User talk:Vincent Steenberg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
English: Welcome to the Commons, Vincent Steenberg!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | تۆرکجه | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | भोजपुरी | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | català | нохчийн | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | euskara | estremeñu | فارسی | suomi | français | Frysk | galego | עברית | हिन्दी | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk | occitan | Ирон | polski | português | português do Brasil | rumantsch | română | русский | sicilianu | Scots | سنڌي | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | українська | اردو | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 粵語 | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy.

Icon apps query.svg Getting help

More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 18:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)



1rightarrow.png See User talk:Vincent Steenberg/Archive/1


1rightarrow.png See User talk:Vincent Steenberg/Archive/2


1rightarrow blue.svg See User talk:Vincent Steenberg/Archive/3


1rightarrow blue.svg See User talk:Vincent Steenberg/Archive/4

Flemish Baroque vs Baroque painters from the Southern Netherlands[edit]

Hi Vincent, I have been trying to separate the Dutch from the Belgians, in the subject of Baroque painting. I noticed all the "Baroque painters from..." categories, but since there were many more in Flemish Baroque painters I made the Baroque painters from Belgium into a redirect. Now I see there is a new one, this Baroque painters from the Southern Netherlands that you made. Can you explain what your intention is with this? Because my initial reaction would be to make another redirect to the Flemish Baroque painters, but I want to check with you first in case you have some ambitious plan for that category. Jane023 (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm glad you dealt with "Baroque painters from Belgium". To me that sounded just as strange as "medieval painters from the DDR". But you asked me why I created "baroque painters from the Southern Netherlands". I think the answer is simple. As you know the Netherlands (Low Countries) were once a more or less united under one head of state. By the time the baroque style came into fashion those Netherlands were divided in a northern (protestant) part and a southern (catholic) part. We've decided to call the baroque painters from the Northern Netherlands Category:Dutch Golden Age painters. So far so good. But what should the southern baroque painters be called? You can't really call them Flemish, because Flanders is only one of many states in the Southern Netherlands. And besides some of the most famous southern baroque painters (Rubens, Anthony van Dyck) weren't Flemish at all. They were from Antwerp. You could argue though that Antwerp is a Flemish town, but that is just the same kind of anachronism as "baroque painters from Belgium". And what about painters from French speaking provinces, such as Liège, Namur, Hainault? They were not Flemish then and they are not Flemish now. That's why I chose the more broader term "Southern Netherlands" for this group of people. Also my plan is to replace Category:Flemish Baroque painters with this other category in time. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Vincent, OK, thanks for your explanation. I was afraid you wanted to do that! This is a tricky issue, and it's still a mess over on the English Wikipedia. I was never happy about calling the "Northern Netherlands" people "Dutch Golden Age", just because I can't seem to find any consensus anywhere for cut-off dates at the start and end of it (plus you really can't say that Utrecht had any "Golden Age" at all...). All that said, I do use the categories to keep track of the bio pages, so I would be up for a solid theory regarding the catagories in general. If you could be more specific in terms of time period and geographical boundaries (plus what you want to call the other oddballs from Germany and Austria), then I will try to be consistent across WP projects. Jane023 (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
yes, you're right in saying that it's tricky. Too often I find painters from the Southern Netherlands in Category:painters from the Netherlands, for example. On the Dutch wikipedia recently a category called nl:Categorie:Zuid-Nederlands kunstschilder (voor 1830) (Painters from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830)) was created. In this way you avoid awkward anachronisms and you include painters from other parts of what is now Belgium apart from just Flanders. Something similar could be done for commons and, if you like, the English wikipedia. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I do think it is worth making some consistent decisions about this, before each WP goes and gets it into its head to make their own category trees... I like the (before 1830) simply because it IS so definitely tied to a date. It also at least separates all the movements that came afterwards from those that came before. My problem is with the corresponding categories from other countries. My gut feeling, because Antwerp was the hub of the art market for so many years, is that everyone who SOLD art there should have some category. I really like the "members of the xxx guild of st. luke" cats on the English WP for that reason. I also really liked your Category:18th-century painters from the Northern Netherlands so that I could handle those painters on the "right-hand long tail" of the Dutch Golden Age who were slipping back into the "Painters of the Netherlands" bucket. How about for the bigger cities, subcats like "Artist of Antwerp"? That way if you lose them somehow you can maybe find them that way. Maybe there should be something like this:

My problem with the current situation is the difficulty in categorizing the words "Baroque" and/or "Renaissance". If the WP project for photgraphing public art ever really takes off, then the number of sculptor pages will increase, and many of them have no where to go right now except "sculptors of xx", which I think is too broad.

yes, Renaissance and Baroque are quite difficult to define. I usually think of them as periods rather than styles. So Renaissance stands for 16th century art and Baroque for 17th century art. Same goes for "Early Netherlandish painters". When a painter was born after 1500 for example he could never have been an Early Netherlandish painter. So my point is that behind seemingly vague terms you can often find objective criteria. So categories like Category:Baroque painters from the Southern Netherlands and Category:Dutch Golden Age painters aren't necessarily undesirable. I think you can achieve quite a lot by using category redirects and disambiguation pages. For example there's only one redirect to Dutch Golden Age painters. No wonder people get confused and some painters are slipping back into "Painters from the Netherlands". Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I see your point, except that in Germany, Baroque is really referring to 18th century, not 17th. And where does Renaissance stop and DGA begin? Do you propose a structure of Early Neth = 15th and earlier, Renaissance = 16th (split into North & South), and South + DGA = 17th? People overlapping century boundaries can be members of both I suppose. Jane023 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
yes, that is more or less what I was thinking of. It's also worth having a look at how other people deal with this. The Rijksmuseum for example uses the same terminology (Early Netherlandish and Golden Age), but they use objective criteria. They seem to categorize painters by date of birth: all dutch painters born before 1500 are considered Early Netherlandish and Dutch Golden Age painters born after 1570. See and Maybe commons could work according to similar principles. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's an aspect I didn't even consider; date of the painting vs birth year of the painter! We already have the categories such as 1622 paintings, etc. That's fine and I see no need to split them into country boundaries. I do feel however, that there is a significant difference between the early Dutch landscape artists and their Italian contemporaries, and somehow this needs to be captured geographically as well as per time period. In your last edit, you agree with me, so this means that everyone in "Flemish Baroque" needs to be redirected and go into "Baroque painters from the Southern Netherlands", but what do we do with the painters born after 1470 and who died before 1600? Do we throw them all in the Renaissance categories? If so, then I will set it up this way from now on. Jane023 (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You mean "Renaissance painter from the Netherlands"? Perhaps you could use as a criteria all painters who were born between 1470 and 1570? I think that should cover all of them. With a few exceptions such as Category:Aelbrecht Bouts. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's what I mean. So Early Neth is everything from upper France into modern Denmark, with a cutoff around 1470, then you get Dutch Ren, Danish ren, German ren, Southern Neth Ren, Frenc ren, etc. up 10 1570, and then I suppose it's all Baroque or DGA (when was the Danish Golden age? same time as Dutch?) up to 1700, whereupon we get 18th century painters from xxx, etc. I hope the Wallonians are cool with this BTW, since they sometimes see things very differently. Have you looked at the Joconde database? I can't find any obvious categories there.Jane023 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

yes, I think that should work, although I can't say whether this also goes for Renaissance artists in countries outside the Netherlands. The Danish golden age BTW was during the (first half?) of the 19th century. I have no evidence of this, but I think the Walloons are more at ease being called southern netherlandish than Flemish. On Joconde sometimes the school is mentioned, but they're not consistent. Sometimes they say "Flandres" and sometimes "anciens Pays-Bas" or (even worse) "Hollande". Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
OK fine, I'll try to keep to this setup on the English WP and Commons from now on.
ok. I already did an attempt to define Category:Early Netherlandish painters. I'm now going to look if I can do the same for Renaissance painters. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I just saw today what a great overhaul you have done on those categories - it looks great! I want you to know that I really appreciate the work involved -- it represents a lot of effort I think, so thanks! Eventually I think there are lots of uses for these categories, if the setup stays stable this way. Jane023 (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks a lot. I hope everyone will be able to work it out. However, I keep on finding Flemish painters in Category:Painters from the Netherlands (and the other way around). So these categories will need to be reviewed from time to time. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
That's fairly normal - I find cases like that a lot on the english WP too. I often forget the categories myself when I am checking pages, and I noticed there are lots of pictures out there that aren't even categorized (polish nobility portraits, german nobility portraits, etc) so there will always be work on this - don't forget many WP contributors don't even know there are categories on commons, because you can't see these from a WP page, only in the commons page. I wish there was some way to make the categories hard-linked from the WP artist page to the commons artist page - it sure would save a lot of time! Jane023 (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Great job on improving Creator templates[edit]

