User talk:Ulamm

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

– For older corresponences see User talk:Ulamm/Archive 2007–2017

File:Reszel July 2007 02.JPG[edit]

Sorry, I have no clue where that may be if I made an error in description. It was 2013; I barely remember my trips from last summer... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Haven't you kept the original numbers the photos have on the chip?
With a larger definition of the localization, it would be possible to give them a name that invites people to identify them, and to place them among Category:Brick Gothic churches in Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship, instead of a wrong powiat-category.--Ulamm (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Image without license[edit]

File:Powiaty-swietokrzyskie-2018-02.png[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 18:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sortierung von Kirchengebäuden[edit]

Kannst Du mir bitte sagen warum Du die Sortierung der Kirchengebäude änderst. Bislang war es üblich nach Patrozinium und nicht nach Ortsteil zu sortieren. Gib mir bitte einen Link, wo eine Regel, nach der Du handelst beschrieben wird. Ansonsten nimm bitte Abstand von den Änderungen. Danke! --NeverDoING (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Die Sortierung nach dem Heiligen dominiert nur im Rheinland.
  • Ansonsten geht es zumeist wild durcheinander.
  • Die Sortierung nach Ländern, Kreisen und Kommunen ist geografisch. Da ist es logisch, auch innerhalb der Kommunen geografisch zu sortieren.
  • Evangelische Kirchen heißen manchmal nach Heiligen oder verdienten Personen ohne Heiligenschein oder Begriffen, manchmal aber auch nur nach ihrem Ort. Wo letzteres üblich ist, stehen bei Sortierung nach Heiligen alle evangelischen Kirchen unter "evangelisch", oder in den Niederlanden hätte man eine Sortierung nach "Hervormde kerk", "Gereformeerde kerk" und, wo die neue Kirchenunion schon ins Lemma eingegangen ist, "Protestantse kerk".
  • Mit der konsequent geografischen Sortierung gibt die Kategorieliste schon einen gewissen Einblick in die Architekturlandschaft.

--Ulamm (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Danke für Deine ausführliche Antwort. Es gibt nur leider keine allgemeinverbindliche Regel und dann ist es schade, wenn mühevolle Sortierungen durch einen Handstreich zunichte gemacht werden. Ich komme Dir aber nicht in die Quere. Frohe Ostern! --NeverDoING (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Re:Terracottaskulpturen an der Katharinenkirche in Brandenburg[edit]

Guten Abend Ulamm,

Danke für die Information. Da du die Info aus erster Hand hast - könntest du bitte Beschreibung und Kategorisierung selbst richtig stellen? Dann bleibt weniger Raum für neue Irrtümer. lg--Xenophon (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ich habe noch einmal im Führer durch die Katharinenkirche (2008) nachgesehen, den ich damals bei der Beschreibung zu Rate gezogen habe. Demzufolge sind von den Skulpturen nur noch eine heilige Katharina und eine heilige Amalberga mittelalterliche Originale, der Rest stammt vom Potsdamer Bildhauer Friedrich Wilhelm Koch (1864). Demzufolge müsste es sich bei den männlichen Heiligen um Werke Kochs handeln. Aber falls du neuere Erkenntnisse hast - ich stehe einer Änderung nicht im Weg. lg --Xenophon (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Inzwischen habe ich das gleiche gefunden:
http://ns.gis-bldam-brandenburg.de/HTML-8336/BRBKatharina.pdf.html
Vielleich schaffe ich es, demnächst die beiden beinahe echten (Repliken nach Gipsabgüssen) zu fotografieren.
Dank und Gruß, Ulamm (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prießen_Kirche_2b.jpg[edit]

Hallo, offensichtlich hast du das Bild beschnitten, warum glaubst du dich nun deshalb mit als Urheber bezeichnen zu dürfen? LG LutzBruno

