User talk:Ulamm

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
For older corresponences see:

Catégorisation[edit]

Bonsoir,

Merci pour le travail de catégorisation que vous effectuez actuellement.

J'ai constaté quelques erreurs que je me suis permis de corriger. Si j'en vois d'autres, je ferrai de même.

Bonne continuation. H2O(talk) 17:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merci aussi!
Si j'ai catégorisée une église entre les églises d'une municipalité fausse, et la municiplité correcte n'a pas d'une catégorie des églises ou généralement des édifices, mettez cette église dans la catégorie des églises de la province, s'il vous plaît.
"Churches in Hainaut" près de "Hall churches in Hainaut" ne parèce très logique, mais si autre personne cherche et catégorise pour autres qualités des églises ou autres édifices, c'est une bonne aide, si il ou elle les trouve classées par provinces. Comme ça on peut comprendre la géographie de l'architecture.
Cordialement, --Ulamm (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Orléonais' to Orléanais[edit]

Ulamm, thank you for your maps! I noticed a typo on two of them: 'Orléonais' instead of Orléanais. File:1789 et 2022, Centre-Val de Loire et Île-de-France, noms.png and File:1789_+_2022_Pays_de_la_Loire,_noms.png. Would you please correct it? 2dk (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2022! Please help with this survey[edit]

Wiki Loves Monuments logo
Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Dear Ulamm,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2022, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again for a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 150K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 35 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). 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 2022.

Kind regards, Wiki Loves Monuments team, 09:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023[edit]

Hello! Please stop adding {{DEFAULTSORT:Stockholm Riddarholmsk}} to the category for Riddarholm Church. It should sort under R not S. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that you've done a lot of this, which is seriously damaging to this project. Defaultsort should always sort under a church's or other building's or place's actual name, not where it is located. Please spend some time correcting all that! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In all scientific lists churches (and other buildings) are listed primarily in the sequence of their places. If there are more than one buildings in a place, they are listet in a sequence of types. If there are more than one buildings of one type in a place, they are listet in the sequence of their names.--Ulamm (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This way of scientific sorting has to be applied also inside commons categories.--Ulamm (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are always supposed to sort buildings after name of building, not where they are. Why is that not clear to you? How are we supposed to find Riddarholmskyrkan if it is sorted under S? Stop sabotaging this and correct the damage you have done! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Science has developed some useful principles to understand the world, logically.
To provide and use our data effectively, we have to follow those principles.
Your "We are alway supposed to …" is the attempt to establish a foolish rule, instead.--Ulamm (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely so not think any oif what you are saying would make any sense to anyone else but you. Sorting buildings alphabetically by their names, so that they can be found alphabetically, can be foolish? What else could alphabetical sorting be for? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Riddarholmskyrka" is a singular name, indeed, but most names exist plentyfold. So they have to be sorted in the sequence of the place names in a second step, anyway.
If they are sorted in the sequence of the place names in the first step, we get an additional information within each category: We see if two or more buildings fitting the conditions of this category exist in the same place.
As I've already written recently, this intelligent principle has not been invented by me. It is applied in all architectural guides.--Ulamm (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked to comment here. The correct way to have Category:Riddarholmskyrkan listed under "S" is through a category diffusion scheme: Category:Churches in Sweden by city → Category:Churches in Stockholm → Category:Riddarholmskyrkan (I'm simplifying a bit since the actual scheme goes more specific to categorize by material, date, etc.).
If Category:Churches in Sweden didn't have any diffusion scheme, Category:Riddarholmskyrkan would go directly in that category, but it still would not be correct to list it under "Stockholm Riddarholmsk". If you want it to go under "Stockholm", then you will need to add a diffusion scheme. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sorting algorithm stupidly follows the letters. "Stockholm Riddarholmsk" makes it place the object category among "stockholm" and there under "r…" and so on.
  • In any category for all churches in Sweden with a certain specifity, the object categories are either placed by their titles, or by a defined sorting key. If no sorting key is added, some are placed by the place name, some by their function, some by "sankt" and then the name of the patron saint and some directly by the name of the patron saint. To avoid such chaos, we have to enter some key – by a consistent system.
  • What do you mean with "diffusion scheme" ?
--Ulamm (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have read you post, completely.
There is an important thing hat you have not understood:
Each building, also each church, has a lot of specific properties, that ought to be categorized in order to understand history and geography of architecture and in order to find good examples for some features of history and geography of architecture.
This kind of categories may contain 1 item or 10 items or more than 100 items.
Too much local splitting hides the examples rather than helping zu find them,
but some regional splitting helps to detect crowdings an empty areas.
For some features or kinds of evaluations, categories "… in Sweden" are usefull, for soms features or kinds of evaluation, categories by län are more useful.--Ulamm (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If most of the local or regional categories contain 4 to 40 object categories, the grid is optimal. If most of the local or regional categories contain less than 4 object categories, the grid is too narrow, geographocally. Unfortunately, architectural properties of the same kind can be more or less frequent, of course. Nevertheless, properties of similar kind should be categorized with the same geographical grid.--Ulamm (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'If no sorting key is added, some are placed by the place name, some by their function, some by "sankt" and then the name of the patron saint and some directly by the name of the patron saint.' - can you give an example of a category in which its subcategories have a combination of all of these? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a problem of lots categories of churches: Some are named by their location, in some Protestant regions they are majority, look at Sweden and at Denmark. A few are named by their function, such als hospital churches and garrison churches. Some are named by their patron saint, with lots of variations: A church with the clerical name "Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de la Inmaculata Concepción" can appear as "Iglesia de Nuestra Señora" or as "Iglesia de Nuestra Señora Inmaculata" or as "Iglesia de la Inmaculata Concepción" or as "Iglesia de la Concepción" in publications or in WM Commons.
Nuestra Señora (ES) = Notre Dame (FR) leads to another problem: In France, there are at least ten cathedrals named "Notre-Dame" also Category:Reims Cathedral officially is called "Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Reims". And among ordinary parish churches there are at least 1000 called Notre-Dame, often with such attributions like "de la Conception", "de la Nativité" or "de la Assomption".
And regularly looking at the official database Historic England I have fond some other biases, there: A church may be called "Virgin Mary" in WM Commons and "St Mary" in Historic England – or vice versa. The parish my use a third version, such as "Blessed Vergin".
Best regards, --Ulamm (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then the fix would be to request a move of the church's category at COM:CFD. Disagreeing with the name of a church on Commons is not a valid reason to have its DEFAULTSORT be inconsistent with its title. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is the matter: WM commons being a project of volunteers, the naming of the object categories of all those single buildings is the outcome of thousands of individual decisions. The art of categorizing and of applying keys and defaultsorts is to create a logical system on the base of living chaos.--Ulamm (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely,   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crop Tool[edit]

