch ziemlich daneben. Danke für deine Korrektur. Grüße--Pe-sa (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Geodetic control points[edit]

The editor I have asked on :fr:wiki about Geodetic control points would have made other choices, but refering to his own experience only. His answer is on my fr talkpage. --Myrabella (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for searching advice. The first image is a newer French stone, the second a very pragmatic German mark.
The purpose of those deep-rooted stone marks is long-term stability. No need to dig them out without reason. So there are (at least in Germany, but probably everywhere) some very old and uncommon marks still in use. The grid files are interesting to read.
Anyway, the marks look different all over the world, so there is no standard model we can show. However, a square stone with a triangle symbol somewhere and a small hole (or a cross) indicating the exact point are common features. IMO this stone is a typical prototype of ground marks in general, although the peculiar design may be uncommon even in France.
I have to modify my claim that it's the only image with both marks visible. File:Napier Hill trig.jpg shows them both, too - united in a unique design, created as monument. Because of this uniqueness, I prefer the version where the stone looks usual.
--Ikar.us (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
As I am an absolute beginner in geodesy, you will forgive me a certainly silly question. Are the two ground marks of the images in relation with each other? Are they two corners of a same triangle (and if they are, where is the third one?). --Myrabella (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Cote d'Azur and New Zealand? No, they aren't related. All trig points on one continent form a network of triangles, with free lines of sight on the triangle edges. (Geodesists oppose high-rise vegetation.) But continents can't be connected to each other without astronomic measurements (or nowadays GPS).
Each trig point is marked by a ground mark. If needed to be visible from the neighbour point, someone has to visit the point and place a rod on it. Especially in countries where distances are long, some points are equipped with a fixed elevated mark. (Not necessarily exactly above the ground mark; the relation between them is recorded and can be taken into account.)
On the images, we find seemingly two different kinds of point marks: stones and pyramids. However, near every pyramid I'd expect to find a stone somewhere (not vice-versa). The stone is hardly visible on images. (Sometimes it's even hard to find in on-site. Geodesists oppose shrub vegetation.)
Onb the styled point on Napier, we see a spot in the center of the plate. This is probably the ground mark. The only thing both images have in common is that both marks of one point are visible.
--Ikar.us (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, excuse me, I had made misprints. I was speaking of the two ground marks in the nominated image. If I understand your explanation (thank you for it!), these two marks are related: they materialize two neighbour trig points, parts of the same network of triangles, the European one. Is it correct? Thanks to my mistake and your answer, I've even learned something more about continental networks :-) --Myrabella (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
In the image. there is only one ground mark (the stone), and one elevated mark (the pyramid). (Bodenpunkt und Hochpunkt in German.) Probably there are some more marks around, for verification purposes, but they are very unremarkable. A nail in a rock, or something like that.
Together they make up one vertex in the network. Local terminology may name them two marks of the same point, or a main point and an excentrum, or twin points, but the distance is too short to be an edge of the network.
--Ikar.us (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

VICbot issue[edit]

Hello Ikar.us, I was waiting for VICbot too... You can report this issue to User_talk:Dschwen. I'll do it otherwise... in the morning. --Myrabella (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Eusebius has already reported it to him shortly. Will make a pause now... --Ikar.us (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Great! It seems that the new renaming has fixed the issue. --Myrabella (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello Ikar.us, May I ask you for some help? When VICBot removes the promoted VIs, it places them on a special page, Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted, to be sorted in the proper "VIs by topic" category. I slightly hesitate with two of your promoted images; maybe could you try to sort them—using only the existing categories? Thanks and regards, --Myrabella (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Geodesy is usually treated as a branch of civl engineering.
ВДНХ I assessed as a feature of Moscow rather than of Russia.
Hope these are proper categorizations. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
For ВВЦ ;-), I took the liberty of changing the category because "Cities and towns" is more for images promoted with a spectific town-scope (see Commons:Valued images by topic). I've taken "Places/Other" but isn't really adequate. Could be "Places/Buildings/Industrial" (not truly satisfactory either). There isn't a nice suitable category for a big and historic fair-trade in a huge park. Feel free to restore your choice if you prefer it. --Myrabella (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that area near the metro station with the official name ВДНХ ;-) is mainly an urban recreation area and fun-fair, although operated by the trade-fair company. Next to Champs-de-Mars should be suitable.
Generally, I wonder if any city of notable size can become a VI scope, represented by one single image, or if the "cities and towns" category will be limited to rather small towns.
--Ikar.us (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
At least this one. After debate, of course :-D --Myrabella (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Michto Ikar.us ;-), A special thank you for having supported the image I had nominated as VIC for the Django Reinhardt Jazz Festival in Samois-sur-Seine. Django Reinhardt would have been 100 years old this year, and he died in May (1953). It was my personal tribute to him! About the Romani graves image, I don't feel able to review it because I don't know the specificities such graves may have all around the world; in case you were interested however, this is a page in French (not a scholar one) describing the Romani funeral rituals. --Myrabella (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