Als Erst-Autor stehst doch du da.
Mit "turned & cut" habe ich eindeutig klargestellt, dass ich dein Foto nur nachbearbeitet habe.
Daher auch die zusätzliche Category:Commons photo adapted by Ulamm
Wer etwas nachbearbeitet, und das ist mehr als die unproblematische Korrektur einer eindeutigen Fehlbelichtung, soll sich dazu bekennen und nicht behaupten, diese Nachbearbeitung habe dem Wunsch des Autors entsprochen.--Ulamm (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Image without license[edit]

File:Belgien Backsteingotik mit Ortsnamen 2.png[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 13:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Mazowsze w.png[edit]

Wieso "Małwa"? Es heisst doch Mława.--Alan ffm (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Danke für den Hinweis! Das war mein legasthenischer Finger ;) __––Ulamm (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Ähnlich mit File:Polen - historische Regionen.png - Siedlec -> Siedlce, Białograd -> Białogard, Myslibórz -> Myślibórz.
Und Drohiczyn an falschen Stelle, am falschen Fluss gesetzt:) --Alan ffm (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Vielen Dank für die Hinweise, Alan! Allerdings liegt Drohiczyn zwar am Bug und nicht am Narew, aber dort doch am rechten Ufer: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.397222&mlon=22.659167&zoom=11#map=13/52.3844/22.6230
Was würdest du übrigens von einer nur und ganz (einschließlich der Erklärungen!) in Polnisch beschrifteten Version dieser Karte halten – nicht jetzt sondern irgendwann im November?
Beste Grüße, Ulamm (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Unclear name[edit]

Category:Cycletracks against cyclists - is it supposed to group bicycle infrastructure photos without cyclists in photo? Or poorly designed cycling infrastructure? Or something else?

I asked also on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Cycletracks_against_cyclists

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not "without cyclists" – That would be or is a problem of intelligence and patience of the photographers.
"Against cyclists" says, this category is meant for cycling infrastructure that reduces comfort and safety of cycling instead of improving them.--Ulamm (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments ti aspetta, con centinaia di nuovi comuni fotografabili[edit]

Concorso Wiki Loves Monuments Italia 2018 (English version)

Gentile Ulamm, ti ringraziamo ancora una volta per la tua passata partecipazione a Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM). Il più grande concorso fotografico del mondo si svolge anche questo settembre per documentare e promuovere il patrimonio culturale italiano, con una licenza copyright libera.

Quest'anno è doppiamente facile partecipare: gli oggetti fotografabili coprono quasi 1000 comuni in più, grazie all'adesione di centinaia di nuovi enti fra cui Roma, e alla possibilità di fotografare circa 2000 alberi monumentali. Controlla le liste di monumenti fotografabili! Carica tutte le foto che hai e magari organizza una visita presso i monumenti che ancora non hanno una foto.

Quest'oggi il Parlamento europeo ha respinto la proposta di estendere la libertà di panorama. E allora scattiamo e pubblichiamo tutte le foto che possiamo, almeno per questi monumenti per cui ci è legalmente consentito!

Grazie, Nemo 16:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Image without license[edit]

File:Schiffdorf St.Martin182Schiff S.JPG[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 13:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


File:Schiffdorf St.Martin180Chorgiebel.JPG[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 13:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


File:Schiffdorf St.Martin179Chor S.JPG[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 13:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


File:Blexen151Turm NW150.jpg[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 11:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Map of the annual average discharge of Rhine and Maas 2000-2011 (FR).png[edit]

Bonjour.

Bravo pour cette carte qui donne le débit du Rhin 100% et de la Meuse 11.3%.

Le problème, si on fait les totaux, on obtient 99% pour le Rhin et 11,2% pour la Meuse. On ne sait pas dans quel sens coule la Spui (en cherchant on sait que son cours a été inversé), mais à mon avis il faudrait l'indiquer clairement avec une flèche. Que font les valeurs 4,9% / 1,3% de la Spui? Faut-il les ajouter au Rhin ou à la Meuse? Sont-elles déjà comprises? Je n'en ai pas tenu compte pour l'addition du début. Les valeurs du Haringvliet sont-elles avant ou après l'embranchement après la Spui? Il faudrait mettre les deux valeurs (avant et après le Spui), ce ne peut pas être les mêmes.