Hi Ulamm,

Just saw your cropped upload of one of my photos, File:Tréflévénez St-Pierre - Chevet.JPG. Do you know there exists the Commons:CropTool that helps doing that easily without reupload? You can activate it in your Preferences/Gadgets. Romainbehar (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Perhaps I'll try it.
But often I do not only cut. Sometimes I try to improve the exposition (brightness). And crops from wide angle photos have to be turned, sometimes.
Best regards, --Ulamm (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Chapiteaux de la chapelle St-Firmin, Saint-Denis 1.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Chapiteaux de la chapelle St-Firmin, Saint-Denis 1.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Chapiteaux de la chapelle St-Firmin, Saint-Denis 1.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 VRT 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) 10:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Chapiteaux de la chapelle St-Firmin, Saint-Denis 1.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Chapiteaux de la chapelle St-Firmin, Saint-Denis 1.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Chapiteaux de la chapelle St-Firmin, Saint-Denis 1.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 VRT 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) 15:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Achim St. Laurentius (Turm v NW).jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Achim St. Laurentius (Turm v NW).jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Achim St. Laurentius (Turm v NW).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 VRT 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) 20:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Élévation et bas côté cath de Sens.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Élévation et bas côté cath de Sens.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Élévation et bas côté cath de Sens.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 VRT 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) 21:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Plemstall St Peter from NE GeoUK 4959523.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Plemstall St Peter from NE GeoUK 4959523.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Plemstall St Peter from NE GeoUK 4959523.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 VRT 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) 11:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Rostherne St Mary from ENE GeoUK 7063546.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Rostherne St Mary from ENE GeoUK 7063546.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Rostherne St Mary from ENE GeoUK 7063546.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 VRT 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) 16:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Upton St Peter from WSW GeoUK335138.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Upton St Peter from WSW GeoUK335138.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Upton St Peter from WSW GeoUK335138.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 VRT 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) 00:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Easier uploads from Geograph[edit]

Hello. If you want to upload a picture from Geograph Britain and Ireland to Commons without editing it, an easy way is to use the "reuse" link in the copyright notice below the picture (or the "Licensing" link below that). That takes you to a page like https://www.geograph.org.uk/reuse.php?id=4679347. At the bottom of that page there's a link labelled "directly upload this image to Wikimedia Commons" which will drop you into Special:Upload with everything filled in apart from the categories. You might find this easier than what you're currently doing. --bjh21 (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots make a better outcome.
Thanks, Ulamm (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Linchmere St Peter north face GeoUK 109513.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Linchmere St Peter north face GeoUK 109513.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Linchmere St Peter north face GeoUK 109513.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 VRT 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) 17:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:St Philip & St James, north face, GeoUK 626650.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:St Philip & St James, north face, GeoUK 626650.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:St Philip & St James, north face, GeoUK 626650.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 VRT 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) 17:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Axmouth St Michael nave&chancel GeoUK 6677542.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Axmouth St Michael nave&chancel GeoUK 6677542.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Axmouth St Michael nave&chancel GeoUK 6677542.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 VRT 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.

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 15:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Cofton St Mary GeoUK 1993151.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Cofton St Mary GeoUK 1993151.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Cofton St Mary GeoUK 1993151.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 VRT 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) 21:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:North Hykeham All Saints arcade GeoUK 5908574.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:North Hykeham All Saints arcade GeoUK 5908574.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:North Hykeham All Saints arcade GeoUK 5908574.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 VRT 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) 22:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Headington Holy Trinity ? eastward GeoUK 4316777.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Headington Holy Trinity ? eastward GeoUK 4316777.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Headington Holy Trinity ? eastward GeoUK 4316777.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 VRT 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) 18:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Little Gaddesden St Peter & P from SE GeoUK 5054946.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Little Gaddesden St Peter & P from SE GeoUK 5054946.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Little Gaddesden St Peter & P from SE GeoUK 5054946.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 VRT 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) 22:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Charlbury St Mary nave GeoUK 6370203.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Charlbury St Mary nave GeoUK 6370203.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Charlbury St Mary nave GeoUK 6370203.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 VRT 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) 12:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was ist denn jetzt der Unterschied...[edit]

...zwischen Gothic und Gothick? --A.Savin 17:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für dein Interesse!
  • Gothic ist mittelalterliche Gotik.
  • Gothick ist ein vor allem in England verbreiteter Stil zwischen Nachgotik (Fortsetzung der Verwendung spätgotischer Formen im 17. Jahrhundert) und Neugotik (allerdings mit zeitlichen Überlappungen, da die Neugotik auf den britischen Inseln schon sehr bald 1660 anfängt, mit der Restauration der Monarchie nach dem Ende der puritanischen Herrschaft Oliver Cromwells). Gothick versucht (im Unterschied zur Neugotik) nicht, mittelalterliche Gotik nachzubauen, sondern wendet gotisches Dekor auf klassizistisch konzipierte Baukörper an. Gerne mischte man dabei gotisches Dekor mit orientalischem.
In meiner gerade verwendeten Stilzuschreibung habe ich den Begriff aus der Gebäudebeschreibung in der Denkmaldatenbank Historic Engkand übernommen.
Beste Grüße, --Ulamm (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK wie ich jetzt erst sehe, leitet en:Gothick auf en:Gothic Revival architecture. Demnach bitte ich dich, die Kategorien entsprechend zu verschieben gemäß der Commons-Oberkategorie. MfG --A.Savin 18:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wie ich gerade sehe, hat vorigen August ein Ignorant die von mir eingerichteten Gothick-Kategorien (außer der erhaltenen Stamm-Category:Gothick) nach Gothic umgeleitet.
Darum jetzt auch dir die Hintergrundinformationen:
Beste Grüße
--Ulamm (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gothick ist Unterbegriff von Gothic Revival/Neogotik, daran besteht nunmehr kein Zweifel. Entsprechend muss auch die gleiche Kategorien-Hierarchie hergestellt werden. Das werde ich gleich auch tun. Es ist ohnehin ein Riesen-Unding, was Sie sich hier ohne jegliche Diskussion erlauben. Man denke da nur an die ganze "grusinische" Geschichte, die schon hart an Vandalismus grenzt. --A.Savin 19:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalismus waren User:Laurel Lodgeds redirects von Gothick auf Gothic, denn sie haben Stile durcheinander gebracht.
Meine Redirects von Georgian style restaurants auf Grusinian style restaurants waren ein kleiner Schritt gegen das Chaos, das durch die Mehrdeutigkeit des Adjektivs "Georgian" bewirkt wird.
--Ulamm (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Da waren deine Reverts der Vandalismus. Es kann sich ja in London ein georgisches Restaurant (grusinisches Restaurant) in Räumlichkeiten befinden, die zur Georgian Architecture (georgianischen Architektur) gehören, also im Georgian Style (georgianischen Stil) errichtet sind.--Ulamm (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meinung zur Kenntnis genommen. Dass diese Änderung nicht ohne Konsensfindung möglich sein wird, steht jedoch außer Debatte. --A.Savin 20:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Übrigens, ich hätte es auf COM:VP gepostet und nicht auf einer von bestimmt niemandem beobachteten Seite. --22:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Holcombe Burnell St John GeoUK 164111 cropped.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Holcombe Burnell St John GeoUK 164111 cropped.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Holcombe Burnell St John GeoUK 164111 cropped.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 VRT 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) 23:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Plymstock St Mary & All Saints fr SE GeoUK 2491337.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Plymstock St Mary & All Saints fr SE GeoUK 2491337.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Plymstock St Mary & All Saints fr SE GeoUK 2491337.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 VRT 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.