Vincent, It seems like each time I check my watchlist there is another edit of some Creator page by you, and most of them go beyond simple formatting (the way most my edits are). Your effort on improving those pages is greatly appreciated. --Jarekt (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the complement. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouter Crabeth II[edit]

Vincent, after your edit on Wouter Crabeth II (, when I click on commons, I arrive in commons, but I don't return in wikipedia in the corresponding article. The same thing occurs with other articles. Bye --Maria.martelli (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I don't really understand what you mean. So you click on the link to commons on it:Wouter Crabeth II, then you arrive in Category:Wouter Pietersz. Crabeth (II) and then you can't return to the article on is that the problem? Do you mean than an interwiki link is missing or is there another reason? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You understood correctly: when I arrive in Category:Wouter Pietersz. Crabeth (II) from it:Wouter Crabeth II, I can't return to the article of If you try with your last modified articles, you'll find the same problem.--Maria.martelli (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your reply. I opened the article on IE and you are right. You have to click the back-botton in your browser twice to return to the article. However, I also tried it:Rembrandt_Harmenszoon_van_Rijn and the same happens there. So I don't think it's because of something I did. I think it's something caused by IE. Maybe you could bring this up at the Commons:Village pump? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing painting descriptions[edit]

Please stop removing painting descriptions if they are already there and they are correct. They are useful for visually impaired. Marac (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Marac, I guess you are refering to Category:Paintings by Vincent van Gogh in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. First of all, I created that category myself some time ago, because Category:Paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam was overfull and could use some diffusion. So I started ordering files in that category by painter. However, halfway through that process I realized that this was not a sustainable solution. Sometimes the museum own just one painting by a certain artist. So I started ordering files by school (for example Category:Dutch Renaissance paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam). Like this you have a better view on all paintings from a certain period. Secondly categorization by painter by museum sometimes causes strange situations (see for example Category:Jacob Coeman).
You say that subcategories are useful for the visually impaired. I don't know exactly how that works. Maybe commons has got documentation on this? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I see what you mean now. You mean the description that used to be on File:Metsu, Gabriel - Sick Child, the.jpg. This text was copied from the Rijksmuseum website and therefore likely to be a copyright violation. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no way one sentence with a simple description of the content of the painting could be a copyright violation. No one can claim copyrights on such descriptions, cause there is no original research in them. I did not copy any opinions, judgments or research. Marac (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
ok, if that's the case I'll restore the description. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thanks!Marac (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My cat walked ...[edit]


When starting to delete your creator page, I stumbled over "My cat walked over my keyboard. I'm not joking." May I cite you with that? I'm also not joking. With the many sad events here on Commons, it's sometimes helpful to have something harmless to cheer people up. --Túrelio (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

yes, that was the idea! Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
There's even a category called Category:Cats with computers. I guess I'm not the only one with this problems. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Geboortejaar Franz Courtens[edit]

Dag Vincent, ik zag dat je bij Category:Franz Courtens het geboortejaar hebt veranderd van 1854 naar 1850. Als het inderdaad zo is, wat is de referentie en zou je het ook op de pagina's fr:Franz Courtens, nl:Franz Courtens en fr:Cimetière de Saint-Josse-ten-Noode willen veranderen? Wouter (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Wouter, de bron hiervoor is de dadabase van het RKD (zie In dit record staan onder "Literatuur" behoorlijk wat referenties, dus ik ga ervan uit dat dit klopt. Ik zal het invoegen in het NL artikel. Bedankt voor de opmerkzaamheid. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Creator Birthyear[edit]

Vincent, Unfortunately Birthyear and Deathyear at the moment has to be in YYYY format so your edit here won't work. The year fields are used for 3 purposes: showing lifespan (YYYY-YYYY) in the top line, setting birth/death year categories and applying template tags like {{Works of authors who died less than 65 years ago}} or {{Works of authors who died more than 100 years ago}}. In many cases the date was uncertain but the year is known. That is where the parameter is useful - unfortunately it is not useful when the year is uncertain. I am still trying to come up with a good solution for those cases. --Jarekt (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the explanation, but if the birthyear of someone is unknown or is only known by estimate, isn't it better to just leave "Birthyear" blank? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
If the birthyear of someone is unknown than I was leaving it blank or just not have it at all. If year is only known by estimate like circa 1999 than I was adding year 1999, but that might have been a mistake. --Jarekt (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not the end of the world of course, but I think it could lead to confusion or misinterpretation. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Names again[edit]

Hi Vincent, I left a message for you (and Johnbod) on your en wikipedia userpage. I want to start following the RKD naming conventions on the english WP and I am not sure if this breaks anything. I noticed with Hans Bollengier that it seems to work alright, so I was wondering if it was OK. I think in the future it will be possible to hardlink an english wikipedia painter to the commons category, but until it is, the best solution is to create them all with the same name, and I think the RKD name is the best choice for Dutch and Flemish painters. Jane023 (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks. I will look at your messages some time soon. About your proposal, I think it's good to look at it from person to person. For example, Jheronimus Bosch in the English-speaking world is called Hieronymus Bosch. Although there are plenty of arguments why Jheronimus should be the preferred spelling of his first name, there's not much you can do about this. So I think you should balance it out a little bit. In most cases the RKD is 'right', but I wouldn't trust it blind either. When a name on commons differs from a name on RKD I usually check other sources such as wikipedia (obviously) and databases like KIKIRPA as well and then make a decision. For example fr:Jean Siméon Chardin is called Jean Baptiste Siméon Chardin on RKD, but a quick look at the French wikipedia article learns that he was called Jean Baptiste Siméon after his death. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't know either of those things. I guess I will just carry on as I have been doing, but I will from now on make a full stop in the name if it looks like a common usage. Speaking of names and spellings, I was trying to sort out the paintings that are now on Commons for Jan van Kessel. I sort of gave up when I found out the RKD thinks there are 4 of them:
  • Kessel, Jan van (1641-1680) (1641-02/1641-09-22 – 1680/1680-12-24) Noord-Nederlands
  • Kessel, Jan van (ca. 1620 - in of na 1661) (1615/1625 – 1661/1681) Noord-Nederlands
  • Kessel, Jan van (I) (1626/1626-04-05 – 1679-04-17) Zuid-Nederlands
  • Kessel, Jan van (II) (1654-11-23 – 1708) Zuid-Nederlands; Spaans

Looking at the paintings now attributed to them, there are two main themes - botanical paintings with insects and flower still lifes. My gut feeling is this is not 4 but two people. Any ideas? Jane023 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think they are 4 people. the Jan van Kessel (ca. 1620-in of na 1661) could be identical to Jan van Kessel (I), but then the first moved to Amsterdam in 1649 and the other stayed in Antwerp. The different Jan van Kessels can also be found in the dp Category:Jan van Kessel btw, and to make things even more complicated there's also a Category:Jan van Kessel el Mozo. According to one person this last person was not identical to Jan van Kessel (II), but I have my doubts. But with the help of RKDimages you should be able to put all images on commons in the right category, shoeldn't you? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


Beste Vincent, kan jij mij helpen met het oplossen van een probleem. Ik kan sinds maanden geen foto's meer uploaden. Er wordt gezegt dat ik de bron moet vertellen. Ik heb de foto's zelf gemaakt en er blijft bij elke invulling bij bron steeds het zelfde probleem. Er komt telkens weer een waarschuwing dat ik mijn bron moet noemen.Helanhuaren (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, de meest simpele oplossing denk ik is bij bron de code {{own}} in te vullen. Dat kun je doen terwijl je een bestand upload, maar je kunt het ook achteraf invullen. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Flemish and Dutch paintings in the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Strasbourg[edit]

Hello Vincent, please have a look at this category: Flemish and Dutch paintings in the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Strasbourg. Looks good, isn't it? Well, yes and no - in fact, there are many paintings and painters missing - Strasbourg also owns a Gabriel Metsu, two Emanuel de Witte, two Jacob van Ruisdael, one Jacob Salomon van Ruysdael, one Gillis Rombouts, two Jan van Goyen, one Pieter Claesz, one Aelbert Cuyp etc. etc. Needless to say that the collection as a whole is one of the richest in France. Could you be able to find some reproductions that could be added to the category? Many thanks! ! ! Edelseider (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Edelseider, great project. Interesting that you put the Flemish and the Dutch paintings in one category. It's true that there are a lot of similarities between the two. I haven't got any reproductions at hand right now, but maybe europeana and/or Web Gallery of Art could help out? If I have the time I will have a clooser look at what's in the category and if I can find any reproductions to add to it. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
WGA could not help as of yet, but I'll check the other link. Thank you! --Edelseider (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Other link isn't useful either, but I found this: Better than nothing, I say! Cheers, Edelseider (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Vincent, {{Nationality}} produces confusing results for various nationalities from the region of Netherlands, see Template:Nationality/testcases. Could you verify that current values are correct? Are some of those the same (right now NL=Dutch for all languages). --Jarekt (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Yes, they're right. That is, they are as I intended. If you want to me completely consequent "Dutch" in "northern nethelandish" should be "Northern Netherlandish". However, this term isn't used very much and "Dutch" covers it sufficiently. "Southern Netherlandish" is a different matter though. A person from 17th century Liège for example is neither Flemish nor Belgian. Does that answer it a little? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed different groupings in EN and NL languages and wanted to make sure it is correct. --Jarekt (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

alternate titles[edit]