--Io Herodotus (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Le Spui coule du Haringvliet à l'Oude Maas, voir la graphique plus schematique File:Rijn-Maas-water %.png.
Le Riijkswaterstaat (l'administration natiionale des eaux des Bays-Bas) donne tous valeurs en relation à la quantité de l'eau, qui entre aux Pays-Bas par le Rhin.
--Ulamm (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Saxony-Anhalt location map.png[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Saxony-Anhalt location map.png, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Rhône Basin map[edit]

Hi, just wanting to say that I am very appreciative of the work you did in creating your map of the Rhône Basin. Don't have any feedback other than I find it fantastic. I very much like river basin maps and yours is one of the best I have seen. Thank you. Oska (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2019[edit]

WLM-Banner-Bg.jpg
Hallo Ulamm,

bald ist es soweit: Vom 1. bis zum 30. September 2019 findet zum neunten Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt. Dabei können Bau- und Kulturdenkmale fotografiert und die Fotos hochgeladen werden. Du hast an einem der vergangenen Fotowettbewerbe teilgenommen. Deshalb laden wir dich ein, dieses Jahr wieder mitzumachen. Wir freuen uns auf deine Fotos!

Es sind viele spannende Motive überall in Deutschland zu fotografieren. Neben beeindruckenden märchenhaften Schlössern, Burgen und Kirchen können auch andere Kulturdenkmale wie Brücken, Industrieruinen, Bauernhöfe oder Parks fotografiert werden, um sie unter anderem in der Wikipedia zu dokumentieren. In den letzten Jahren sind zahlreiche neue Denkmallisten entstanden, die sich über Fotos freuen. Für die Suche nach Motiven gibt es bei Wikipedia zahlreiche Listen und Karten. Als Einstieg hilft diese Übersichtsseite. Weitere Informationen erhältst du auf der Mitmach-Seite.

Du bist interessiert, am Wettbewerb mitzuwirken, dir fehlt aber die richtige Technik? Dann wirf doch mal einen Blick in den Technikpool und das Technikleihportal von Wikimedia Deutschland! Dort findest du Kameras, Objektive und Zubehör verschiedenster Art. Sollte noch Technik fehlen, die aber in Zukunft unbedingt benötigt wird, dann freut sich Wikimedia Deutschland über dein Feedback zum Technikpool.

Außerdem laden wir Dich ein, ab Mitte September 2019 an der Vorjury teilzunehmen. Diese bewertet die hochgeladenen Bilder und ermittelt so gemeinsam mit der Jury, die im Oktober tagt, die Sieger von Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in Deutschland. Das Vorjurytool ist hier bald freigeschaltet. Du benötigst dafür nur deinen Benutzernamen und das Passwort.

Für Fragen steht das Organisationsteam gerne auf der Support-Seite zur Verfügung.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg bei größten Fotowettbewerb wünscht dir im Namen des Organisationsteams --Z thomas 14:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Cycletracks_against_cyclists[edit]

Themightyquill (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

September är nästan slut: missa inte Wiki Loves Monuments 2019![edit]

Hej,

Du får det här meddelandet då du tidigare bidragit med bilder till den svenska deltävlingen av Wiki Loves Monuments, och jag hoppas att du vill vara med i år också. Kategorierna är som vanligt byggnadsminnen, fornminnen, K-märkta fartyg och arbetslivsmuseer, och du är välkommen att bidra med bilder hela september. Om du varit ute i världen och rest kan du även se om resorna sammanfaller med övriga internationella deltävlingar, och i så fall vara med och tävla även där.

