User talk:Jacquesverlaeken

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Jacquesverlaeken!
Babel user information
fr
en-3
nl-2
de-1
Users by language

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Dalaas Klostertal 2010.jpg[edit]

Hello. The composition of the picture is very nice. Unfortunately, you overdid it using the Brightness/Contrast button, and now the image is overblown, sadly. Could you dail it back a notch (or two)? Thanks in advance. Kleuske (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for comment, it is the first feedback I receive. I can reduce the contrast (which I wanted to see better the mountains) but I have to learn how to modify a picture once on Wiki! ==Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Austri 1850 ANK1MIII.jpg[edit]

Thanks for the very useful postmark id! Arno-nl (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

For my records, I identified Zengg on a yellow 1 kreuzer - a difficult stamp - , which I have now added to the Austrian page in French. You have a lot of uploads on South america etc, which I am interested in also. Strange enough, there is very little from Austria. Very grateful for such positive feedback!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Category[edit]

Hi! You created Bronze statues in the Czech Republic recently. I've deleted it and moved the content to Category:Bronze statues in the Czech Republic. This is probably what you intended to do? Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, the problem was the surprizing lack of the Czech R. in the category!! Not able to create the Subcategory, I was compelled to initiate a Gallery. Regarding Galleries, a lot of work is possible (and perhaps) needed. There are surely more than my 2 pictures for Bohemia/Moravia!! A possibility is to create 13 galleries as per the recent Czech R. split. I believe in the real interest of galleries! Categories are just a start!! They present the pictures completely in disorder!! With my regards, pleased to make your knowledge! You make added value, not like some (administrators?) who care only about an image being in "center" or "left"!!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. Trijnsteltalk 15:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

To be recognized is a honour that I really appreciate. Thanks!!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Landsknechte[edit]

I put this comment on your Kirchheim painted house photo."On the left pillar of the painting is a Landsknechte mercenary soldier".I watch your photos the Panasonic Leica lens is excellent but has to be in able hands.Nice work Best regards Notafly (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Also a stamp collector.Great stamps too.

  • Thanks for this description contribution, and for this appreciation! Regarding pictures, I use Adobe to improve the image focus (size reduction) when possible. Regarding the file size, I am hesitant to shot > 3 M for fear of the battery discharge during a day in trip.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Hi. Please be more careful with categorization issues. "Category:History of Austria-Hungary" which you created is just same as "Category:Austria-Hungary". Everything related to every former country is history, so there cannot be anything related to Austria-Hungary which is not history. In the case of postmarks, category "Posmarks of Austria-Hungary" will cover these postmarks just fine. Second thing, you cannot include categories created for modern countries (like "Category:Postmarks of Croatia") into categories for former countries like Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, etc. "Postmarks of Croatia" would feet into categories "Croatia" and "Postmarks by country". If some files from that category are from Austro-Hungarian or Yugoslav period then you should include each of these files into categories like "Postmarks of Yugoslavia" or "Postmarks of Austria-Hungary", but you should not include whole "Postmarks of Croatia" category there. PANONIAN (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Hello.I agree with your point about history of A-H. Regarding the second point, the categories I had added refer to Galleries, which include files covering a large period, not just that of the independent state. I want a short link to the Austria-Hungary period, which existed only for the Czech Lands and Ukraine. I feel that all postmarks galleries - created and split under my initiative according to the current modern state (which is verifiable) - should link (as a whole) at least to the Empire of Austria and A-H as relevant. To make that link for individual stamps is fine of course, but not enough. I have made today a step in this direction for the Croatian gallery, but I am ready to wait for your concurrence to proceed further. Note also that I had asked (in 2012) for a definition of the Category Postmarks of Austria-Hungary, created without a definition in 2008. This is mainly because the French Catalogs refer to Austria-Hungary ONLY for the occupation stamps during WWI, hence this persistent ambiguïty. With regards.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