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 22:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Nave, south aisle, chancel, unknown, GeoUK 3615162.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Nave, south aisle, chancel, unknown, GeoUK 3615162.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Nave, south aisle, chancel, unknown, GeoUK 3615162.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 VRT 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) 12:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Halford St Mary eastward GeiUK 5314392.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Halford St Mary eastward GeiUK 5314392.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Halford St Mary eastward GeiUK 5314392.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 VRT 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) 00:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spaces in Klosterkirche Lippoldsberg[edit]

Guten Abend Ulamm, der Grund für die Verschiebung der Kategorie, die Du rückgängig machst, war dort verständlich und deutlich angegeben und ich möchte Dich bitten, zu erklären, was daran nicht richtig gewesen sein sollte.
Es es gibt aus gutem Grund KEINEN Kategorienbaum Category:Spaces in churches: ein solcher wäre redundant mit der gut durchstrukturierten Category:Interiors of churches, wohin die von Dir unter dem undefinierten Begriff "spaces" eingestellten Bilder gehören, bzw. in die entsprechenden vorgesehenen Unterkategorien für die de:Kirchenschiffe = Category:Naves (Haupt-/Mittelschiff) und Category:Aisles (Seitenschiffe), für das Querhaus = Category:Transepts, für die de:Vierung = Category:Crossings, für den de:Chor (Architektur), für de:Apsis = Category:Apses, für die Kapellen (auf de:WP falsche Stiefkinder des Kapellengebäudes) = Category:Apse chapels und Category:Side chapels usw... Meinst Du wirklich, es sei notwendig, dieses System durch einen zusätzlichen Kategorienbaum zu verkomplizieren? Wenn es Dir aus irgendeinem mir nicht verständlichen Grund wichtig ist, diese unterschiedlichen Innenräume (eigentlich: Volumen) irgendwo zusammenzuhalten (vielleicht, um sie auf einen Blick zu sehen?), schlage ich Dir vor, sie in eine Commons Galerie Interior of Klosterkirche Lippoldsberg einzubinden.
Danke für eine Rückmeldung auf dieser Seite, die ich bis dahin auf Beobachtung halte. Beste Grüße, Bohème (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ich war voriges Jahr im September extra wegen der Gewölbe in Lippoldsberg.
Ich will keinen Kategoriebaum daraus machen.
In Kategorien über Themenarten, wie naves …, roofs … usw., dürfen durchaus Kategorien mit unterschiedlichen Bezeichungen stehen. Daher passt Category:Spaces in Klosterkirche Lippoldsberg durchaus in Category:Naves in Germany. da der Begriff "nave" unterschiedlich eng oder weit gefasst sein kann, im Sprachgebrauch von native speakers des Englischen bedeutet er "Hauptschiff", habe ich für Lippoldsberg stattdessen "spaces" gewählt.--Ulamm (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wie schon in der Disk zur Seite gesagt, dürfen die Bilder, die die Gebäudestruktur darstellen, nicht in verschiedene Kategorien zersplittert werden, sofern das Gebäude einigermaßen übersichtlich ist.
Wenn ein Bild sowohl Architektur als auch Ausstattung oder Zierrat darstellt, gehört es sowohl in die Kategorie zur Gebäudestruktur, als auch in die Kategorie für Details.
Beste Grüße, --Ulamm (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eine Galerie habe ich ja in den Artikel eingebaut.
Für die Erstellung einer solchen Galerie und andere Anwendungen ist es aber sinnvoll, alle Darstellungen zusammengehörender Bauteile nebeneinander zu sehen.
Kategoriebäume halte ich für sinnvoll und habe auch schon welche erstellt, wo es eine Vielzahl schlecht beschrifteter Bilder gibt, die man mühsam analysieren muss, um zu verstehen, welche Stelle eines Gebäudes sie darstellen.
Oder auch, wo bei weithin bekannten Gebäuden jeder vorbei kommende Tourist ein paar Fotos beisteuert, manchmal besser als die schon vorhandenen, manchmal aber auch schlechter.--Ulamm (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2023 - Deutschland[edit]

Hallo Ulamm,

Sieger 2022 – Kloster Paulinzella

bald ist es soweit: Vom 1. bis zum 30. September 2023 findet zum dreizehnten Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) statt. Dabei können Bau-, Boden- und Kulturdenkmale fotografiert und die Fotos hochgeladen werden. Du hast an einem der vergangenen Fotowettbewerbe teilgenommen. Deshalb laden wir dich gern wieder ein, dieses Jahr mitzumachen. Wir freuen uns auf deine Fotos!

Vergangenes Jahr hat Radomianin mit einer Gesamtansicht von Kloster Paulinzella gewonnen. Welcher Fotograf oder welche Fotografin tritt dieses Jahr die Nachfolge an?

Nach WLM 2022 sind wieder zahlreiche neue Denkmallisten entstanden – zum Beispiel die Denkmallisten in Waltershausen in Thüringen oder in Fulda.

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.

Für das einfache Auffinden haben wir eine Upload-Karte erstellt, in der viele aber leider noch nicht alle Kulturdenkmale angezeigt werden können. Das Laden der Objekte dauert dort etwas.

Wir haben dieses Jahr „drei Sonderpreise für Bilder von Friedhöfen“ ausgelobt. Zugelassen sind für den Sonderpreis auch Fotos von Friedhöfen, die nicht denkmalgeschützt sind.