vougeot[edit]

Hello. About your photo: as I remember, the vineyard you show is really Clos-Vougeot. The pic is taken from the "castle" in the direction of the village of Vougeot, but I'm sot sure. Next summer, I shall maybe have a look. Friendly--Jebulon (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Petroleum product storage[edit]

Hello Ikar.us, I may be wrong, but as far as I know, liquefied petroleum gas isn't a gaseous product but a liquid one, and fr:Raffinage du pétrole#Le parc de stockage say that spherical holders are mostly for butane. To be cheked and amended in the annotations? --Myrabella (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
PS: and I guess that "tanks for liquids" can be used for "crude oil" too (but maybe those photographied here are only for refined products?) --Myrabella (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the tanks for crude oil are bigger and look different, often without a fixed domed roof. File:Oil tanks of Kiire base.jpg You can find them in the map on the northern, southern and eastern ends of the area.
For language purists, "liquefied gas" may be complete nonsense, because a liquid isn't a gas and nearly every liquid can be regarded as liquified version of a gas.
But in chemistry, substances are still characterized by there en:standard state, and these substances are gases under standard conditions. In fact, when they substances are used, they are mostly used in gaseous form. Liquification is only for storage purpose, because storing gases in gaseous form under usage pressure, like in traditional en:gasometers, is very space-consuming and inefficient.
(The reason why natural gas (mainly methane), though the better and cheaper fuel, hasn't prevailed, is its difficult storage. It's perfect for stationary applications, from citchen ovens to power plants, where it can be delivered as realtime-feed through pipelines. But whenever it must be stored, either in vehicles carriyng their own fuel, or for delivery to remote sites, it needs heavy, complicated and dangerous high-pressure containers, just for compressed, not yet liquified storage, or even active cooling to liquify it.)
In contrast, LPGs will liquify under medium pressures, in the same range as some beverage bottles. That makes them easy to handle. In fact, the en:gas cylinders used for gas-fueled en:barbecue grills contain LPG, which is stored liquid, but emerges as gas in the outlet.
To the question what exactly is in the containers: I understand LPG as collective term for mainly propane and butane, pure or mixed. If used as en:petrochemical feedstock, one of them will be supplied in pure form. As fuel or en:autogas, cheap mixtures will be used. (There are some preferences: Butane has such a convenient boiling point that it's liquified in disposable en:lighters with very weak vessels, while propane will vaporize under lower temperatures and is suitable for outdoor equipment. But they don't need to be pure for such uses. (For arctic use, gasoline stoves are needed.) See also en:Portable_stove#Gas_cartridge_stoves.)
Now we still don't know what really is in the containers... http://www.miro-ka.de/english/products/pal.htm lists propane, butane and propen as products. They might store all of them in these gas holders, and I guess they do.
--Ikar.us (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, you make it clear to me. --Myrabella (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Pusher boats[edit]

Hello Ikar.us, A discussion is going on there. I feel like creating a special category—even if a previous one has been merged some months ago. There are some ideas of names in the thread I indicate. What would you think of that? Another hope: maybe a good geocoder like you could find the location of this image (+ closer view). Well, the Ob river is only 3,650 kilometres long. --Myrabella (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I found a place where it might have been. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Amazing and convincing, thank you. Maybe I will nominate (this one or the closer view) but I haven't explored all the categories yet. --Myrabella (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Some fresh news on my talkpage. --Myrabella (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hermann Billing[edit]

