User talk:Multichill/Archives/2015/September

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

File:Gevel straatzijde nr. GD 2 - Osdorp - 20478137 - RCE.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Gevel straatzijde nr. GD 2 - Osdorp - 20478137 - RCE.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)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Paulbe (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Gevels vanuit het land gezien nr. GD 3 - Osdorp - 20478138 - RCE.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Gevels vanuit het land gezien nr. GD 3 - Osdorp - 20478138 - RCE.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)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Paulbe (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Zij- en voorgevel nr. GC 12 - Osdorp - 20478133 - RCE.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Zij- en voorgevel nr. GC 12 - Osdorp - 20478133 - RCE.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)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Paulbe (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Voor- en zijgevel nr. GC 11 - Osdorp - 20478134 - RCE.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Voor- en zijgevel nr. GC 11 - Osdorp - 20478134 - RCE.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)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Paulbe (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Zij- en voorgevel nr. GD 1 - Osdorp - 20478136 - RCE.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Zij- en voorgevel nr. GD 1 - Osdorp - 20478136 - RCE.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)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Paulbe (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi there,

Can you please check this page: Category:Arboretum_national_des_Barres, bottom page, 10 pics I took and started uploading but then thought they may be copyright because they are pics of statues, so names them "to be deleted" and marked them for deletion. But they haven't been deleted yet, so I don't know. Is it copyright or not? If not, I can upload them again with a proper name for each. Thanks for saying :) Basicdesign (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Starr 040509-0008 Agave attenuata.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Starr 040509-0008 Agave attenuata.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)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Nadiatalent (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Starr 040509-0010 Agave attenuata.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Starr 040509-0010 Agave attenuata.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)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Nadiatalent (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Listed building templates

Greetings Multichill! I just wanted to say I really like the feature in {{NRHP}} to search for additional images of the same building. Do you think it would be possible to add that functionality to {{Listed building England}} and {{Listed building Scotland}}? Kelly (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kelly: happy to hear you like it! I updated the templates and also added it to {{Listed building Wales}}, {{Listed building Northern Ireland}} and some others. Commons:Monuments database/Indexed images contains the full list of templates for which this would be possible. Multichill (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
That's great, thank you! Kelly (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
This only seems to work when individual images have {{Listed building Scotland}} and not when the template is applied to a category, as it should be for a collection of images of the same building. Is this correct behaviour? Logically it should display a gallery of all the images in the categiry, but the category already does that. It's inefficient to apply listed building templates to each and every image of a listed building (just look at the mess which is Category:Listed buildings in Scotland with known IDs). Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You're mistaken Rodhullandemu. Yes, the template can be added to categories too, but should primarily be added to the individual images. You shouldn't remove the template! That's very country productive. Why are you removing it? File:Rossdhu House - geograph.org.uk - 423126.jpg used to contain a nice link for more information. How am I supposed to find that as now? Categories? Only incrowd uses categories, you can't expect from a normal person to find this anymore. If I What mess in Category:Listed buildings in Scotland with known IDs? That's a flat hidden tracker category and should contain way more images. Category:Rijksmonumenten with known IDs is more like it. Multichill (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I use the links from the individual image pages all the time, and add them as I have time to do research. Kelly (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
One object of categories is to collect information relevant to one item, e.g. a building, into one place so as to avoid having an error-prone disparate group of categories applied to individual images. It therefore makes sense to do the same for templates- I dispute that categories are only for some "incrowd", whose identity I cannot ascertain; anyone can type search terms into the box and get some results pointing them to the correct categories. If categories are to be judged as worthless then my last few years here have been wasted and it is time for me to move on to something else while I'm still alive. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear Rodhullandemu, it's established practice to add the template to the images and also to the categories. This is the case for well over a million images. Please do improve on categorization, just leave the listed building template on the images. Multichill (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Established practice is misguided. I can't see the use of a flat category containing about 375000 images- it is simply not sensibly navigable. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This is not a category mend for human navigation, it is mend to have a complete overview, and that is also why it is a hidden category. Humans will start at Category:Listed_buildings_in_Scotland and either work location wise or type wise. Akoopal (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

other images in the monument database

Hi Multichill, some days ago you added a new feature to the ID-templates to show additional images with the same ID. This is a very useful feature. One remark: renamed images are double-listed. Would it be possible to skip file redirects? As an example consider File:Rindenkapelle raning.JPG. Thanks a lot for your engagement. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

sorry to come again: the link does not work here File:Braunau Friedhofskapelle.JPG, no idea why. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Herzi Pinki: Looking at the history of Commons:Monuments database/Indexed images/Statistics: Last run was 16 June 2015‎ (phab:T55814). I looked up the code and it shouldn't include redirects. Should probably check it again after an update run. We track bugs and feature requests in phabricator. If this still happens after an update a bug should probably be filed. Multichill (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I only see the phenomena on the user interface, not enough involved (a pity) in the inner procedures of the monument database. Thanks for pointing me to the statistics page, I'll be patient and recheck. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)