My point is that history and geography should not be mixed. For example, if you want to split category "Postmarks of Austria-Hungary" into more categories then you should use historical subdivisions of Austria-Hungary for that purpose; for example "Postmarks of the Kingdom of Hungary", "Postmarks of Croatia-Slavonia", "Postmarks of Carniola", etc. Serbia and Slovenia simply were not subdivisions of Austria-Hungary, so categorizing these modern countries under Austria-Hungary category is factually wrong. I would not object if you create new categories named something like "Postmarks of Serbia/Slovenia until 1918" and then to include these new categories into "Postmarks of Serbia/Slovenia" and "Postmarks of Austria-Hungary" categories. Alternativelly, you can categorize each file which shows stamp published in the time of Austria-Hungary into both categories: "Postmarks of Serbia/Slovenia" and "Postmarks of Austria-Hungary". I do not agree that categories named "Postmarks of Serbia/Slovenia/etc" are "covering a large period". Names of these categories are specifically impling that they are related only to modern countries. If there is intention that they indeed cover a large period then names of such categories should be different. At least, such categories should be split into two categories: "Postmarks of Serbia/Slovenia" and "Former postmarks of Serbia/Slovenia" in which case historical connection would be clearly defined in the category. PANONIAN (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I must admit that I was tired and I actually thought that postmark galleries that you made are in fact categories. Now I see that they are galleries, so forget my previos post. I would still think that you should categorize these galleries only under their country category, but I think that besides galleries named "Postmarks of Serbia/Croatia/etc" you can also create galleries named "Postmarks of Austria-Hungary", "Postmarks of Yugoslavia" and similar. Then you can post files from these periods in both relevant galleries. PANONIAN (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I just started new article for that: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Postmarks_of_Austria-Hungary Fell free to expand this article with stamps from other territories of Austria-Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this initiative!I have understood what you want. Of course, I will avoid to strictly repeat the sub-galleries when they exist, for example by making a strict selection, by having emphasis on postmark style etc. Needless to say that the scope is enormous! We will see. - While the attribution to a current country is generally undisputable (thanks Wikipedia!), for old regions I have to rely on Mueller and Klein, which have different systems. - I lack precise documentation for the Kingdom of Hungary after 1871. - We have here a good example of how constructive discussion results in solutions!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Eesti | English | Español | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Română | Svenska | ไทย | Українська | +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Dear Jacquesverlaeken,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo



العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Eesti | Français | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Svenska | ไทย | +/−

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear Jacquesverlaeken,

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

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 | 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:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 13:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Same argument: the design is unusable because of a clear, large cancellation. Do I have to remind that the purpose of a postal cancellation is to prevent the re-use of the stamp? Why would it not be the same for copyright issues? Regards.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I note that the issue is resolved with a caution for the US 95 years rule (2014).

File:Kuks 1924 300 heller Kukus.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Kuks 1924 300 heller Kukus.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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Gumruch (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  • My argument for the 1924 300 heller Kukus is that the design is cancelled by a clear, central cancellation.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

File:1859 Uruguay 240C Mi13a.jpg Forgery - others?[edit]

This file shows a typical Geneva forgery, I moved it to the correct section and in the related page as well.Arno-nl (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for this confirmation and details! I renamed the file as well. Please feel free to check the last uploads (80 C Mi9a and 100 C Mi16a).

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jacques. The 16a is genuine, some indicators (Serrane pages 357 and 358): The letters R and E of the left CORREO touch at the bottom, The letters N and T of MONTEVIDEO touch at the bottom, The inner rectangle left distance to the outer rectangle is about 2,5mm and the right distance to the outer rectangle is about 3mm. 97 rays. The final S of CENTESIMOS is slanted to the left and does not touch the extension of the solid inner rectangle, the center circle is shifted to the left, the wavy lines are frequently broken (in good impressions). The overall image and color is also ok. Arno-nl (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Are both 80 centimos Uruguay stamps genuine?[edit]

They do not convince me 100%. I will send my copy to Moorhouse for expertise, in most cases when there is doubt the stamp is not genuine, but the classic Uruguayans are exceedingly difficult.Arno-nl (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A letter with Yvert 8 (80 c) and a same oval cancel but 19 AGOSTO 1859 (instead of 24), signed by Diena, has been proposed by Corinphila for 3000 SF in 1974. Mine (unused) has been pencil noted "Auth". These are just positive indications. Curious to see the Moorhouse reaction.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Stamps category[edit]

This edit provides rather a distorted view of what is currently recommended per COM:MAXSIZE. Things have chnaged quite a bit since the 9 year old posts that you seem to have taken as the basis for the change. Suggesting such limitations when they are purely arbitrary does not seem like good advise to me. It would be preferable to indicatentaht your suggestions are useful sizes based on experience and not the be all and end all but also point readers to COM:MAXSIZE where the maximum limit is explained. Currently the advise your provided is an artificial ceiling. Don't you agree? Ww2censor (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, I agree. I did not want to indicate a limit, just to indicate indeed a practical experience with many uploads (mines and others). It should be emphazised that 10-30 kB or so is a disgrace for stamps images. Feel free to combine the concepts!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds like good advise. Let's work out some more suitable revised guidelines, which can apply to both the enwiki and commons, as Philafrenzy mentions below. Ww2censor (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Stamp scans - Utopia?[edit]