Hello Ikar.us, I won't say that the portal house in Baischstraße isn't useful in its current state; it remains a good example despite the recent alteration. Another question : I've read there that this building was by Billing. Would you confirm that? --Myrabella (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Baischstraße: The top storey was richly decorated, with many typical Jugendstil characteristics, including asymmetry. The appearance of the house is completely different from Billings work. (It was destroyed in WWII.)
Such a pity! :-( --Myrabella (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The Hoepfner house: I have to search. http://www1.karlsruhe.de/Historie/Denkmale/ is a comprehensive source for the quarters it covers - unfirtunately, the city center isn't covered.
--Ikar.us (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
[1] attributes it to Wellbrock & Schäfers, 1908. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Via appia.jpg[edit]

Location problem is fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Kleuske (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for the new location. I had considered it myself, but agonizing over the exact spot for hours sent me into a cycle of doubt and uncertainty. The more i look at it, the more i think your location is the right one. It fits neatly. Kleuske (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

VI Set candidate Juglans regia[edit]

Hallo Ikar.us. Ich habe dem Set nun noch einen ausführlicheren Kommentar hinzugefügt. Könnten Sie sich bitte die Argumente nochmals anschauen? Vielen Dank. - - Viele Grüße von Karlsruhe nach Karlsruhe (vermute ich zumindest mal auf Grund Ihrer Bilder, "meine" Walnüsse sind aus der Günther-Klotz-Anlage) --Llez (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Lubyanka_KGB.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Lubyanka_KGB.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 | Български | বাংলা | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fernrohr (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour_3.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour_3.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 | Български | বাংলা | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Cezarika1 (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Motor hopper[edit]

Guten Tag Michael
Du du kannst meine Antwort anschauen?
Commons:Valued image candidates/Bagermejster Zvekov ship 2010 G2.jpg
Ich kann Nomination noch einmal machen, wenn Informationen es ist genug.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen --George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Albania Sarandë + Ksamil Village[edit]

Sorry that my topic was not clear, this is a small village near sarande, Ksamil Village. thanks, mike19:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

* * * :) * * *[edit]

Ich wünsche Dir fröhliche Weihnachtsfeiertage und alles Gute und ganz best im Neuen Jahr!
--George Chernilevsky talk 12:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:KGB-Lubyanka-1983.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:KGB-Lubyanka-1983.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 | Български | বাংলা | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fernrohr (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Smart geocoder needed[edit]

Hi Ikar.us, If you ever hung around here, would you please have a look to File:Vizual pokazy laserowe 1.jpg? Geotag is missing. Here are the clues: I found the same the photo on that page, under the section "Andrzejki w Klubie APOLLO". Could be a possible challenger in a MVR then: Commons:Valued image candidates/Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 1.JPG. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour, e merci pour votre carte de nouvel an!
One of the reasons why I quit VI is the geocoding requirement. Geocoding is, of course, necessary for geographic images. For example, all images I've published and probably ever will do need geocoding. But there are many images where geocoding is nice to have, but not essential. And there are many images which were taken at some location, but don't show the location, and where I would consider the location template spamming the map with non-geographic images, if I didn't know that it's requested by VI reviewers (not guidelines). Now that was the ranting.
The location in http://waybackmachine.org/*/http://www.clubapollo.com.pl/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF86dJAbb1M shows similarity to the images and isn't too far away from Krakow, where the laser artist is based.
--Ikar.us (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick answer. It's a pity that you are lost... for the VI project;-) Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Passenger ships and ferries[edit]

Is there a special reason why you removed the type category (passenger ships) and use category (ferries) form the seven ships yesterday? --Stunteltje (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Reederei Norden-Frisia is a member of Category:Ferries in Germany, thus I thought all there ships are ferries, and the individual membership is redundant. --Ikar.us (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
These type and use categories were intended for the individual ships, not for companies. Please have a look at the type and use categories. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, then the companies must be removed. Do you care of the ship categories? Could you clean them up? --Ikar.us (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I will as soon as i am at home again. On board of mij ship very difficult to work on commons, have to use illegaly opened units. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Karlsruhe Königreichssaal.jpg[edit]