Damit es ab 1. September mit dem Upload schnell geht:

Upload your photos via the new Upload-Map 
Upload your photos for the special price 

Außerdem laden wir Dich ein, ab Anfang September 2023 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 2023 in Deutschland. Das Vorjurytool ist hier bald freigeschaltet. Du benötigst dafür nur deinen Benutzernamen und das Passwort.

Vorjury-Tool 

Für Fragen steht das Organisationsteam gerne auf der Support-Seite zur Verfügung. Falls du im nächsten Jahr keine Einladung für Wiki Loves Monuments Deutschland haben möchtest, trag dich bitte hier ein. Wir würden das natürlich schade finden, da wir uns auf deine Fotos freuen.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg beim größten Fotowettbewerb wünscht dir im Namen des Organisationsteams --Z thomas 12:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:832 Rerik Chorbogen v SO.JPG[edit]

Copyright status: File:832 Rerik Chorbogen v SO.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:832 Rerik Chorbogen v SO.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 VRT 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.

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 19:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, bjh21 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

bjh21 (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puerto e iglesia San Juan Baptista de Bastia.gif[edit]

File:Puerto e iglesia San Juan Baptista de Bastia.gif 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

This is for these TIFF versions of Geograph images:

--bjh21 (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

This is for these screenshots that are smaller than the versions downloadable from Geograph and already on Commons:

--bjh21 (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:St. Mang, Füssen, 2012-10-06, DD 03.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:St. Mang, Füssen, 2012-10-06, DD 03.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:St. Mang, Füssen, 2012-10-06, DD 03.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 VRT 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) 23:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Kirchturm Daverden v NNO.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Kirchturm Daverden v NNO.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Kirchturm Daverden v NNO.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 VRT 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) 23:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chiavenna con corona.png[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Chiavenna con corona.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Arrow303.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unknown_18th_century_church_in_Drenthe[edit]

Category discussion warning

Category:Unknown_18th_century_church_in_Drenthe has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Ellywa (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Yes, it's finally the third part! 17 files this time. --bjh21 (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Storkow (Mark) Stadtkirche asv2022-08 img10.jpg[edit]

Ich habe deine "Adaption" dieses meines Fotos gelöscht, und warne dich hiermit, dass solche Abwandlungen inakzeptabel sind. Den Autor kurz um Rat zu fragen, wenn irgendwelche Änderungen am Bild gewünscht werden, wäre ja wohl das Allermindeste gewesen, was schon die Höflichkeit gebietet. MfG --A.Savin 00:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hatte nicht dein Foto unautorisiert verändert, sondern meine Bearbeitung deines Fotos unter neuem Namen ins Netz gestellt. Deraftige Bearbeitungen sind erlaubt und bedürfen nicht der Zustimmung des Fotografen.
Unzulässig ist deine Löschung meiner Bearbeitung.--Ulamm (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Das ist keine Bearbeitung sondern Vandalismus. Perspektivverzerrung künstlich herbeiführen, muss ich das noch weiter kommentieren? Und dann noch die völlig zerschossene Dateibeschreibung inkl. kaputter Lizenz usw.. --A.Savin 00:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Die sogenannte "Entzerrung" durch stupide Patrallellisierung der Senkrechten zerstört die Proportionen eines Gebäudes:
Aus der Ferne betrachtet stehen die senkrechten Kanten eines Gebäudes parallel und die waagerechten Kanten waagerecht.
Bei aufwärts gerichtetem Blick aus der Nähe laufen die Senkrechten aufeinander zu (wie bei waagerechtem Blick in die Ferne die Ränder einer Straße), und die waagerechten Kanten verlaufen in verschiedenen Richtungen, je nach dem, wie die Wand steht, zu der eine waagerechte Kante gehört.
Eine (hier deine) Bearbeitung, die die Senkrechten parallel stellt (und dadurch den natürlichen Eindruck verfälscht), aber die Waagerechten in den natürlicherweise aus der Nähe sichtbaren Winkeln belässt, erzeugt Chaos.
Du liebst diese Verfälschung und magst derart verfälschte Fotos verwenden. Ich bevorzuge den natürlichen Eindruck und habe darum eine renaturierte Version deines Fotos erstellt.
Wegen der verschiedenen Sehgewohnheiten kann es durchaus sinnvoll sein, die geradegebogene UND die naturnahe Version eines Fotos bereitzustellen.
Vandalismus war deine Löschung meiner Bearbeitung.--Ulamm (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Schon mal was von Weitwinkel-Objektiven gehört? Ich habe nichts entzerrt, wohl aber hast du was verzerrt. Damit ist EOD für mich, nach deiner "Meisterleistung" mehrere Threads oben mit "Grusinien" etc. ist ohnehin an eine produktive Diskussion mit dir nicht zu denken. --A.Savin 00:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Die Parallelisierung der Senkrechten ist eine Bearbeitung, auch falls deine Kamera das automatisch macht. "Normale" Weitwinkelobjektive produzieren Fotos mit stärker stürzenden Senkrechten als Objektive mittlerer Sichtbreiten und Brennweiten.--Ulamm (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Storkow (Mark) Stadtkirche asv2022-08 img10.jpg[edit]