I reverted you on this. Most stamp scans are not too large even if very high resolution as the originals are small. Covers are slightly different as we don't expect users to wait a long time to scan a cover as 2400. There should probably be a discussion about this at the Philately Project on Wikipedia. Remember that we are trying to capture detailed images for the benefit of posterity when computer capability will be much higher. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not remember that as I have never read this in a Wikimedia policy! Anyhow, the current proportion of scans of stamps > 1 Mb is minuscule. My intention was to deal with the reality of today, not to surf in utopia. I have even seen people reverting to a very small image because their system did not display correctly a few Mbytes! In practice now, I am scanning at 600 dpi rather than 400 for the benefit of posterity (I like that feeling). Written for my records, I do not expect further discussion in this user page on the topic. Regards.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Postmarks of Uruguay[edit]

Thanks for your recent Uruguay uploads. FYI in postmarks - I added to descriptions regarding postmarks. An incomplete list:

  • Ciphre and Numeral in oval

A=Montevideo B=Salto C=Paysandu D=Rio Negro E=Soriano F=Coonia G=San Jose H=Canelones I=Florida J=Durazno K=Tacuarembo L=Cerro Largo LL=Lavalleja M=Rocha N=MALDONADO & ARTIGAS O=Rivera P=TREINTA Y TRES Q=FLORES

  • TPO

G19 belonging to the Central Western extension railroad for the Montevideo - Mercedes connection

  • River steamers

F24 cancellation belonging to the ESTAFETA FLUVIAL NUEVA PALMIRA F47 belonging to Steamer VAPOR LUNA C1 or C16 cancellations belonging to the Estafeta Fluvial Pueblo Guaviyu & Estafeta Fluvial y Ferrocarril P. de los Toros a Salto

  • Railroad

Nine bars E38 cancel belonging to SORIANO for the train that departed from Casada de Nieto

  • Literature

Uruguay - The Travelling Post Offices (2nd edition) Jay Walmsley Publisher: Jay Grace Walmsley; 2nd edition edition (August 1, 2012) ISBN-10: 0955583829

Excellent, noted in one of my xls sheets! By the way, do you intend to continue the Uruguay gallery for more years (I mean after 1894)? I could contribute (as usual) with some good cancels.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad you like the info. My focus is mainly on material before 1900 - so no did not intend to.Arno-nl (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Category redirect[edit]

Hello, Jacquesverlaeken. You recently redirected Category:Nude women in art by material to Nude females in art by medium. This caused a few problems: (1) the redirect target is not a category. (2) no category by that name exists. (3) categories should not be redirected at all; instead, we use the template {{Category redirect}}. I've reverted the category to the last good state, so that you can decide what, if any, existing category is an appropriate target (or create it if it doesn't already exist). --R'n'B (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks, the intent was good (to rationalize the categories in that area, including a difference already made partially between women and females), so I restart in a more classic way.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Paintings of nude standing females in the 19th century[edit]

"19th-century paintings of nude standing females" would probably more clearly express the intended meaning... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I hope that you refer to the description (definition) text. As the same words are used in another order, if it sounds better for US-British minds, no problem. But regarding the categories (ranging from 15th to 21th c), there are several criteria for the choice of their name, which I can explain if needed. More generally, I feel that if a category contains more than 200 media, it is high time to create rational (not subjective) subcategories with a definition (not like "buttocks" or "facing left" or "erotic"...). After long analysis of the situattion, I retain by century, by country, by posture, by medium, by author as meeting my criteria for rationality and independence (in a mathematical sense: there is no redundancy or coverage). For example the difference between women and girl is subjective, unless the creator made a clear indication himself. Bathing outdoor and in nature have a clear coverage - they are related cats. In fact, the Wikimedia system does not allow a clear understanding of the complex relations as defined in any THESAURUS theory. Thanks for your positive feedback. Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Your comments are so abstractly philosophical that I have a very hard time following them. The basic issue is that they're women on paintings painted in the 19th century, but NOT necessarily 19th-century women (many are figures from ancient history or classical mythology, or vague allegories, or from an undated orientalist never-never land)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand now better your concern. As my proposed definition states Oil paintings of nude standing females (women, girls) created in the 19th century. Frequent theme of the Academic art., and by looking at all parent categories, there is very little possibility of confusion. I propose to group those century related cats in a parent Paintings of nude standing females by century of creation. There are many similar categories referring to centuries(sculptures, statues...). To understand why I am reluctant to change the cats names, see the lookups that appear using HotCat: all possibilities which start with the same words (partial sequence) appear, which is a fantastic help for the edition.
Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The original intention behind the category might become clearer in context -- but it would be even better, of course, if the category didn't have a confusing name, and so was instantly understandable... AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Linear postmarks vs Straight line cancel[edit]