I see your work in the VI label, and I thank you. I am saddened that no one can respond to your request for Karlsruhe Königreichssaal.jpg. I know little about this because in France's Witnesses Jéovhah are considered a sect. The scope as you write seems to imply that this picture would have a universal value for all the "Kingdom Hall". Would not it be better to limit it to the city of Karlsruhe? Sincerely. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest.
About value, yes, I believe it's a valuable illustration of the generic term, because it's as functional and unpretentious as kingdom halls are supposed to be, with no decorations and no iconic symbols, but only pure text - and this text is in many languages. Some wikipedias used a foreign example with only foreign text, because there's no image from the respective country. Now they have at least this one with their language included.
About scope, it seems to me that there's an ambigous treatment of generic vs. specific scopes for cases like this:
  • Sometimes the general term is preferred, being represented by an especially representative example;
  • sometimes the individual object is specified in the scope, although it isn't notable itself, but represents the genre well;
  • and sometimes it's completely declined, because the object scope is too narrow, and the wider scope can't be represented by one example.
(cf. town scopes - if there's no bird's eye view, but only one of the city centre, shall it have the town scope, or the (not famous) name of the main square, or is no VI possible for this town?)
Cf. also the church+cathedral discussion. It's the biggest, but not the only kingdom hall in Karlsruhe, and with no special rank ("assembly hall"). "Karlsruhe-Mühlburg kingdom hall" isn't a promising scope IMO.
--Ikar.us (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you I understand. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Car Culture exhibition in Karlsruhe 2011[edit]

I find very interesting is the SET VI, but these works they are free of copyright? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

More precisely, are those works permanently located on public ways, streets or places? Will they stay there after the Car Culture exhibition, or have they been installed only for this event? --Myrabella (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I had doubts myself, but then I reasoned, does permanence mean eternity? This was never required on commons, was it? Would make it practically impossible to use FOP for objects other than buildings. --Ikar.us (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's say after the end of the event. Would those works of art be removed in 2012? --Myrabella (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Nobody knows, I think. In fact, many artworks in public space are residuals of a short-term exhibition. (The artist wants his work to be exhibited, but refuses to donate it; the municipality likes to have some art in public space, but refuses to buy it. So they become Dauerleihgabe (permanent unpaid rental), where permanent doesn't mean eternal, but unlimited, prone to anytime revocation). So they stay standing there until the artist gets someone else buy the object, or the administration needs the space and orders him to take his garbage home. Sometimes they are surprisingly moved to another place in the same town, or another town. And sometimes it's hard to determine the status, e.g. Karlsruhe:Datei:Skulptur_Theaterbrunnen_Erich_Hauser_1989.jpg, which seemed a part of the large fountain field, which is by the same artist and inherently fixed, but the sculpture is now in Stuttgart. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
A bizarre case: The works of architect Ottokar Uhl. One of his favourite ideas is that of "portable churches". None of them has ever been moved until now (47 years), but we should consider them temporary... --Ikar.us (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
In France there is a precedent that the Eiffel Tower. Personally I am very attracted to this type of Contemporary Art. I am pleased to promote this set, hoping that there will be no dispute on the issue of image rights.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

window frames[edit]

I would like to ask for a more detailed comment. Let us imagine we are shooting in a bright sunny day in Summer, and the window frames are painted in white and they shine brightly in direct sunlight. How can we transfer that bright shine of white window frames? Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A month ago I raised this question.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry.
Often reviewers decline a candidate because in the background spots are overexposed. I disagree with them. The subject should be pictured best, and not be sacrificed for unimportant parts.
But as you say, the windows are the subject. So they must be well exposed, IM(nh)O.
This should be easily done. Problems arise if there are important parts of the image which are in very different light. But the fact that something is simply very bright doesn't hinder good exposure, if adequate equipment is used.
--Ikar.us (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, everything clear for me now. Indeed, if I want to show the wall with the windows, I am to pay attention to it. I hope my next try with this RAW will be better.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Château de Florac[edit]

Hello Ikar.us,
Thank you for reviewing File:Chateau Florac Lozere.jpg - and for the geotag fix. From this side, the tower hat may look asymmetric, with the tiled junction to the main roof; actually, from the other side, you can see that the towers encroach on the main wall. However, the perspective "correction" may exaggerate this effect.
I've seen that you are contributing to WLM2011-fr with images from Strasbourg: that's nice! However, each candidate to WLM-fr must bear its ID reference, given in the "Mérimée" database of French heritage monuments ("Le monument devra être identifié par son numéro d’inventaire, tel qu’il figure dans la base Mérimée du ministère de la Culture"). I've added it to your File:Strasbourg StPaul 2011-09.jpg, with the {{Mérimée}} template. Don't hesitate to ask me if you have any question about that rule. Greetings, --Myrabella (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