Hellow Vincent, I was wondering: is it necessary to use {{alternate titles}} in cases like File:Delftware plaque with landscape and figures 001.jpg. In this case, it appears that the object has no real title in that the artist did not provide any title and I suppose that art historians do not use any reallly special title for the object either. So it just happened that the Rijksmuseum and the Web Gallery of Art described the object in slightly different words. Is it sufficient to use an "alternate title" can sometimes give strange outputs (for example the main title uses a langSwitch with en fr and nl and the alternate title only en and nl, I get a main title in French and an alternate title in English, which looks a bit odd, especially with a non-English artwork.--Zolo (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Zolo, No it's not absolutely necessary. I usually copy titles as they are. Sometimes even including mistakes, etc. The same goes for this plaque. I just copied what was in the title-field of the WGA and the Rijksmuseum website. You're right that often there's an alternative title for one language, but not for the other, but I hope that's only temporary. The more references you check, the more alternative titles you will find. But about the plaque, you're right that the alternative title here is covered by the 'main title' and could therefore be removed. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I have removed it in this particular case. By the way in cases like this one, where the museum only provides a Dutch title, shouldn't we either keep the Dutch title visible for everyone (possibly using {{title}} rather than langSwitch) or indicate in the ref that the translation was done by Commoners, not by the museum itself ? --Zolo (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I overlooked your question. I think that if commons has the ability to translate titles, it should translate them. I don't believe that the title that is in the same language as that of the artist's country of origin should always show. Sometimes I see other users use the prase "original title". To be honest I don't know what an original title is. Does that mean the title is documented or mentioned on the work itself? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
To me we should provide the "original title" (i don't think i would use these words) when they are mentioned on the work itself or when the artist itself to the work using a particular title (eg in a letter).
When the artist provides no title and we only use a very neutral title like "portrait of X" I agree that it does not sound very useful to provide several languages. However in some cases we provide a much more specific title given in a book or by a museum. This can be interesting but I think it can be misleading to attribute the title to the museum even when the title is actually a translation, and the museum provided the title in a different language (and very often we could imagine a slightly different translation). Actually I have just seen that you sometime provide the reference only for one language (like in File:Jean-Baptiste Siméon Chardin 024.jpg). I think it makes sense.
I have sometimes noticed that some museums give titles in the artist's language between brackets even when it is not clear if the title was used by the artist. I am not sure it really makes sense, but in some cases it may be useful. For example when much more has been written about the work in the artist's language, it may help to know the customary title in this language.--Zolo (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
yes, I gave up that business of "translated by Wikimedia Commons" a while ago. If a title doesn’t have a reference it's up for debate or improvement.
I agree, in the cases you mention {{title}} can be useful, but as these cases are rare, I don't see a general use for it. I prefer to copy the title as it is, so including any translation by the museum (for example File:Cornelis Troost 004.jpg) or literary reference (for example File:Lot and his Daughters.jpg). But you're right translations by users of commons should not be attributed to an external source. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is true that this kind of case is not that common for PD artworks (though probably a bit more so for 19th-20th century works). {{title}} can also be used for formatting purposes, even without the language gadget {{title|{{Portrait of a man}} }}->Portrait of a Man. I suppose it is a bit more machine readable but it may look a bit complicated for a rather trivial result.--Zolo (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A small award for great work[edit]

Fine Arts Star.png The Barnstar of Fine Arts
Vincent Steenberg is being awarded for outstanding, distingushed work on artwork, artists, galleries and templates. Thanks for 38,000+ quality contributions in the Visual Arts field! --Mattes (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I will second that --Jarekt (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
ok, thanks very much. An unexpected surprise. Glad to hear my tweaking and fröbeling (that's Dutch-English for tinkering from Fröbel) is appreciated. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
You're very welcome! I like your museum inventory pages the most -- keep on working :-) --Mattes (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes you deserve it, congrats.--Zolo (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Bonjour, j'avais oublié de mettre l'autorisation c'est fait!--Bruxellensis (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


M. v. Heemskerck-Donateur-Donatrice.jpg

Have you seen that? Great work by User:Ji-Elle! Cheers, --Edelseider (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, great photo. I did some searching myself, but all I could find was a handful of black and white photos and File:Joachim Beuckelaer 004.jpg. But I will keep my eyes open. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Great photo, and great work! Maybe you could do some photoshopping on it like you did on the other diptych ("Adam and Eve" and "Gideon"). Cheers, --Edelseider (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Markt 's Hertogenbosch[edit]

Helpt voor je nieuwe categorie deze zoekterm: ? --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ja, dank je wel. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Leeuwarden series[edit]

Hello Vincent, I don't understand exactly what the Leeuwarden series is, maybe you could provide a short description in {{Leeuwarden series}}--Zolo (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Jan van Calcar[edit]

Hallo Vincent Steenberg, just to let you know: You forgot the interwikis and some cats when doing the move of Category:Jan van Calcar. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks a lot, but the information given in this category is quite inconsistent now. I don't know if that's something to be desired. Sometimes less is more. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You mean the addition description above the creator template? Well, I took the descriptions from the de and en wikipedia. Seems not very clear which are the correct dates. I do not mind if you remove the additional descriptions. But I think a description on one sentence is easier to read than the (very nice) creator template. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not that big of a deal. I'm just a little weary of categories that are too descriptive. I mean it might undermine the core function of a category, which is storing files. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure - but which ones? ;) Such dates and locations help to check if a picture could be painted by the author. I really like those one or two sentence descriptions. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
That might be true, but see for example Category:Theo Van Rysselberghe. When I open this category my first reaction is "yikes, where did all the files go?... oh, there they are". And Theo van Rysselberghe undoubtedly ‘played a pivotal role in the European art scene at the turn of the century’, but is it really necessary to state this in a commons category? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Amsterdam Museum[edit]

Hi ! I'm kind of a newbie in Commons and I've seen you change "my" categories : I thought showpieces of the museum should be in a different category than pictures of the museum itself, but you moved some files away from the category:Collections of the Amsterdam Museum. Why was I wrong ? Thanks ! Léna (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to commons then! The files I moved 'back' to Category:Amsterdam Museum (for examle File:Max Liebermann Waisenhaus Amsterdam 1876.jpg) concern the history of the building of the Amsterdam Museum. They do not belong to the collection. To avoid confusion maybe it's good to create a category called Category:History of the Amsterdam Museum? Or we could put these images in Category:Burgerweeshuis. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh my bad, I thought they were parts of the collection (and I was in the Amsterdam Museum last Saturday *shame*) . Maybe Category:Pictures of the Amsterdam Museum ? Léna (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
They're not all paintings, so I think History of the Amsterdam Museum covers it sufficiently. Also, the Rijksmuseum has a similar subcategory (see Category:History of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam). Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Claude de Jongh[edit]

Hi Vincent, would you mind doing something on Category:Claude de Jongh? The category is red, but not empty, as you can see. Thank you, --Edelseider (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

yes, sure, no problem. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Fantastic! By the way, do you know why he's called Claude and not Klaas or something more dutch? --Edelseider (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't know, but French names have always been fashionable in the Netherlands. It is known that Gerard Dou chose that name because it was easier for his French customers than his real name, Gerrit Dou. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hello. Just wanted to say thanks for placing that nice template on the Hieronymus Bosch image, as well as for some other fixes on my images that I've noticed. I appreciate it. Enjoy your evening. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, No problem. I just copied that template from the existing File:Jheronimus Bosch 003.jpg. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


See here. And here. --Edelseider (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

hey, great find! I will have a closer look at it some time soon. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
And here is another one and another one. In fact, the next days will be quite rewarding.. Keep in touch! --Edelseider (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Institution:Aartsbisschoppelijke Musea, Utrecht[edit]