Hello Jacques, i noticed the page Postmarks of Bolivia, nice work. A section is called linear postmarks, I think the more correct philatelic definition here is straight line cancel, often abbreviated as 's/l' at auctions. Arno-nl (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have made a 3-lingual description of the category. The use of 'Marques postales linéaires' is well established in the French catalogs. I leave to our English colleagues the need (if) to change the cat name. Let us note that they are in common use before the adhesive stamps, so they are often not cancels but truly informative postmarks. For me, a cancel purpose is to prevent the reuse of a postage stamp. Thanks for this feedback!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

File 1861 Uruguay 60C Dolores Mi14.jpg is a Fournier.[edit]

This file shows a Fournier creation, both stamp and cancel are illustrated in his album on page 153. Arno-nl (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Schopfloch: Im weißen Rößl?[edit]

Im weißen Rößl (English: White Horse Inn)I put a note on the page.Probably an inn serving stagecoach (Postkutsche) travellers. It may be listed in a Baedecker (Verlag Karl Baedeker),if you can find one.White Horse Inns are common in England on major roads or important junctions. I was born near one in Derbyshire which is why I know.I enjoyed your very good September photos. Best regards Robert Notafly2 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, it is indeed plausible. A post-office was opened only in 1861. However one can read 'Ross' (horse), left of the door; Rössel (my German dictionary) means actually a little horse; 'Rössl', as in the famous lyrics, could be local language. I do not understand why it does not appear in the Cultural monuments (de wiki). I am very glad of your appreciation of the last photos, more are to come!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your grandfather was a landscape painter[edit]

Who was your grandfather and do you have some pictures/photos of his paintings to upload, if they are free of copyright? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Omer De Landsheer is born in Sint Lievens Houtem (East Flanders) on 1-3-1898; President of the "Kunstschilders Gewestelijke Groep Beersel" (Pajottenland, Brabant) where he was active since the 1950s until his death on 22-2-1981. One landscape is in Beersel collection (I just found it on the web!). Painting was a passionate freetime hobby. He interpreted existing photos mainly, and gave a number to each oil canvas (> 1000). Of course I can take pictures of the few that I selected and received from him, but I do not know (yet) how to manage the copyrights. Thanks for your question.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:1948 Blankenberge Esplanade en construction.jpg[edit]

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for this feedback, I had given some information about author of the picture (1892-1957). I have replaced PD-old license with PD-heirs. Is this good enough?

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

    • Looks OK now.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Juršinci Ptuj Sideway Christ Mary 203.JPG[edit]

Resolved

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Dornava Mansion 195.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dornava Mansion 195.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Categories with a gallery for a better choice of sub-categories[edit]

Please dont remove this category as you did from several categories. I explained in the talk page and one year ago in Commons talk:WikiProject Gallery pages why I created these galleries at the top of main categories. To help users to choose the right sub-category. And I gathered them in this category to see what galleries exist and pick good ideas. Regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your revert on Categories with a gallery...[edit]

Hi,

What discussion are you refering to? I saw no new discussion since March 2015 but maybe I'm missing something.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

See the Discussion page on this cat. I have just attempted to present a development on my thoughts a couple of minutes ago (22h22). For the moment I conclude that this cat has no real operational relevance. Regards,

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI: East Timor[edit]

[1] East Timor is in Asia. Greetings, --JPF (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not familiar with ex Portugal colonies; for my catalogue, it is even in Oceania! Thanks for this feedback.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Architectural elements in Israel[edit]

It's also still a country. Please don't remove by country categorisation when adding by continent categorisation (and please undo the removals you've already done). LX (talk, contribs) 12:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes of course it is a country, but in Asia. This position (need to maintain redundant cats) can be discussed! See Category talk:Architectural elements by country where I gave my opinion on February 23. Regards.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Postmarks of Poland gallery rearrangement[edit]