File:Storkow (Mark) Stadtkirche asv2022-08 img10.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A.Savin 12:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright status[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. While everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the project, one or more of your file uploads had missing or false information regarding its source and copyright status. Please note that Wikimedia Commons takes copyright rules and infringement very seriously. Files may only be uploaded and included if their copyright status meets the conditions stated in our licensing policy, and if their source is clearly documented. Files that fail to meet those conditions may be deleted, and users who fail to meet them may be blocked. Please follow our first steps, if you haven't already. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the Village Pump copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know the reason for your mail.
Quite often I import files of photos that I have not taken myself.
On imported files, I use the original copyright mode. CC-by-SA 2.0 is no more provided in the menue, but recommended by Geograph of Britain an Ireland. So I continue to use it for imports from Geograph.
On adaptions of files already existing im WM Commons, I withdraw the "self|" from the copyright template, since I was asked to do so, about two years ago.--Ulamm (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about File:Chiavenna con corona.png? See #File:Chiavenna con corona.png above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not remember and now I can't see the license template I used.
I did not know of the VRT.
Perhaps I assumed that any municipality would be grateful to be presented in Wikipedia with its coats of arms.
https://www.araldicacivica.it/info/disclaimer/ suggests that I was not extremely wrong.
I did not import lots of coats of arms :) --Ulamm (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ulamm: That licensing includes "NonCommercial-NoDerivs" limits. Please read COM:LJ.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia should offer this option, alternatively (Perhaps it already does – I did not study all kinds of Creative Commons versions).
Wikipedia and other non commercial platforms can be better if they can apply media that are excluded from commercial evaluation..
For the printed publications the permission of commercial use is essential. I already had to convince editors that files from WM Commons are allowed for print & sale.--Ulamm (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WMF's licensing policy requires no restrictions on commercial use and derivative works, see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and https://freedomdefined.org/Definition/1.0.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have to follow national laws and international conventions.
We have to satisfy the conditions of providers and the possibilities of application.
But the rules how to fit all these conditions and various wishes are not made from above, they are made in our community.--Ulamm (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our community has decided not to accept restrictions on commercial use and derivative works to permit us to state "All images on Commons should be reusable" at COM:REUSE.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With some good will, our community is able to regard the freedom of unpaid volunteers as well as commercial interests and, if some work is not possible to be performed as a no-budget-project, material necessities.
As you can see, this is a plea for the freedom and against commercialization of opensource projects, without banning commerce, where it is inevitable.
As I do not intend similar uploads as the coats of arms of Chiavenna, I think we can finish this thread.--Ulamm (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intend uploading more like those described in Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with geograph 3150258?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That are no copyright problems.
All Geograph files are available in any resolution under CC-by-SA 2.0.
Some of them are offered by the download scheme in high resolutions.
Some of them are offered by the download scheme in very low resolutions, though better resolutions are presented.
Therefore, screenshots of the presented versions are sometimes better and sometimes worse than the versions offered by the scheme.
And the scheme does not work so well that you simply click and the file is imported.
Screenshot is quicker, and it is also legal.--Ulamm (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do not accept derivative works of a non-free third-party architectural design in a non-FOP country. It may be legal to accept them, but it is against COM:L policy because we don't allow Fair Use here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From time to time, I receive a question of somebody who wants to use a photo or graphic created by me in a printed publication. But nobody asks for use in Wikipedia. And in German wikipedia, there is a project called de:Wikipedia:Fotowerkstatt that relaunches photos.
Some Geograph photos are so awfully underexposed that they have to be revised to be useful.
In some cases, photos have to be cropped to visualize important features.
As I*ve told some time ago, it was a Geograph photographer, who suggested me to take screenshots, when I had asked him for a better resolution of one of his photos.
I never call myself the author of a photo uploaded from a screenshot, or relaunched or cropped.
As I link the Geograph source and the Geograph photographer at each of my uploads, everybody who wants to use it outside opensource world can ask and has to ask the photographer.
Presenting your sophisticated interpretations with "we" you are occupying authoritative dominance. But I am "we" as well as you.
And you are on the way to destroy the advantages of opensource projects and Creative Commons licences.--Ulamm (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By "we", I meant "those of us in the Wikimedia Commons community who voted on and comply with Wikimedia Commons policies, guidelines, and procedures", sorry if that's so much longer. If you would like to discuss this matter with more people, say at COM:ANU, that can be arranged. Please consider this your final warning to stop infringing copyrights and uploading -NC and -ND restricted materials on Wikimedia Commons, as in File:Chiavenna con corona.png.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have told you several lines above, there is no danger that I'll repeat the Chiavenna case.
But indeed, I am considering to upload photos of some medieval seals. The seals are PD-OLD, of course. On the photos somebody could discuss, if a photo of a relief is a photo-copy or photographic art. I'll use photos that do not look like creative works :) __Ulamm (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:955 Bahnhof Ebstorf.JPG[edit]

done--Ulamm (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brick Gothic church towers in Brandenburg[edit]

Bitte hier nicht wahllos jede Feldsteinkirche einsortieren, an deren Turm(ecken) einige Backsteine verbaut sind. Backsteingotik wird nicht allein über ein Material, sondern auch über die Architektur definiert. Vielen Dank. Giorgio Michele (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Backsteingotik bedeutet nicht "ganz aus Backstein". Backsteingotik bedeutet, dass ein Gebäude gotische Bauelemente aus Backstein hat. Gerade im Land Brandenburg gibt es sehr viele Kirchtürme und auch ganze Kirchen, deren Wandflächen aus Feldstein errichtet wurden, aber wo es auf feine Formen ankam, hat man Backstein verwendet: Portale, Fenster, Schallluken.In anderen Regionen, z. B. am Niederrhein, ist es manchmal umgekehrt, dort sind die Wandflächen aus Backstein und die feinen Teile aus Werkstein. In der Gegend um Hannover gibt es beide Materialkombinationen recht nahe beieinander. Siehe Kongressband Backsteinbaukunst IX: Nordseegotik – Backsteingotik zwischen Skagen und Calais.--Ulamm (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Der Stil besteht darin, Sichtbackstein als Oberfläche schön zu finden.
Backsteingotik kann sehr filigran sein, wie in den Bauten de:Heinrich Brunsbergs.
Werksteingotik kann so robust sein, dass sie von nicht wenigen Betrachtern für romanisch gehalten wird, wie de:Kloster Loccum und de:Kloster Zinna
Interessant ist im Zusammenhang von Preisstufen, Material und Ausformung auch die Altmark. Da folgen kleine spätgotische Feldsteinkirchen mit gotischem Backsteinportal mit ihren bescheidenen Mitteln letztlich demselben Stilideal wie die städtischen oder großen Backsteinkirchen. Gerade dort, wo die Wandflächen aus Feldstein errichtet wurden und die Wandöffnungen aus Backstein, sind solche Wandöffnungen in einer Feldsteinwand im Prinzip genauso gestaltet wie in einer Backsteinwand. Auch mit oder ohne Formsteine gibt es in beiden Zusammenhängen, wiewohl Bauherren von Feldsteinkirchen sich häufiger keine Formsteine leisten konnten oder mochten, als Bauherren, die ganz aus Backstein bauten.--Ulamm (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Ulamm (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)+Ulamm (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Das ist alles sehr interessant und in Teilen auch nachvollziehbar. Bevor ich im Detail darauf eingehe, bitte ich dich um die deinem Text und den damit begründeten Bearbeitungen zugrundeliegenden Nachweise aus reputabler Fachliteratur. Diese sollten angesichts deiner Expertise ja spielend leicht aufzuführen sein. Vielen Dank im Voraus! Beste Grüße, Giorgio Michele (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn ein Bauwerk ganz aus Backstein errichtet wurde, steht da beispielsweise "spätgotische Hallenkirche". Ansonsten und auch bei Erweiterungen wird in den Dehio-Bänden zumeist Bauteil für Bauteil mit seinen Eigenschaften und (oft vermuteter) Datierung beschrieben.
Ganz selbstverständlich können Teile eines Gebäudes sehr unterschiedliche Material- und Stileigenschaften Haben. Dazu werde ich gleich bei einem süddeutschen Bauwerk diskutieren :) ___-Ulamm (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia on my mind[edit]