Hello Vincent, could you de-stub Institution:Aartsbisschoppelijke Musea, Utrecht. Their website is Dutch only, so I prefer not to do it myself.--Zolo (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, That's funny, that museum ceased to exist in 1979! It's called en:Museum Catharijneconvent now (Category:Museum Catharijneconvent). This should make it easier to make a institution template, I think. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Funny to have a website with their name too (or is it unrelated?) --Zolo (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Busy days[edit]

I told you, that's a real gold mine I found. Cheers, --Edelseider (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

+ 1

--Edelseider (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Diorama Gouvernementsplein Gerrit Schouten.jpg[edit]

Hello, The frame does not create a copyright by itself. Since the painting is old, it can be published on Commons. See COM:DM. Yann (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:H. Stopendaal 001.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:H. Stopendaal 001.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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

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

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

shizhao (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Lottery ticket Oude Kerk Amsterdam 01.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Lottery ticket Oude Kerk Amsterdam 01.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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

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

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

shizhao (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Andreas Theodorus Rooswinkel 001.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Andreas Theodorus Rooswinkel 001.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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

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

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

shizhao (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Station d'Eenhonderd Roe Amsterdam 001.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Station d'Eenhonderd Roe Amsterdam 001.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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

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

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

shizhao (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


Ja, je mag hem 90 graden draaien. Helanhuaren (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hallo, Ja, dat heb ik geprobeerd, maar dat was niet echt een verbetering, dus ik laat hem voorlopig maar zo. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
okHelanhuaren (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Pieter Hendricksz. Schut 001.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Pieter Hendricksz. Schut 001.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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

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

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

shizhao (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Painters from Holland[edit]

Vincent, I just noticed that there is no such category as Category:Painters from Holland (as there is for most other countries), so my batch process for creating creators and categories for all WGA artists, put bunch of them in non-existing category. I am not sure into what category they should go: is it Category:Painters from the Northern Netherlands (before 1830)? --Jarekt (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, en:Holland is just a part of the Netherlands, so having a category like that would be like having a category called Category:Painters from Saxony as opposed to Category:Painters from Germany. But it's true that most Dutch painters are from Holland. So I would suggest to redirect Category:Painters from Holland to Category:Painters from the Netherlands. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


Vincent, I noticed that you often added some words in the old/new owner parameters of {{ProvenanceEvent}} to make it look better. For exemple in French "à" when it is a person or "au" when it is an institution. While it makes the text sound much more natural it is about impossible to maintain for dozens of languages on thousand of files. An unfortunate consequence is that is that when the small word is missing, the text looks really strange ("cédé Louvre" is far worse than "cédé à Louvre"). For French I would suggest hardcoding "à" in the template, which would prevent using "au" but would always give something understandable. I hope that one day, Commons will be smart enough to make the difference between cases where it should use "à" and cases where it should use "au". :-| Cheers.--Zolo (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, yes, every time I use this template I think, isn't there a way to make this more easy. But what the article is concerned I see two constants: "à" precedes a person ("à Jacques") and "au" precedes an institution ("au musée"). So a possible solution to this problem is to split the parameter "newowner" in "new person" and "new museum". Like that you can incorporate the article in tl ProvenanceEvent itself. What do you think of this? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
We use "à" when people are simply called by their name, but "au" when they are given a title ("cédé au roi de Naples/au docteur Gachet"). We use "au" for "masculine" insitutions, and "à la" for feminine insitutions ("cédé au British Museum/à la National Gallery"). The only solution I can see is: detect commonly used words that call for the use of "au". It would be possible with something like {{#ifexpr: {{Str find|{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|museum}}+{{Str find|{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|musée}}+{{Str find|{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|château}}+{{Str find|{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|palace}}+{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|kingdom}}+{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|royaume}} > 0 | au | à }} But this is very inefficient. For other languages however, "new person"/"new institution" could be a good idea.--Zolo (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, my proposal is a bit crude. Your alternative solution sounds very interesting, but I'm not familiar enough with wikicode to decipher the code you gave. But if you're confident it will work for tl ProvenanceEvent, why not give it a try? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
It uses {{str find}} that as the name suggests- find a particular string in a particular chunk of text. The problem is that the list of words that should be included is very long, and would make the template very heavy -and some limits are imposed to the complexity of templates so I am not sure it would work.--Zolo (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
ok, I see. For the time being I add articles ‘by hand’. For example like this: {{ProvenanceEvent|time=1969|type=purchase|newowner={{LangSwitch|de=vom|en=the|fr=le|nl=het}} {{Rijksmuseum}}, Amsterdam,|oldowner=J.P. Desbons}}. For the time being I don't see an easier way I'm afraid. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 008.jpg[edit]

Hi ! I've removed the Category:Paintings in the Amsterdam Museum from the files page because it is already a category of Category:The_anatomy_lesson_of_Dr._Joan_Deyman. Léna (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake! Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Braun Amsterdam HAAB detail 01.jpg[edit]

Hello Vincent, please specify where in the internet you found this file (weblink). I'm afraid "internet" alone is not sufficient as a source. Regards, De728631 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Unfortunately I can't retrace the website I got it from. But I don't think that's necessary in this case. This image was first published in 1572 and is without a doubt in the public domain. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's true. De728631 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Birthsyear of Antonie Waldorp[edit]

Why did you write the year 1803 in the Category:Antonie Waldorp? In the nl-Wikipedia article Antonie Waldorp is the Birthsyear 1802. --Botaurus (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

All authority control databases say 1803. See Creator:Antonie Waldorp --Jarekt (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
According to this he was born in 1803. The wikipedia article was unreferenced, so I ignored it. Maybe I should have changed it. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now I've corrected the date of birth in the Dutch Wikipedia article on 1803. --Botaurus (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks a lot. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Categorization for the Louvre[edit]

Hello Vincent, the organization of the Louvre is somewhat complex, or at least not always clear (not mentioning that Atlas and the main website are not well linked and organized along rather different principles). I'd like to make the categorization of the Louvre clerer, ith some texts to explain the structure of the museum. Please feel free to make comments at commons:Louvre/structure--Zolo (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I will. Can I just add my comment to wherever I want to? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, using the talk page may make it clearer, but it is not well strucutred yet.--Zolo (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Vincent! Maybe you have the ability and desire to place high-resolution images from the specified source. Igor,com_memorix/Itemid,2/lang,nl/

Portret van aartshertogin Isabella Rubens, Peter Paul Rubenshuis

Portret van aartshertog Albrecht Rubens, Peter Paul Rubenshuis

Portret van Cosmo di Medici Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Alfons, koning van Aragon en Napels Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Paus Leo X Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Lorenzo di Medici Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Francesco I de Medici Allori, Alessandro Bronzino Museum Mayer Van den Bergh

NNL (1815) vs (NNL 1830)[edit]

Hi Vincent, thanks for all the work you have been doing on the artist creator pages and categories for the Netherlands in the 17th century! It's really looking good. I remember we talked about splitting the cats up into north and south and early netherlandish and then "before the Kingdom of the Netherlands". Well, I am still unclear why there is a gap for some cats as "before 1815" vs "before 1830". Shouldn't these all be 1830? I am asking because I had trouble finding the cat for Andries Jacobsz. Stock‎ and it's because of the category Printmakers from the Northern Netherlands (before 1815). Shouldn't this be 1830? Jane023 (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Some categories with the year 1815 are still around. My plan was to replace them by the 1830 categories in time. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks! I am in no hurry, but it's been so long I just couldn't remember. I think I have even put a few painters into (1815) cats since then and I will try to correct this when I get the chance. Jane023 (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Ships on a Stormy Sea c1672 Willem van de Velde the Younger.jpg[edit]

Hey, it seems like you were the user that (incorrectly) instigated the incorrect renaming of this painting (that I have now corrected). I know commons contributors are very overworked and that it is a thankless task trying to maintain accurate results for all images on commons. Unfortunately, if you look beyond the inaccurate source you cited, you can see that every other googlable source for this painting would have suggested that your "correction" was not accurate. I know it is difficult to deal with ostensibly reliable sources that actually wrong - but hopefully this alerts you to the flaw! Ajbpearce (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for your sharp observation. You are completely right. I had a chance to look at the 1953 article by Van Gelder. In it he describes an exhibition at the Royal Academie of Arts commenting about a number of what he thinks are incorrect attributions. About the Toledo painting he writes the following: ‘No. 587. Willem van de Velde the Younger is probably by L. Bakhuizen’. Probably, he writes!!! So I was too hasty in changing the attribution of this paiting, and so was the Netherlands Institute for Art History, which is usually quite reliable. I know commons is not one big sandbox in which to experiment, but situations like this do keep you sharp and focused. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does seem odd, I guess the NIAH record has just not been updated in a long-time. I noticed the issue because I was doing some research on turner (who made a famous companion painting to this one) and found there was another copy of this image that had been incorrectly attributed to him on commons. So we had two copies of this painting, both attributed to someone else :D Ajbpearce (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Alexander_Kropholler[edit] 19:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Translation in inscription-template[edit]

Hoi Vincent! Allereerst een gelukkig nieuwjaar gewenst! :)
Verder ook een vraagje: je hebt in template:inscription/label handtekening (terug)veranderd in signatuur. Maar volgens mij is een signatuur niet hetzelfde als een handtekening. De Van Dale geeft: sig·na·tuur [sinjaatuur] de; v -turen aard, karakter: het nieuwe kabinet draagt een liberale ~. [1] Ik denk dat signatuur in de betekenis van handtekening een anglicisme/gallicisme is. Is het dan niet beter om gewoon handtekening te gebruiken? Het bijvoegelijk naamwoord gesigneerd komt wel in de Van Dale voor als het zetten van een handtekening, dus die kunnen we laten staan.