Välkommen till tävlingen, och lycka till! /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:St martinus qualburg 2.jpg[edit]

Hallo Ulamm, bitte lade neue Versionen vorhandener Bilder als neue Dateien hoch. Danke! --Rabanus Flavus (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rabanus Flavus: Ich mache das vom Grad der Bearbeitung abhängig (und hatte in diesem Fall übersehen, dass das von mir vorgefundene Bild schon deine Bearbeitung war).
Wenn sich aus einem schwarzen Schatten mit etwas mehr Helligkeit, etwas mehr Sättigung und etwas mehr Kontrast ein in seinen Details erkennbares Objekt machen lässt, verzichte ich auf die neue Adresse. Die Rohversion wird durch meine Bearbeitung ja nicht gelöscht, sondern ist weiterhin abrufbar.
Wenn ich aber tricksen muss, um eine brauchbare Version zu erzeugen, lade ich diese unter neuem Titel hoch, siehe auch Category:Commons photo adapted by Ulamm.
Aus dem File mit deiner Bearbeitung habe ich meine jetzt wieder herausgenommen.
Bei meiner neuen Version File:St martinus qualburg 2 farbig.jpg bin ich von der dunklen Originaldatei ausgegangen und habe nach der Bearbeitung der gesamten Bildfläche im Bereich der Wände von Chor und Schiff Helligkeit, Sättigung und Kontrast noch ein weiteres Mal hochgedreht. Der graubraune niederrheinische Backstein ist ja schon bei optimalen Lichtverhältnissen nicht immer gut von anderen Materialien zu unterscheiden.
Irgendwann sollte der Chor bei Morgensonne fotografiert werden, oder aber aus dem Gebäudeschatten heraus.
Beste Grüße, Ulamm (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019! Please help with this survey.[edit]

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Dear Ulamm,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, 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 210K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 40 countries around the world.

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, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team 12:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 Participant Survey (Reminder)[edit]

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Dear Ulamm,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, 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 210K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 40 countries around the world.

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, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team 03:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Keys at danish churches[edit]

I noticed you're adding keys for a number of danish churches. Fine enough. But could you please copy/paste the actual names of towns etc rather than try to type them? Because if you enter i.e. "Sollinge" rather than "Søllinge", it will be sorted the wrong way. Please note that in danish the letters æ,ø,å are the very last letters in the alphabet. --Hjart (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

That was no error. Internationally, such as in French, German, Polish etc., derived letters are sorted according to their "mother" letters. This has also an advantage for Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, who traditionally place the derived letters in the end. Aabenraa is placed near Åbenrå, in the international way.--Ulamm (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, not in danish. Please note that i.e. "ø" in the danish alphabet is a proper letter in its own right. It has no "mother" letter, so sorting it with "o" is an error. --Hjart (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Object locations[edit]

I'm not sure how you manage to do it, but a lot of the object locations you give are ~140 meters west of the actual position. How do find you find those? Maybe I can help you find a better method than the one you're using. --Hjart (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have used Google Maps, see orthophoto. --Ulamm (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Practically all danish churches are fairly accurately mapped in OpenStreetMap, so I'll recommend using that instead. On the OSM website decimal coordinates can be copied directly from the adress line.--Hjart (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Normally, biases between Openstreetmap and Google Maps only occur in mountain areas.
Therefore, in Denmark, I do not doubt in GM co-ordinates.
A lot of the contents of Openstreetmap has not been taken by GPS records during a visit, but has been drawn at home using orthophotos.
If you have found a bias, you should check both, OSM and GM.
--Ulamm (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The national aerial imagery used by the OSM community in Denmark is quite accurate (generally to with 1 m). I've been a OSM mapper for 10 years. I use our data myself and generally find it quite trustable. Do also note that we have easy access to official danish building data and that danish churches are well aligned with those. --Hjart (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I only enter object locations,
  • if there have been none
  • if in an infobox the mark representing the co-ordinates is not on the mark of the building.
I do not object, if you check and correct the object locations of all Danish churches and all listed secular Danish buildings.
Perhaps we both, and everyboy else should enter a reciord, by what source has has found the co-ordinates, he has entered.
In WP articles and Commons Categories this is possible.
I do not know how to enter such a record, if I enter somethig to wikidata.--Ulamm (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Gleisdreieck Sielwallkreuzung.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Gleisdreieck Sielwallkreuzung.png 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 | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | 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)‎ | +/−

P 1 9 9   19:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Torslev Kirke[edit]

Hej! Dzięki za czujność! To faktycznie jest kościół Torslev, ale nie w gminie Frederikshavn, tylko Jammerbugt. Poprawiłem opis. Pozdrawiam, tsca (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Unidentified danish church[edit]