Hello Jacques! I am confused as to the arrangement of this item: Postmarks of Poland, 1850-1919. The title is 'Postmarks...' next there is a grouping by area but then there is no alphabetical sorting by town, which one would expect, but partly by kreuzer/heller currency and later by date. I would like to suggest an improvement: Postmarks

Area (alphabetically)
Town (alphabetically)
Year

Thanks!Arno-nl (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you! Being not familiar with the Polish names, the sorting I used is indeed by chronological order, which has also some significance (It shows the evolution of postmarks by type). I suggest that you first add a wiki link to the current name (as used in Galicia, Prussia era etc) - as I do for more recent work - before trying to sort by Polish name. By the way, you may consult or contribute to the wiki SOTW for a more systematic view of postmarks by country/town.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The SOTW? Smoke on the water, stuff of the week, slap on the wrist... ?? Arno-nl (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
http://stampsoftheworld.co.uk/wiki/Stamps_of_the_World --- should really be better known!!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Frage Vienna area-Wien Umgebung[edit]

Hallo, kannst du mir bitte erklären, was das jetzt genau ist: [2]? Bwag (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Brunnen in Wien-Umgebung. See the map in the Category:Fountains in Lower Austria. I have just found that the area will be split in 2017 among the other regions. Thanks for your question, I had invented a plausible English translation for it.
Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, passt! - Bwag (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Houses in Austria by city[edit]

Hi, Jacquesverlaeken. I re-established this category, because there's no apparent reason to delete it. If you would like to remove it, please discuss it first, such as at categories for discussion. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Same problem for similar cases like Fountains in Austria by city
You removed yourself the reason for my change - what is a city in Austria? - and my suggestion to limit it to the States capitals. Another possibility is to mention by municipality (instead of by city) which is a clear concept in many countries (Gemeinde, commune etc). It is not up to the users to make such interpretation. See the examples for Sweden in the root Category:Categories by city (flat list). Such a simple change would satisfy me (see my user page) in terms of ambiguïty removal, although I do not see interest of such cat. All Fountains or Houses etc in any country can be (are) associated to a populated place (city, municipality, village etc) without the need to add this cat. Perhaps that you can define this cat and explain its added value? Thanks. Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to answer you. What is a city anywhere? There are many places categorized as cities in Austria, including in "by city" categories. You haven't said why this is a problem. Are you saying that these places have been categorized incorrectly up to now? OK, but if you're going to change something that has been done for a long time, you need to explain why it's wrong and discuss it before making such a big change (as another editor and I already said at Category talk:Houses in Austria by city). A good place to discuss this would be at either the Village pump or at Category talk:Cities in Austria (a category that has existed since 2004). Until there is a discussion, please do not remove anything from being categorized as a city. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Houses vs. residential buildings[edit]

Please stop moving images of houses from house categories to residential building categories. A house is one type of residential building, so the whole house category can go under residential buildings. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Residential buildings include more than houses. They include any kind of building where people live. This includes apartment buildings, monasteries, orphanages, and more. Look in Category:Residential buildings to see other examples.
As for your comment that you can choose where to put a file because it is your photo, that is not true. After you upload a file, it is no longer yours alone, and anyone can make these changes. Every file should go in the most specific category. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand, and agree now. Note that there was no didactic link made between Houses and Residential buildings (see the history of those root cats). Would you thus admit that cats Residential buildings in ... be replaced by Houses in ... if appropriate? What is strange is that there are few pictures of houses in Lower Austria, so I thought that Residential buildings was more specific (or at least in usual usage). Except in towns, many arein fact behind Farmhouses. Regards. --Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if a building is a house and there is a category for houses for the location, then the file should go in the category for houses. If there's no category for houses in a city, for example, a file could be in "residential buildings in <city>" and "houses in <country>". If there's only one file for houses in the city, it's not always necessary to create a category for just one file. The same is true for any combination of places where one contains the other (continent/country, country/state, state/county (at least in the US, etc.)
Farmhouses are just houses that are on farms. They can go in a category for houses if there's no category for farmhouses for their location.
Let me know if I can explain any further. Regards. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Ruše Memorial Mother & Child 234.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Ruše Memorial Mother & Child 234.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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Eleassar (t/p) 21:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Ruše Memorial Man 235.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Ruše Memorial Man 235.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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Eleassar (t/p) 21:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of your photo[edit]

Der Jacquesverlaeken, Thank you for your picture of the vineyard near Bühl. I used it for my website. You will find it here: Wein aus Deutschland. Best regards, --Holger Casselmann (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a great pleasure to find old pictures (paper prints) worth a second life!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)