Met vriendelijke groet, DutchHoratius (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DutchHoratius, Dank je! Jij ook de beste wensen.
Volgens mijn woordenboek (Kramers) wordt het woord handtekeing gebruikt voor ondertekening en het woord signatuur voor 1. handtekening, 2. - ik citeer - de "ondertekening van een kunstwerk", en 3. karakter. Aangezien tl {{Inscription}} vooral gebruikt wordt voor de beschrijving van kunstwerken leek het me beter om van signatuur/gesigneerd te spreken dan van handtekening/ondertekend. Hoe het komt dat jouw woordenboek maar één betekenis van signatuur geeft begrijp ik niet. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(1815) NNL vs (1830) NNL again[edit]

Hi Vincent, I cleaned up a bit yesterday and emptied a bunch of categories:

I then asked User talk:Foroa to delete these, since they are sorted before the corresponding "(before 1830)" categories in HotCat. User Foroa is against this categorization structure, and wants to move all of "Painters from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830)" into "Painters from Belgium". You may want to drop by and explain things there. Jane023 (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jane, yes, I saw the work you did fixing these categories. Thanks for that. I had a discussion with Foroa on this earlier and my impression is that this user does not mind "Painters from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830)", as long as subcategories of this category are also stored under "Painters from Belgium". That's why you will find a lot of painter categories in both "Painters from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830)" and "Painters from Belgium". We also discussed the overcategorisation this causes, but user Foroa doesn't seem to mind. I think this is a little bit strange, but I can work with it. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's fine. I couldn't see what the problem was with Category:Jan Pauwel Gillemans (I), but I guess all's well now. Jane023 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Portrait drawings by Jean-Étienne Liotard[edit]

Dear Vincent Steenberg, following advice given to me by Túrelio, I would be grateful to you if you could answer the following question: do you intend to request to move the content of Category:Portrait drawings by artist to Category:Drawings by artist,“for easier navigation”? Thank you.--Thorvaldsson (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Thorvaldsson, I'm not sure how I got to this, but looking at Category:Drawings by Jean-Étienne Liotard, I see it only contains 6 files and 1 subcategory, and therefore doesn't need diffusion in my opinion. But to answer your question, I don't think Category:Portrait drawings by artist needs to be moved to Category:Drawings by artist, although I think that (with regard to user-friendliness) Drawings by artist should be the starting point and Portrait drawings by artist should only be applied when diffusion is inevitable. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Vincent Steenberg, since your criterion of inevitability, in the context of Liotard, seems to be determined by quantity [of the files], I would like to add that most of the files in Category:Jean-Étienne Liotard could be moved to Category:Drawings by Jean-Étienne Liotard and then, to its subcategory Category:Portrait drawings by Jean-Étienne Liotard. Kind regards, --Thorvaldsson (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's determined by quantity. I mean, if Category:Jean-Étienne Liotard only contained 5 files, it probebly wouldn't be diffused. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Very well, then. With your consent I shall recreate the category in question.
I would like to ask you an additional question for the purposes of my own clarification: I noticed that you have removed Template:Title from File:Jean-Étienne Liotard - Portret van Louis de Bourbon.jpg and File:Jean-Étienne Liotard - Portret van Marie Josèphe van Saksen.jpg. May I know the reason for that? Thank you.
--Thorvaldsson (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I kinda doubt if that's really necessary in this case, but we'll see.
About these two drawings, they were made in France by a French artist, so if they had anything close to an original language title (I still don't fully know what that means), it would be in French. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The description of the template speaks of ‘title in original language,’ which is not necessary the same as ‘original title.’
In my understanding, in the case of the aforementioned works, the original language of their titles is Dutch due to their place of conservation and, the latest official edition of the catalogue, published by that museum, establishes their titles.
I shall write to the creator of the template, Zolo.
--Thorvaldsson (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
About original language in {{title}}. The main use I see is for artworks that were clearly given a title (for instance a title in Tahitian in paintings by Gauguin). In other cases, I am not sure about what is best. Having the exact title used in an authoritative source sounds interesting, but things become complicated when there are several arguably authoritative sources. I like Vincent's practice of adding "as=" in the reference section is it allows multiple titles without too much cluttering (but note that we can use {{title}} with no "lang" parameter- {{title| {{Madonna and Child}} }} provides better formatting than ''{{Madonna and Child}}''. For instance it avoids strange italics Chinese)--Zolo (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I see. I am glad that I raised the matter.--Thorvaldsson (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Portrait of an Old Man in Red by Rembrandt[edit]

Hi Vincent, do you have any idea why Portrait of an Old Man in Red by Rembrandt does not show up in the RKD database, nor in a search in the collection at the Hermitage? It seems that the information here solely relies on the Web Gallery of Art. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea. The only thing i could find on this painting is this. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok. So it is actually there. For a moment I got the impression a myth was being created. Thanks. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Cat changes[edit]

like this one [2]: Whatever the value of this new category, the "Dutch Golden Age Painters" cat is now empty until letter R, and starts from letter S with a lot of painters. If you change things like this, please make sure to change everything quickly, or at least make clear what you do in the category description or talk page. I added a link to the new category now, but the present state with the two "half" categories is really a shame for the Commons. --FA2010 (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, The value of this new category is to separate painters from the Northern from painters from the Southern Netherlands. To make sure I'm not making any mistakes I also create a creator template for each category (see subcats of Category:Painters from the Northern Netherlands (before 1830)). I'm sorry if this is taking too long, but in the end we should have a reliable, complete and well documented system for all painters from the Netherlands. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I was just wondering about these categories, and I didn't notice the complicated nature of the change. It would be good if the old and new categories are linked by wikilinks until the change is done. Thanks for your work. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


FYI: Template talk:Temporary Exhibition--Zolo (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


Hi, why do you remove the template from picture descriptions? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm doing that because this template was made redundant after the "object history" field was added to tl {{Artwork}}. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's redundant: 'object history' doesn't make any difference between the place where the object was made and its findspot. The two can be very different. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
If 'object history' doesn't make that this distinction then both are covered, aren't they? Also with {{ProvenanceEvent}} you should be able to describe both the object's findspot and further ownership history. I don't see how tl Provenance is of use in all of that. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
{{provenance}} describes where the object comes from; it's more precise than 'object history', which doesn't make any difference. Conversely, there is no way with 'object history: Iran' to know whether the object as found in Iran or was made there. Sometimes it's both, sometimes it's not. That's why I use {{place made}} and {{provenance}}. I agree {{ProvenanceEvent}} is better because it's more precise, but you don't always have enough documentation to mention how exactly the object came into attention. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
ok, I see. No problem. In that case I will leave tl Provenance as it is whenever it's unclear how an object was found or when for some other reason tl ProvenanceEvent hasn't been used. Thanks for the explanation. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Obviously the best course would be to add a specific field for the place where the artwork was made, so there's no ambiguity. I'll ask about it on Template:Artwork when I have more time. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
ok, I'm all for that. Other websites to this too, so why not we.
By the way, I had a closer look at File:Rider Kashan Louvre MAO1228.jpg and it's description by the Louvre and am I correct in assuming that this piece was made in Kashan? If so it might be better to put this in {{Anonymous}} in the artist field, like this: {{Anonymous|{{RelativeLocation|Kashan|,|Iran}}}}. Like this you free up the object history field, which can then be used for the real provenance (bought by the Louvre in 1999), which is now incorrectly in the credit line field. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Photographer Barnstar.png The Photographer's Barnstar
looks like you're doing a lot of good work :) Vera (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Vera, Thank you very much! Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for opinion[edit]

Hi Vincent, can yoy shine your light on Commons:Village_pump#Mass_renaming_needed_for_.22d._.C3.84..22_articles. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will. Thanks. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Paintings by Cornelis Cornelisz. van Haarlem in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam[edit]