You've been looking at a lot of danish churches. Any idea which danish church File:Denmark - Hobro, The Oldest Viking Church - panoramio.jpg might be? Neither place names nor coordinates make any sense to me. --Hjart (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I have become aware.
But I also normally start from the church categories in WM Commons, organized according to the actual administrative structures.
I am looking for Gothic brick buildings. Therefore I have to read every description. So my progress is quite slow.
If that church has no other photo up to now, it only can be detected by an approach using Trap as a list of all surviving medieval churches in Denmark.
For your question, you only have to find out the category of each church mentioned by Trap.
Where you find none, you have to look for the websits of the sogn and for touristical presentations.

--Ulamm (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Another contributor identified it as Råsted Kirke. Thanks --Hjart (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Sankt Ansgar Kirke i Bramming[edit]

I don't know if you're interested in being notified like this, but if you are, I uploaded photos from today of a church in Bramming, which wasn't previously represented on Commons: Category:Sankt Ansgar Kirke (Bramming). --Hjart (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this information.
Up to now I have only collected medieval churches, for this compilation:

--Ulamm (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Elbtalkessel[edit]

No domino el alemán (Google Translate). En el archivo SachsenLandschaften.jpg se comete un evidente error, poniendo "Eltalkessel" en lugar de "Elbtalkessel".

Jacinto-Miróbriga (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

¡Muchas gracias! No escribi este mapa, solamente hice el recorte. Pero ahora está corregido.--Ulamm (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Oblast Leningrad relief.png[edit]

Copyright status: File:Oblast Leningrad relief.png

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | ಕನ್ನಡ | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | norsk bokmål | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | ತುಳು | українська | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Oblast Leningrad relief.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Advice: File: Mazowsze_w.png[edit]

I'm writing to you, as you are active in map drawing on commons and you were the last to touch that map. I found vector source files that I draw in 2005 to produce that map and its derivates. I think that it might be good to make them available. It has been a while since I was very active here. What are the best practices now? Fjl (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not object to SVG, though I like the clearly defined colours only possible in bitmaps.
But in the graphic program I use, vectorization rather induces an inflation of data volume than a reduction.--Ulamm (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Ulamm, Did you consider using Kartographer instead of static maps? I think that would be way more appropriate for your project, as it would completely eliminate the need for all those small bitmaps etc, you're creating, as well as make it possible to zoom into details in the map. See very simple example (without colours) in use at i.e. da:Herregårde_i_Ribe_Amt. --Hjart (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
.Up to now, I did not. But remember, I already have mad several maps using wikicode, such as de:Backsteinbauwerke der Gotik/Verteilung in der Region Süddänemark. Unfortunately, the lables are not shown by smartphones & notebooks. Therefore, I provide screenshots, in addition, see de:Backsteinbauwerke der Gotik/Verteilung in Dänemark.
.Another problem is, how to place labels with other than horizontal groundlines.--Ulamm (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen your maps before and what annoys me with them is that i.e. cities with more than one church are basically just one large blob. I find them quite hard to understand and use. You could make much more usefull maps with the new Kartographer Maps. --Hjart (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
To show that there are more buldings in such a place, it is neccesary that the area of the dot is rather proportional to the number of buildings.
In places with a lot of Gothic brick bulidings, such as Gdańsk, Cracow, Lübeck, Utrecht, Brugge, Milan or Bologna, it is impossible to show each of these buildings, separately, in a map of the whole country or the whole region.--Ulamm (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, in static maps, such as those you have created that's correct. Kartographer maps, however would allow you to zoom in on individual cities and have the buildings shown individually. --Hjart (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
To understand the history of architecture, it is necessary to see one region, one country, perhaps all Europe in one vieuw i. e. almost at once on the screen.
To understand what kinds of buildings have been built, even the phases of construction are more important than the question, which church stands west of the market place and which church east of it.
If you want to visit the historical buldings of one town, you can get the geodata of each building from links in the list, you can look at the OSM map of this town, or at Google maps.--Ulamm (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Pseudobasilicas in ...[edit]