Georgia is mainly in Europe, not Asia. Have a look at Wikipedia. Every category involving that state uses the form "Georgia (state)"; the entity in the USA always uses the form "Georgia (USA)". The form in Commons gives rise to confusion and should follow the Wikipedia form. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, the main ridge of the Caucasus is considered the border between Europe and Asia. All Georgia is situated in the south of Caucasus ridge. West of the Caucasus, this border is marked by the Black Sea, Bosporus and Dardanelles. Est of the Caucasus, it is marked by the Caspian Sea, Ural River and Ural ridge.
Between the Caucasus ridge and western Asia, there is no strict limit available: Armenia sometimes extended to Kars, and long ago, for some time even as far as to the north eastern corner of the Mediterranean Sea. Azerbaidjan traditionally also comprises Tabris in Iran, and Persia, for some time, comprised all Azerbaidjan.--Ulamm (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the Wikipedia page: "and is today generally regarded as part of Europe.[1][2][3][4]"
  1. ↑ International Geographic Encyclopaedia and Atlas. Springer: p. 273
  2. ↑ Encyclopedic World Atlas, George Philip & Son, Oxford University Press: 2002, p.104
  3. ↑ Georgia - 46 States, one Europe. Council of Europe. Retrieved on 2023-08-12.
  4. ↑ Europe - Georgia. World Health Organization. Retrieved on 2023-08-12.

Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That Georgia is a member of the en:Council of Europe does not mean, that it is situated in Europe, geographically.
Important parts of Russia are situated in Europe, geographically, but Russia has been excluded form the council of Europe.
Remember: The Republic of en:Cyprus is even a member of the en:European Union, and uses the en:Euro (which some EU countries do not do), but it is situated far outside Europe near Asian coasts of the Mediterranean Sea.
When the en:United Kingdom left the European Union, the Island of Great Britain did not cease to be a European island.--Ulamm (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Britannica writes, "Georgia, country of Transcaucasia"
  • Larousse, the great actual French encyclopedy writes as follows.
    • Headline: "Géorgie en géorgien Sakartvelo République de Géorgie"
    • Text: "Géorgie. État d' Asie occidentale, la Géorgie est située dans le Caucase, en bordure de la mer Noire (à l'ouest) ; elle est limitée au nord et au nord-est par la Russie, au sud-est par l' Azerbaïdjan et au sud par l' Arménie et la Turquie. Superficie : 70 000 km 2".
Wikipedia, in all its languages, has to keep to the facts. We mustn't publish proganda.--Ulamm (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WHO writes "European Region" but this ."European Region" also includes Turkmenistan, Kazahkstan and even Kyrgyzystan, see https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/overview
--Ulamm (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses reliable sources for its claims. Your categorisation more resembles WP:OriginalResearch. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the geographic classification, the Larousse is a reliable extern source.
I prefer those extern sources, which are available online. In several cases, some online research was necessary to find the contents of some reference that had been announced as a printed source, and in some cases, the "reference" did not tell, what had been pretended.
The European Council and WHO references for making Georgia a "country in Europe" are examples of such fakes.--Ulamm (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that this is your personal worldview. I won't trouble you further on the question. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not my personal world view.
If the European Council has also members outside Europe, not all its members are countries in Europe.
If WHO's European Region, besides the European countries, comprises Central Asian countries and some west Asian countries, not all countries in WHO's European Region are European countries.
Denying these facts is an ignorant world view.
And Larousse encyclopedy is one of the most serious sources available in the WWW.
Refusing Larousse would require more serious sources.--Ulamm (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more encyclopedy: Britannica on Transcaucasia
…
The land
Physiography
Trending generally from northwest to southeast, the Caucasus Mountains consist of two ranges—the Greater Caucasus in the north and the Lesser, or Little, Caucasus in the south. The watershed of the Greater Caucasus, the backbone of the system, traditionally has been part of the line dividing Europe and Asia, but the whole region has been so subject to Asian influences that there is now general agreement in assigning the ranges to Asia.--Ulamm (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Kreuznach Stadtsiegel 1240.png[edit]

Copyright status: File:Kreuznach Stadtsiegel 1240.png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Kreuznach Stadtsiegel 1240.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 VRT 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) 21:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

already repaired.--Ulamm (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poskarte Niedersachsen bitte nach Norden erweitern[edit]

Poskarte Niedersachsen Relief

Hallo Ulamm, wäre es möglich, die Positionskarte für Niedersachsen bis 55°N nach Norden zu erweitern, um die Lage der zum niedersächsischen Küstenmeer und damit zum Land Niedersachsen gehörige Tiefwasserreede korrekt zeigen zu können? Danke.--Ratzer (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meine Karte ist ja nur eine Überarbeitung der Karte File:Lower Saxony relief location map.jpg, Verwaltungsgrenzen NordNordWest, Relief Alexrk2.--Ulamm (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural categories of Italy by Period not by Style ![edit]

Hi Ulamm, Please note that the art and architecture categories of Italy are organized all by period and not by style ! Thank you. Best regards, DenghiùComm (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively it is the same. "Romanesque", "Gothic", etc. are "by style"-categories for all other countries, "by period"-categories only for Italy.
Just for Italy, the term "by period" is problematic, as sometimes various styles were applied contemporarily, which is litterally in the same period (In the original sense, a period is a recurrent space of time; hours, days, months and years are periods.). Arab-Norman architecture in Sicily and Calabria was created at the same (in the same period!) time as Romanesque architecture in other regions. And in the Padan (plain of river Po) region, much of early Romanesque is also subsumed to Lombard architecture. At the same time (in the same period!), in some places they built purely Byzantine.
Therefore, I have defined some new categories using the term "style" instead of the term "period", without renaming hundreds of pre-existing to "style".
Best regards, --Ulamm (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] DenghiùComm (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An artistic or architectural style is always an expression of an aesthetic taste that is limited to its era (period). There may be periods in which different tastes coexist due to different geographical areas or populations or culture, for example in the Middle Ages we have in Southern Italy the Arab-Norman, and the Byzantine, or Romanesque, or in various other areas the Lombard, or the Carolingian, or the Merovingian, but they are always artistic or architectural tastes limited in their time which falls within the medieval period. The same goes for recent arts such as Art Deco, or the various Neo-Byzantine, Neo-Gothic, Neo-Romanesque, etc. which coexist and all date between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Nobody would remake a work of that kind today because it was an artistic taste from other times which no longer corresponds to the current one, but which was limited to that period which defines them. Then we can have artistic periods which have the same name but which are placed in different periods depending on the geographical area. E.g. the Renaissance in Italy is in the 16th century, in Switzerland in the 17th century; but that doesn't matter, because we create categories for country that define them. DenghiùComm (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is not whether to define a category "Gothic", a category "Renaissance", a category "Baroque" etc.
The matter is whether to use for styles the term "style" or the term "period".
And as I have mentioned in User talk:MrKeefeJohn, even in each single places different styles could be applied parallelly.
  • In a massive amount, this occurred in post-medieval periods, especially in the period (= age) of coal-based industrialization.
  • In some places it also can be observed for the middle ages: In Verona, in one period, churches were generally built in Gothic style, while palaces rather were built in a Romanesque style.--Ulamm (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. Bestuis Termonamogan Killeter 51103078409.jpg[edit]