Hallo Vincent, warom is dat geen gewone subcategorie van Paintings by Cornelis Cornelisz. van Haarlem voor een bete overzicht in de hoofdcategory? MvgOursana (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Oursana, Het idee daarachter is dat je op die manier alle schilderijen van Cornelis Cornelisz. in één categorie hebt. De categorie Category:Paintings by Cornelis Cornelisz. van Haarlem bevat nu 61 bestanden en hoeft mijns inziens niet verder opgedeeld worden in subcategorieën. Althans niet op dit moment. Dit lijkt misschien omslachtig, maar als je bijvoorbeeld kijkt naar Category:Paintings by Johann Georg Schwartze in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, dan zie je dat de hoofdcategorie 1 bestand bevat, terwijl de subcategorie 4 bestanden bevat. Ik vind dat geen fraaie oplossing en ik probeer dit als het kan te voorkomen. Vandaar. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ik zie jouw punt, maar Category:Paintings by Cornelis Cornelisz. van Haarlem heeft ook subcat Category:Paintings by Cornelis van Haarlem in the National Museum in Warsaw‎ met alleen 2 bestanden. Ik ben over Category:Paintings by painter by museum naar Category:Paintings by Cornelis Cornelisz. van Haarlem in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam gekomen. Als je over Category:Paintings by Cornelis Cornelisz. van Haarlem kommt, zie je subcat Category:Paintings by Cornelis Cornelisz. van Haarlem in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam niet. Andere vraag, wordt Cornelis Cornelisz. van Haarlem echt onder Cornelis gesorteerd of niet beter onder van Haarlem? Zie Brekelenkam‎, Category:Paintings by Claes Dircksz. van der Heck in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam onder H. Zoms wordt ook onder van gesorteerd, volgens Engels.MvgOursana (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ja, dat weet ik. Ik denk er ook over om een categorie Category:Dutch Golden Age paintings in the National Museum in Warsaw te beginnen. Als je kijkt naar Category:Dutch paintings in the National Museum in Warsaw dan zie je dat de subcategorieën van deze categorie vaak maar 1 of 2 bestanden bevatten en dat is wel erg gedetailleerd.
Over de sortering, het RKD geeft aan dat deze schilder onder de C van Cornelisz. moet worden gesorteerd, zie Alleen waarom dit zo is, is mij niet duidelijk. Misschien is "van Haarlem" een latere toevoeging? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hartelijk dankOursana (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Italian paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum‎ en Category:Paintings from Italy in the Kunsthistorisches Museum‎[edit]

Hallo Vincent, kijk je of die twee italiaanse cats so goed zijn? Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum is ook erg gedetailleerd. MvgOursana (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, Ik zou zeggen dat "Italian paintings" meer voor de hand ligt dan "Paintings from Italy", maar blijkbaar wordt hier verschillend over gedacht. Maar ik zie ook dat de tweede cat meer gebruikt wordt dan de eerste, dus ik zal van de eerste een doorverwijzing maken. Voor nu dan. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi Vincent Steenberg. Next time if you have a query or a question, before to making a CFD it's better to ask before the user. It's easier. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

ok, no problem. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Peter van Bleeck[edit]

Hi Vincent, sorry but you've made an mistake by redirecting the category under (esp. the perspective of the history of art) the wrong name Pieter, because he's well known since his moving London under this name (Peter). Also in the literature and the two wikipedia-articles on de: and en:. And the deleting of the Category-Description is not very helpfull.

Hallo Vincent, entschuldige, aber du hast einen Fehler gemacht, indem du die zugehörige Kategorie in einen Redirect verwandelt hast (insbesonders aus der Perspektive der Kunstgeschichte heraus) und seinen Taufnamen Pieter verwendet hast. Als Porträtmaler und Graveur ist er ausschließlich seit seinem Umzug nach London unter diesem Namen bekannt. (eigenständige Werke unter seinem Taufnamen, die er in den Niederlanden geschaffen hat, sind mir bis dato nicht bekannt) Siehe dazu auch die entsprechende Literatur, die zwei Wikipedia-Artikel auf de: und en:. Darüber hinaus war das Löschen der Kategorie-Einleitung/Beschreibung nicht gerade hilfreich. Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Laibwächter (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Laibwächter, Oops. Meine Entschuldigungen. My information was based on the RKD. Usually they are quite reliable, but in this case they must have overlooked his 'international' name. I will correct this right away. Thanks for pointing this out. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Vincent, thank you for adding further categories! Regards & Alles Gute --Laibwächter (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi! Are you sure this painting has to do with the Category:Le Mas-d'Agenais you added in may 2012 ? Friendly, ℍenry (Babel talk !) (Francophone ?) 16:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, according to this page the painting is located at the parish church of Le Mas-d'Agenais. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi! So you are right. I just transfer it in the category of the church/collegiale Saint Vincent. Le Mas d'Agenais is about 30 km from my home... Maybe I'll have the pleasure to see it ! Thanks, ℍenry (Babel talk !) (Francophone ?) 04:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Dutch paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin[edit]

[×] Dutch paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin‎ (156 D)

[×] Dutch Renaissance paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin‎ (13 D)

[+] Dutch Golden Age paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin‎ (4 K, 52 D)

Hallo Vincent Steenberg, zijn die laatste twee categorieën niet subcats van de erste? Misschien is ook een korte verklaring van 'Golden Age' praktisch, ik denk er zijn ook vele dateien in Dutch paintings....diee in Dutch golden Age horen?? VG--Oursana (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Oursana, Mijn bedoeling was om de eerste categorie te vervangen door de laatste twee categorieën. Op die manier heb je op Category:Paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin een beter overzicht. Stel, je bent op zoek naar schilderijen van Rembrandt dan hoef je maar op Category:Dutch Golden Age paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin‎ en dan ben je er al. Ik kan me voorstellen dat Category:Dutch paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin als tussencategorie als hinderlijk wordt ervaren. Ik zou het zelf in ieder geval niet zo handig vinden. Een definitie van Dutch Golden Age painting kan natuurlijk altijd. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Jan Gossaert 008.jpg[edit]

Early Netherlandish paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin

Southern Netherlandish paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin

Dutch paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin

Zijn deze 3 categorien echt praktisch ? Ook de laatste? Overcat? Mvg--Oursana (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Portraits by Frans Hals en Category:Portrait paintings by Frans Hals[edit]

Sorry, maar ik begrijp het verschil niet en blijkbaar andere ook niet, omdat het erg gemixt is. Catharina Hooft hoord naar...? Mvg --Oursana (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Volgens mij moet de eerste categorie (Category:Portraits by Frans Hals) vervangen worden door Category:Portrait paintings by Frans Hals. Een portret is niet per definitie een schilderij. Kan ook een tekening, een beeldhouwwerk, etc. zijn. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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


And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag[edit]

Hi Vincent. Is there something wrong with this category that I created recently and that you are nominating for speedy deletion? [3] Is it conceptually problematic in a way that "Landscape painters from France" is not? Why couldn't you discuss the issue with me or notify me that you were planning to delete it?