Hi, I don't think that it is a good idea to categorise something by what it is not. So a church is not a basilica. It's also not an apple pie or a synagogue. But we don't categorise it as "Pseudoappelpies in..." or "Category:Pseudosynagogues in ...". I think that you should nominate those categories for deletion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If you have thought of en:Basilicas in the Catholic Church, you are wrong.
Pseudo-basilica means that the architectural structure of such a church building is similar to that of a basilica, but not just the same.
Pseudobasilica, fr:pseudo-basilique, de:Pseudobasilika, nl:pseudobasiliek, is a well established architectural term for churches the central nave of is one storey higher than the aisles (like in a basilica), but without en:clerestory windows above the aisles.
Such "pseudo-" terms also are common in other sciences, such as medicine, see en:Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
--Ulamm (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The description has already been available, here.--Ulamm (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I still don't think that it's a good categorisation. Using your logic, almost every church building in the world is either a basilica or a pseudobasilica. Every one of hundreds of thousands of such churches would have to have this dichotomous categorisation. This would be unworkable and would only add to clutter. You might just as well categorise every person as male or female - a fatuous exercise. I still think that you should nominate them for deletion. By the way, in reverting my edits, why did you classify them as vandalism? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The categorization of persons just for gender ist practise, see de:Kategorie:Mann and de:Kategorie:Frau.
The categorization of buildings by shape is also practise, see Category:Suspension bridges
Your emptying of categories, only because you did not understand the scientific term, was vandalism.--Ulamm (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
...............................................................................................................
A complete almost logical systematic of church buildings could be:
  • aisleless
  • aisleless cross-shaped (the following types might also be distinguished in cross-shaped vs. without transept)
  • hall church
  • pseudo-basilica
  • basilica
  • classicist cross section with barrel vault on the central nave, but flat cielings of the aisles
  • central biulding with one or more domes
  • perhaps some hybdride shapes
--Ulamm (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
...............................................................................................................
You misunderstand the meaning of vandalism which relates to mindless or deliberate destruction. What I did with the churches does not meet the criteria. You also fail to apply WP:GoodFaith, which is what actually happened, whether or not it was technically correct. Your system, while it might meet the criteria for a school of architecture, goes too far for the average reader. It is too technical, goes beyond what a reasonable person could be presumed to know and is a hindrance to navigation. I think that you should delete the pseudo categories. And try to be more polite please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • To decide if something is correct or wrong, you must have understood it.
  • To get the informations required to understand, you can look in the Wikipedia or elsewhere.
  • The term pseudo-basilica is explained in the Engllish Wikipedia
  • Pseudo basilica is a scientifific term, describing a special type of church buiildings.
  • All churches subsumed there fit the criteria for the term pseudo basilica
  • If somebody does not understand one of the categories, he can use and has to use all others.
  • Your action was, as if you had deleted Kiswaheli Wikipedia, because you do not understand Kiswaheli.--Ulamm (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

ethno maps of Nigeria Benin & Cameroon[edit]

Dear sir, I hope this editing will join you as I try to reduce as much as possible multiple connexions. I am trying to join you for getting the metadata of the Nigeria-Benin-Cameroon linguistic map. I am very much interested with this map for academic purposes (I am a french researcher, Mehdi Saqalli). How can I cite it? Thank you in advance best regards Mehdi Saqalli. my email: msqalli@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:E0A:143:E600:F5FB:BB7B:70AE:5AB5 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Stuhr östliches Schiffsjoch168b.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Stuhr östliches Schiffsjoch168b.jpg

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | ಕನ್ನಡ | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | norsk bokmål | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | ತುಳು | українська | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Stuhr östliches Schiffsjoch168b.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Grote kerk, Emmen (4257533084) toren noordzij.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Grote kerk, Emmen (4257533084) toren noordzij.jpg

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | ಕನ್ನಡ | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | norsk bokmål | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | ತುಳು | українська | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Grote kerk, Emmen (4257533084) toren noordzij.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 19:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)