File:St. Bestuis Termonamogan Killeter 51103078409.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Leoboudv (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches_In_Belgium[edit]

Category discussion warning

Category:Churches_In_Belgium has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

TSventon (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches_In_Belgium_by_province[edit]

Category discussion warning

Category:Churches_In_Belgium_by_province has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

TSventon (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Essen Kreuzeskirche m Gerüst.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Essen Kreuzeskirche m Gerüst.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Essen Kreuzeskirche m Gerüst.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 VRT 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) 20:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hall churches[edit]

Hello Ulamm I was seeing the great work you did categorizing the hall-plan churches of Teruel, and I wanted to ask you how you could know that they were of this type, since in most categories there are no images of the interior. Very grateful for everything. Althair Talk 02:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I always look for additional informations.
  • Sometimes the site of a parish or of a municipality shows photos of the interior.
  • Sometimes a verbal description is helpful; if a church with a shallow roof has "tres naves", it is a hall church. But if the roof is steep, or if there is a step between the roof of the (central) nave and the lean-to roof of an aisle, the verbal description is not sufficient, primarily it looks like a pseudobasilica, but in some cases with an outside step, the levels of the ceilings inside are almost equal, or all vaults begin at the same level.--Ulamm (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wuppertal[edit]

Höre mal bitte auf die unnötigen Verschiebungen in Wuppertal, es gibt nur eine Kirche St. Laurentius in Wuppertal, das Klammerlemma braucht hier wirklich nicht geändert werden. Also Bitte unterlassen, sonst muss erwäge ich eine Meldung als Vanmdalismus. Atamari (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Da Wuppertal bekanntlich eigentlich aus mehreren Städten besteht und die meisten Kirchen und viele andere Gebäude vor der Vereinigung zur Stadt Wuppertal errichtet wurden, ist es sinnvoll, die dortigen Kirchen in überörtlichen Kategorien und Listen nach diesen Teilstädten zu ordnen. Diese Art der geografischen Ordnung ist verständlicher, wenn die Teilstädte in den Lemmata und Kategoriebezeichnungen der einzelnen Gebäude vorkommen.
Gerade bei der Geografie des Rheinischen Schiefergebirges ist die Listung nach historischen Orten besonders wichtig. Beispielsweise liegt (Hagen-) Hohenlimburg in einem ganz anderen tal als die Kernstadt Hagen.--Ulamm (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anmerkungen:
  • Ich bin auf mehrere Fälle gestoßen, wo ein Kirche in der WP nach der heutigen Kommune bezeichnet war, die zugehörige Commons-Category aber nach dem Ort/Ortsteil, oder umgekehrt.
  • Ich bin auf Fälle gestoßen, wo beim Artikel-Lemma und/oder bei der Commons-Category-Benennung nicht bemerkt worden war, dass das betreffende Patrozinium in einer Kommune mehrfach vorkommt. Viele Kirchen und andere Baudenkmäler sind ja noch gar nicht fotografiert.--Ulamm (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bitte, geh' wo anders spielen! Danke. --Atamari (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das ist kein Spielen, sondern die systematische Erfassung des Architekturbestandes.
Ich komme mit der Arbeit schneller voran, wenn ich auf derartige Verschiebungen verzichte.
Aber dann soll bitte niemand meckern, wenn Bauwerke in regionalen Commons-Categories an anderer Stelle stehen, als der Ortsbezeichnung im Namen ihrer gGebäudekategorie entspricht.--Ulamm (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Wuppertal wird keiner meckern, wenn du Abstand davon nimmst und wo anders spielst. Es gibt mit den Benutzern User:Im Fokus, User:-wuppertaler und User:Atamari genug Benutzer, die den Bilderbestand in Wuppertal pflegen. --Atamari (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wuppertal liegt im Regierungsbezirk Düsseldorf im deutschen Bundesland Nordrhein-Westfalen. Um die Architektur Europas zu verstehen, muss man sich auch den Architekturbestand in NRW bewusst machen, also auch den in Wuppertal.--Ulamm (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Ulamm, @Atamari, in den von Dir angelegten und gepflegten WP-Listen zur systematischen Erfassung des Architekturbestandes darfst Du gerne das von Dir favorisierte Ordnungssystem anwenden. Bitte unterlasse aber Deinen Versuch der Übertragung auf die hiesigen Commons-Kategorien, da sie der für Wuppertal eingeführten Systematik nicht entsprechen. Wenn Du Dich in der Kategorie Roman Catholic churches in Wuppertal umschaust, wirst Du bemerken, dass die drei doppelt vertretenen Patrozinien (es sind hier übrigens schon vor langen Jahren sämtliche christlichen Kirchen bildmäßig kategorisiert worden) statt des Lemmas Wuppertal den Stadtteilnamen als Lemma, diesen aber ausschließlich, also ohne ein vorangestelltes "Wuppertal-" tragen. Das gilt auch für eine Reihe anderer Gebäude, ist halt historisch mal so entstanden und soll auch so bleiben. Ich bin vorrangig für Commons tätig und sehe hier den Nutzen Deiner Umetikettierung als weitaus geringer an denn die Verwirrung durch einen neuen Lemmatyp, das Stadtteil-Doppelnamen-Lemma, das es in Wuppertal mit seinen Tausenden von Kategorien ansonsten nicht gibt. Es dürften sich im übrigen die wenigsten WP-Benutzer daran stören, wenn die Commons-Kategorien nicht haargenau dieselben Lemmata aufweisen wie Deine WP-Kategorien. Diese Diskrepanz gibt es, wie Du leicht überprüfen kannst, nicht gerade selten. Insofern sind Deine Argumente nicht ausreichend für einen so massiven Eingriff in gewachsene Strukturen. --Im Fokus (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Danke für deine differenzierte Darlegung!