Coincidentally, I have actually been drafting a question for you about terms that would be best for me to use regarding categorizing art from the Netherlands--because I have noticed your name a lot in these matters. However, it appears once again that my perception that this project operates almost entirely without communication is vindicated. Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Boo-boo, That category was causing overcategorisation (see COM:OVERCAT). But apart from that I find that it makes it more difficult to retrieve categories. For example Rubens' work includes some landscapes. That would make him a landscape painter. But anyone who knows a little bit about Rubens wouldn't look under landscape painters. A flat list in this case just works better, if you ask me. Sorry I used the speedy delete tag, but a 'normal' deletion procedure sometimes takes forever. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Paintings by Hieronymus Bosch by location. This took almost 4 months!!
I'm not sure what question you mean. If you mean the open questions on your user page, I can say that I agree with almost everything you say. I also think that Paintings by artist by museum should be avoided and that Paintings from country is more obvious than Paintings in country. On consistency I think that if each user does what he thinks is best, things will turn out more or less ok. You mentioned Category:Works of John Singleton Copley, artist. I think this is not a matter of consistency, but one of good english. "works of" should be "works by" and the added "artist" makes no sense so it can be dropped. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I suppose we disagree on the matter of over-categorization in this case. I would not want a painter of many genres to appear only in "landscape painters", but if it is an important part of their work, I don't think it is over-categorization. Category:Landscape painters from France would usefully contain Monet, Pissarro, and so forth. It does not mean that they can't be in another "French painter" category as well.
I will put the speedy tag back on that category, as it's not important. I only wanted an explanation, as my interest in this project always balances on whether there is any benefit to trying to "organize" it, or whether we are all working at cross-purposes! In a similar matter of bafflement, I recently went to a fair bit of work to populate Category:Paintings from France by decade, only to notice a discussion today at the bottom of this talk page which suggests that a painting from Germany should not in fact be categorized as a painting from Germany. If the preposition "from" has different connotations in German and English, I do not know. I had planned to work on Italy and Germany next, in a similar manner. The note that I mentioned--that I had prepared for you but hadn't posted--was to eventually ask your opinion on how to proceed with paintings from the Netherlands, given the varying terms used in Netherlandish art history. (I had noticed that you were active in editing this area.) I will just paste it below in a collapsed box for your information, but don't feel obligated to reply at this point.
So, if a "1520s painting from Germany" does not belong in "Category:1520s paintings from Germany" according to the small majority of arts editors, I fear I am very much wasting my time. I wanted to set up this system to allow people to view the changes in art over time and by area, which I would actually make a cornerstone of an arts categorization system if I were designing if from scratch. Regards, Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you can ignore that. Category names should be in English (see Commons:Naming_categories#Language). "Paintings from country" might be ambiguous in German (Gemälde aus Deutschland), but not in English. Even if a painter spent some time abroad, the paintings he made there are still considered paintings from his country of origin.
Otherwise, I think sorting paintings by decade is fine. However, I must say that it does not necessarily serve the primary purpose categories have on Commons, which is to store and retrieve files (see Commons:Categories#Purpose_of_categories_in_Wikimedia_Commons). But then Commons is an open source project, so I think there should always be room for experiment. As long as it doesn't interfere with what's already there. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
We work with what we see in front of us, unless what we see in front of us makes no sense. Precedent vs policy. I would venture that more than 90% of categories in the arts do not serve the purpose that I think you're suggesting, so I remain perplexed by some of your views. Me creating a group for landscape painters from an important art-historical area is "over-categorization"--nonsense--while certain other editors are prodigiously creating "Paintings by X in Museum Y" that contain two items apiece. Wouldn't that be lower-hanging over-categorization fruit, so to speak? Rhetorical question. In any case, we can wind this down. Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
well the category you mention is a good example of what not to do. So I don't think our views are that far apart. If ever you have the time and you want to fix this particular category, I would say: go ahead., Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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


And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Early Netherlandish paintings in the National Gallery of Art‎[edit]

Hallo Vincent Steenberg, ik ben erg geeriteerd, dat Category:Early Netherlandish paintings in the National Gallery of Art‎ subcat van Category:Flemish paintings in the National Gallery of Art zou zijn. Deze categorien zijn toch altijd parallel? see Category:Paintings in the Hermitage HG –—Oursana (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Oursana, Mee eens. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC).
Dank je, ik heb het al veranderd.–—Oursana (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:History paintings by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo[edit]

Sorry but this category is worst than painter by museum. File:Giambattista Tiepolo - The Death of Hyacinthus - Google Art Project.jpg is mythological, not historical. File:Giovan battista tiepolo, bozzetti per la chiesa di san pascual baylon ad aranjuez, 1767, 01.JPG is religious. I hope you agree to delete this category, otherwise we have to use cfd.–—Oursana (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, history painting is a generic term to indicate all sorts of paintings that originate from the written word (see History painting). These include mythology stories as well as the Bible. As for Tiepolo, I think Category:Mythology paintings by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo and Category:Religious paintings by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo work just as well. I mean, he left such a huge number of paintings, neither of these will be too specific. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, for the good explanation. User:Mattes moved File:Giambattista Tiepolo - The Death of Hyacinthus - Google Art Project.jpg meanwhile. For File:Giovan battista tiepolo, bozzetti per la chiesa di san pascual baylon ad aranjuez, 1767, 01.JPG I still can't see the reason for cat History paintings–—Oursana (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands[edit]

Hallo Vincent Steenberg,

Je hebt eerder de Category:Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands aangemaakt. Deze bestaat echter al als Category:Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. Daarnaast is het RCE gevestigd in Amersfoort aan het Smallepad, niet in Rijswijk. Basvb (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hoi Bas, dat klopt. Die categorie is ter vervanging van Category:Netherlands Cultural Heritage Agency. Deze naam had ik ooit ergens op de website van het RCE gezien, maar ik zie nu dat op de naam "Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands" gebruikt wordt. Zie ook Omdat commons een internationaal gebeuren is leek het me beter om de engelse naam te gebruiken.
Verder kent het RCE vele onderdelen. Misschien is het hoofdkantoor gevestigd in Amstersfoort. Waarschijnlijk weet jij dat beter dan ik. Wat ik wel weet is dat het voormalige ICN (in 2011 gefuseerd met RCE) in Rijswijk gevestigd is. Op wordt gesproken van "The Art Collection" [of the Netherlands]. Misschien is dat een betere term (ter aanduiding van de kunstafdeling van het RCE) met RCE als overkoepelende instantie. Dit zou dan resulteren in een Category:Art Collection of the Netherlands of Category:Art Collection of the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands. Is dat een idee? Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Klinkt als een plan. Zelf breng ik het RCE in verband met rijksmonumenten. Het kan inderdaad zijn dat vooral de monumentenafdeling in Amersfoort zit (dat is vast het beste op hun site te vinden). Nederlandse organisaties kunnen denk ik prima met hun nederlandse naam in een categorie, zeker als ze zich ook met die naam internationaal presenteren (weet niet of dat het geval is). In ieder geval worden er nu reeds 100,000en afbeeldingen onder de naam RCE geüpload.
Als ik het goed begrijp is er een afdeling voor Roerend erfgoed. Dit was vroeger het ICN. Maar als ik het goed begrijp bezit deze afdeling niet echt een kunstcollectie maar beheerst zij de kunstcollectie van het rijk. Dus dan lijkt Art collection of the Netherlands mij een betere omschrijving. Basvb (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Daniël Mijtens (II) - Allegoriserende portretgroep[edit]

Hoi Vincent. Veel dank voor het opknappen van de beschrijving van deze afbeelding. Met vriendelijke groet, regards, Biccie (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Geen dank, mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Early Netherlandish paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, Category:Southern Netherlandish paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, Category:Dutch Renaissance paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin[edit]

Hallo Vincent, welke cat ist speciaal en juist, het moeten er toch geen 3?? Ik zie net, dat ik jou hetzelfde zonder antwoord op 21 september heb gevraagd. VG--Oursana (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, dat moet me dan zijn ontgaan. Category:Early Netherlandish paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin is gebaseerd op Early Netherlandish painting en alles wat erna komt heb ik eerst ondergebracht in Category:Dutch Renaissance paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, enz., en Category:Southern Netherlandish paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin. Ik geef toe dat in sommige gevallen het moeilijk is vast te stellen wat "Early Netherlandish" is en wat "Renaissance" (bijvoorbeeld Quentin Matsys), maar beide zijn vrij heterogene groepen. En ook klopt het dat er sprake is van een grote overlap tussen "Southern Netherlandish" en "Early Netherlandish painters". Jan van Eyck is immers ook een Zuid-Nederlands schilder. Misschien is het dus een goed idee om Category:Southern Netherlandish paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin net als "Dutch paintings" ook op te splitsen. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Wendela Bicker[edit]

there is a new message and image for you at the photography workshop... Penyulap 20:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


Leyo 23:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yale University Art Gallery[edit]

Yale University Art Gallery 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 gallery, 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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Gerbis (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Portrait of a young man, by Willem van der Vliet.jpg[edit]

Hi Vincent, you moved this painting from Category:Willem van der Vliet to Category:Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt. I don't understand? The source does not mention Van Mierevelt at all. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jan, according to the RKD this painting was done by Van Mierevelt or his circle. This seems to be based on the inscription. Van Mierevelt wrote "Anno" with a capital A, sometimes followed by his signature (example), while Van der Vliet wrote "Anno" with a small a, nearly almost followed by his signature (example). Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This is strange. Bonhams says on 6 Jul 2011: "We are grateful to Fred Meijer of the RKD, who has suggested that the present work was painted by van der Vliet." whereas the same Fred Meijer at RKD since 2006 says it is from (the circle of) Van Mierevelt. Peculiar. Although Van der Vliet possibly was a pupil of Van Mierevelt it is not likely that he still was his pupil in 1625, because he entered the guild in 1615. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I had a look at Christie's, but there it's listed as Anonymous. So no luck there either. It is of course possible that Meijer changed his opinion some time between 2006 and 2011. I will ask the RKD directly. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for my late response, but I've been busy. I've contacted the RKD and there seems to have been a misunderstanding between Bonhams and the RKD. Fred Meijer did not (re)attribute this painting to van der Vliet in 2011. The attribution "Van Mierevelt or circle" still stands. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Vincent. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


I created some templates with langSwitches you use. But I don't know much about art and I don't know, what they mean.