First aid...[edit]

Hello Ikar.us, A first quick reply, with two pages which may help you to know the monuments eligible to WLM2011-fr in the area you visited:

I will answer your questions more completely soon. Greetings, --Myrabella (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

...and second thoughts[edit]

A complement, not so soon, forgive me. Regarding the French part of the WLM contest, the eligible monuments are those actually protected, being classified in two categories : "classés" (the highest rank of protection) or "inscrits" as a "monument historique". In the Mérimée database, their ID number generally begins with a P (for Protégé ('Protected') I guess). For your information, one of your files has been useful to clarify a rule (the Mérimée template must be in the file description, to take part in the contest (1)). As for other countries, well, an European page lists all the participating countries-but there's not much time left for your unpublished images of Russia or my awaiting images of Belgium... Greetings, --Myrabella (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and nothing to forgive.
I noticed that helpful reviewers checked the submissions and removed the WLM template from ineligible images and added the Mérimée template to the eligible ones. And that other reviewers removed them innocently for redundancy...
By chance I've taken some photos near Saverne which turned out to be eligible.
But I see more oddities in the contest.
  • Unclear: Images must be uploaded within the period, but can be older - does this mean the actual file, or the base image? I.e. what about a reprocessed version of a prepublished image? And contrarily, may an file uploaded in the submission period be enhanced during the evaluation period?
  • Unclear: Only one image per contributor can win; a contributor can contribute more than one image of each monument; but are set-like contributions honoured in some way?
  • Weird: Landscape images are preferred (for Germany), because they fit in the table layout - not a criterion that I'd apply in a photography contest.
  • Each participating country has his own evaluation criteria rules - OK, but they shouldn't be contradictory. In France, technical quality has first priority; in Germany, it's not important.
  • And at the end - it's stated that the contest is over. No winners announced yet, and no timeline for judgement.
--Ikar.us (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ikar.us, Regarding you first question, I would say that only previously unpublished images should be eligible, but it's true that this rule is not explicitely specified. For all your remarks, hmmm, maybe could you contact your own chapter, or the organizers of the contest (there is a mailing list), or drop a note on the project talkpage to share this feedback ; and what about be a member of the organizing team next year? As far as I'm concerned, and from a general point of view, the contest is above all an opportunity to complete the images collection of heritage buildings in Commons, and to attract new contributors for Commons... and for WP. Personally, if I'd seriously considered the possibility to win something, I would have planned my summer vacation elsewhere, in Denmark for instance: with less than 1000 images uploaded for that country, I would have had a better chance to be selected among the finalists than contributing to the French contest (more than 25000 uploads) or the German one (nearly 30000 new files!). This, and I would also have freed my September "IRL" schedule. Last chance: the contest is still open... in Hungary (until 21 October). Good luck, then! --Myrabella (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC) PS : Have you noticed that there is a special award for "Art Nouveau" images ?
Yes, I have - see Commons:Valued image candidates/Baischstraße! --Ikar.us (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished[edit]

Logo Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 català | dansk | Deutsch | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | français | galego | magyar | Lëtzebuergesch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | română | русский | svenska | +/−

Dear Ikar.us,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help.
You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Map of participating countries of Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 22:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

window frames, volume 2[edit]

After your clear explanation I reworked the photo, so you may see its improved variant. I tried to show the window frames with more details. The purpose of this detail view was, to show the picturesque church wall with the windows. Thank you for help!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Dear mr. Michael, may I ask for a minute from yours to check the above-mentioned image, whether it can become QI now? Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Does it depend on me? --Ikar.us (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I Believe I can see structureless blobs on the wall. Remainders of overexposed areas. Better wait for other reviewers. --Ikar.us (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

* * * Gutes Neues Jahr 2012! * * *

-- George Chernilevsky talk 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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.
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 | Български | বাংলা | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Viele Grüße -- Saibo (Δ) 18:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

File:HAMC BD.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:HAMC BD.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 | Български | বাংলা | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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.
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 | Български | বাংলা | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely Trycatch (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Bereschkowskaja.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Bereschkowskaja.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 | Български | বাংলা | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

84.61.181.19 21:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
DBAG Class 189 .
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.