--Ulamm (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe Deine Änderungen inzwischen rückgängig gemacht. Ich sehe Dein Problem durch Deine eigene Praxis auch längst entschärft, schreibst Du doch bei der Nennung älterer strukturräumlicher Bezeichnungen die heutige Kommune dazu, z.B. "Barmen, Wuppertal". Da kann also eigentlich niemand überrascht sein, wenn die Kategorie dann "St. Johann Baptist (Wuppertal)" heißt. In diesem Fall klänge die Einordnung nach Barmen für Wuppertaler sogar falsch, denn diese Kirche steht nicht im Bezirk Barmen, sondern im Bezirk Oberbarmen, der natürlich zur ehemaligen Stadt Barmen gehörte. Aber der Begriff Barmen wird heutzutage normalerweise cum grano salis nur für das Bezirksgebiet verwendet, das in etwa dem Kerngebiet der ehemals selbständigen Stadt Barmen entspricht. Auch Heckinghauser und Wichlinghauser fühlen sich in erster Linie als solche und nicht als Barmer - außer es geht gemeinsam gegen die Elberfelder :-).
Ich hoffe, wir können so verbleiben. Gruß -- Im Fokus (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grundsätzlich versuche ich, die Verwaltungsgeschichte genau zu berücksichtigen, zum Beispiel ob eine Gemarkung zur Bauzeit der Kirche eine eigenständige Gemeinde war oder nur eine Feldmark oder Vorstadt des Zentralortes.
Wenn in diesem Fall ein Teil des Barmer Stadtkerns 'mal zu Oberbarmen gehörte, das seinerseits mehrere Dörfer umfasste, halte ich einen Bezug auf die Städte vor der letzten großen Vereinigung für vertretbar.--Ulamm (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Da hast Du was missverstanden. Das Gebiet von Oberbarmen war Teil der Stadt Barmen. Oberbarmen als Begriff, und zwar für einen der zehn Wuppertaler Stadtbezirke, gibt es allerdings erst seit der Stadtgründung 1929. Der Bezirk umfasst auch den vormaligen Barmer Stadtteil Rittershausen, zu dem St. Johann Baptist zur Zeit seiner Erbauung 1890 gehörte. Der Name Rittershauisen existiert heute nur noch als Brückenname, seine historische Bedeutung ist den allermeisten unbekannt, er fällt als Lemma-Zusatz also aus. Du hattest Dich aber sowieso für den damaligen Stadtnamen Barmen als Lemma-Zusatz entschieden. Das Problem ist nur, dass Barmen heute verwaltungstechnisch nur noch einen Bezirk bezeichnet. Zu diesem Bezirk gehört St. Johann Baptist aber wie oben dargelegt gar nicht. Das Lemma Wuppertal-Barmen lässt als geographische Zuordnung so gut wie niemanden an historische Zeiten denken, sondern an die jetzige geographische Einteilung und da müsstest Du Wuppertal-Oberbarmen als Lemma nutzen. Damit aber läuft Dein historischer Impetus hier ins Leere und Du solltest es daher beim Lemma Wuppertal belassen. Ich vermute auch, dass Du Deine Lemma-Aufbohrung nur in Einzelfällen durchziehen willst. Denn was hat ein WP-Benutzer davon, wenn Du z.B. bei unserer Kirche Christ König (Bj. 1960), ein wie Du sicher weißt durchaus beliebtes Patrozinium, das Lemma Wuppertal-Uellendahl-Katernberg vergibst. Es sieht in unseren Wuppertaler Kirchen-Kategorien aber extrem unschön aus, wenn einfache und aufgebohrte Wuppertal-Lemmata wild durcheinander gehen. Wie schon gesagt, in Einzelfällen auftretende Diskrepanzen zwischen WP- und Commons-Kategorien werden kaum jemanden stören. Im Fokus (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hatte doch noch nicht alle, sondern nur die katholischen Kirchen-Kategorien zurückgesetzt. Bei den evangelischen fiel mir nun die ehemalige evangelische Immanuelskirche auf. Hier tritt dasselbe Problem auf wie bei St. Johann Baptist. Beide Kirchen liegen eben nach heutigen Begriffen nicht in Barmen, sondern in Oberbarmen!!! Dein Ansatz, historische geographische Lemmata zu vergeben, ist Murks! Die Kategoriennamen, deren Bestandteil die Lemmata sind, sollen allen Usern einen möglichst einfachen und schnellen Zugriff ermöglichen, nicht nur jenen, die sich für die Historie eines Gebäudes interessieren. Du hättest die Kategorien mit den von Dir bevorzugten Lemmata als Verweis-Kategorien auf die bestehenden Kategorien anlegen sollen, statt unsere umzubenennen. Außerdem musste User Z thomas in den WP-Baudenkmäler-Listen hinter Dir her räumen, weil Du die entsprechenden Commonscat-Angaben darin nicht geändert hattest, was mich bei jemandem mit kunsthistorischem Interesse besonders wundert. Du musstest doch wissen, dass fast jede über 100 Jahre alte Kirche auf einer Denkmalschutzliste steht. --Im Fokus (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auf der Suche nach einem halbwegs ähnlichen Fall ist mir der hannoversche Stadtbezirk Südstadt-Bult eingefallen. In der Südstadt (und in der Bult) stehende Gebäude bekommen notwendigerweise immer die Ortsangabe Hannover, im Unterschied zu Eingemeindungen wie Linden und Anderten.
Normalerweise wird bei Verschiebungen ja eine Weiterleitung erstellt. Wie man so eine Weiterleitung schützen kann, wenn die alte Kategorie entleert ist, habe ich noch nicht herusgefunden.--Ulamm (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
((Fast in Wiederholung:)) Ich könnte mich auch einfach auf den WP-Artikel Unterbarmen berufen: "Die Teilung Barmens in Ober- und Unterbarmen beruht auf kirchlichen Grenzen". Damit ist für Oberbarmen wie für Unterbarmen die Ortsanagbe ‘‘Barmen‘‘ korrekt.--Ulamm (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Kleve Stiftskirche 1.JPG[edit]

Copyright status: File:Kleve Stiftskirche 1.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Kleve Stiftskirche 1.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 VRT 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) 20:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ulamm&oldid=863054010"