  1. What is image? [4][5][6][7][8] Reproduction (in a book)?
  2. What is plate? [9] A plate with description under a painting in the museum?
  3. What is on p. from parameter pill? [10] Is it on pill? What does pill mean here?
  4. cat. from cat is catalog?
  5. p. from p is page?

I'm thinking also about template for articles. {{definite article}}?

{{LangSwitch|de=das|en=the|nl=het|fr=le|default=<span/>}}{{definite article|museum}}
{{LangSwitch|de=das|en=the|nl=het|fr=au|default=<span/>}}{{definite article|museum|case=newowner?}}

But is this au correct? prêtée au au Rijksmuseum Amsterdam [11]. And das - von das Rijksmuseum Amsterdam [12]? - I think it should be von dem Museum.

I think something like |default=<span/> is needed because in languages without article here the is unnecessary. BartekChom (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bartek, I've noticed your changes. Thanks a lot for the work so far.
  1. Yes, "image" means reproduction in a book. There are 3 options: color image, black and white image and if modus is unknown just image.
  2. Plate also means reproduction. The catalog Van Doesburg and the International Avant-Garde distinguishes 2 types of reproductions: illustrations in the tekst and separate reproductions. Both with seperate numbers. I tried to incorporate these numbers in the template, but at some point I gave up. Now it just mentions the page on which the repro can be found. I might fix this some day.
  3. "pill" renders the page on which the repro can be found. So
    ...|color image|pill=100|...
    becomes "with image in color on p. 100".
  4. cat. is short for catalog
  5. p. for page.

Then the articles. I think your suggestion is very good. The "au" is part of Template:ProvenanceEvent, provenance type "loan". See [13]. If you ask me it shouldn't be there, because it's also not to be found in provenance type "bequest" and "gift". Someone must have though you can only loan to a museum, and not a person, so why not include the article in the template. But I think that's wrong. A special article template might solve that.

@[14]: If it's von dem Rijksuseum that that's obviously a spelling mistake by me. Thanks for pointing that out. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I'll try to correct templates. The preparation of the article template will be more complicated. BartekChom (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

File:1418 Antonio Vivarini Adoration of the Magi anagoria.JPG[edit]

I changed from gothic to Category:Italian Renaissance paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin. See it:Antonio Vivarini#Voci correlate, en:Antonio Vivarini. Greetings ––Oursana (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

ok, no problem. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Paintings by Martinus Schouman in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam and Category:Paintings by Jean Augustin Daiwaille in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam[edit]

Please accept the categorisation barnstar for dedicated categorisation of Rijksmuseum files.

Hi Vincent, I've declined the speedy nominations for these categories and rolled back the edits that emptied them, in my opinion removing these categories does not make navigation easier, it may make them more visible within the context of the Rijksmuseum collection, but removing these subcategories not only makes the parent cluttered but makes navigation to related categories harder. I guess you are worried that images are being buried in subcategories and invisible to find for people who don't already know the work or the artist. One approach is a virtual recreation of the museum either through the use of galleries or categories e.g. Category:British Museum by room.

However if you still believe that deleting these categories is the best course of action opening Cfd's for these categories at Commons:Categories for discussion would probably be the best course of action.--KTo288 (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Just seen the speedy nomination for Category:Paintings by Jacob Spoel in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam-is it your intention to empty the smaller categories back into the parent Category:Dutch 19th-century paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, if your logic applies to these subcategories doesn't it apply to all the subcategories?--23:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi KTo288, yes it is my intention to put the smaller categories back into the parent category for the sake of better visibility. I'm doing this also to make navigation easier in the artist's category. For example Category:Lambert de Hondt (II) now contains only one subcat: Category:Paintings by Lambert de Hondt (II) in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. This is a bit silly and unnecessary in my view. The same goes for Category:Jean Augustin Daiwaille, Category:George Gillis Haanen, Category:Martinus Schouman, Category:Jacob Spoel, and many others. Apart from that, none of these categories need diffusion.
But to be clear, larger categories, like Category:Paintings by Rembrandt in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, I will leave untouched. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand the frustration of images being buried so that they are no longer visible, howvever in my opinion it is better to diffuse categories rather than to over populate them, anything approaching a hundred images in a category in my opinion needs more diffusing not less. Navigation also mean navigation in not just out of a category, starting from the artist's category where there are few files this seems to make sense, but the cumulative effect of emptying all the little categories will have a detrimental effect on the parent category. If you must nominate these smaller categories for speedy than please do so with the rationale that you want to enhance the visibility of files or overctegorisation.--09:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You have a point there. I usually start diffusing a category when the number of files exceeds 200. Maybe that number is too high. Thanks for your remarks. I will take them into account. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Anything approaching 200 files, and in need of a second page, is way overpopulated in my opinion. Sorry if I seem overly critical; looking through the Rijksmuseum categories, I see that they exist only because you spent the time and effort to create and populate them, a word of thanks for that work as I am sure you have only the best interests of how Rijksmuseum files are categorised and presented--KTo288 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
ok, Thanks very much. Critique is always welcome. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Flemish paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam-I was doing my evening rounds for speedys when I found this one, please don't take this as a vendetta, but I've declined the speedy and added the three new Flemish categories to it. Categorisation is described by some as a tree, in my view it is more of a intertwined grape vine with multiple trunks. Having just the three new Flemish categories, helps with navigation vertically within the Rijksmuseum category-but it removes the transverse navigation that Category:Flemish paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam provided namely the ability to reach Category:Flemish paintings through Category:Flemish paintings in the Netherlands, and to which these files belong as much as they belong to the Rijksmuseum branch of the tree.--20:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried not to categorise too deep, again for better visibility and navigation. To use an analogy of my own, a row of books (as long as they're not too numerous) works better than a box with books, even if the box is labled. But you're right in saying that I've overlooked Category:Flemish paintings in the Netherlands. This category isn't exactly chockful, so what if we put those 3 new categories directly under this parent category? Does that solve the problem? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Does Category:Southern Netherlandish paintings in the Mauritshuis belong to Category:Flemish paintings in the Netherlands, or would we need to check through individual files?--18:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's another issue. Basically, Southern Netherlandish and Flemish refer to the same school of painting. But in literature, especially Dutch literature, the name "Southern Netherlandish" is preferred, as it also includes other parts of what is now Belgium, such as Brabant (Antwerp) and Wallonia. There's no "Walloon school of painting", for example. But in the english speaking word the term Flemish still prevails (see also this quote). So all files in Category:Southern Netherlandish paintings in the Mauritshuis belong to Flemish paintings in the Netherlands, as do all files in Category:Paintings from the Southern Netherlands. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Had a think about your bookshelf analogy, and I won't say that you are wrong and that I am right, I tend towards everything in a box school, but with the boxes labelled and arranged to allow me to find what I need to. Its a question of judgement of which of our two approaches is most appropriate.--KTo288 (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
That's true, but I try to make sure a category structure is not too deep. I mean, the main purpose of categories is to organize and find files on commons (see Commons:Categories). Too often I come across a category structure that is so elaborate that finding files becomes tedious at best and difficult at worst. Imagine you're in Category:Peter Paul Rubens and you're looking for one of his most famous paintings, The descent from the Cross in Antwerp, you have to work your way through 5 categories. In the process the user is being asked what the new testament is, what the passion is. Not everybody knows this. I try to prevent this, but maybe sometimes I go a little bit too far. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Vincent, you may be interested in Commons:Village_pump#Beyond_categories and Beyond categories, as you can see my addition to the discussion it is in part inspired by my chat with you here.--KTo288 (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


Hi Vincent, your categorization and creator template wisdom is needed over at Wikidata:Artworks_task_force/Infoboxes. Jane023 (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jane, Thanks for the invitation. I had a look. I think the idea is to centralise certain basic information on people and in this case artworks. For example the Night Watch. It that correct? But how does this relate to commons (Category:The Night Watch)? In other words, how is it used? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiData is going to be the central repository for all data that can be used in more than one sister project. Right now it only supports interwiki links and some infoboxes, based on the properties available in WikiData. Everyone is free to define new properties, so if you look at this one for example for "original title" which was only created in April, it could be used to hold the text "The Company of Frans Banning Cocq and Willem van Ruytenburch" for the Nightwatch, and so forth. The artwork template on Commons could be used to download information about creators and other information from Wikidata. In order to do this WikiData needs to be populated with that information, but of course we need to set up the structure first, such as properties and so forth. This will enable us (eventually) to create a common infobox for artworks that can be used in all language projects. How WikiData and Commons will be integrated is still being discussed I think. You should join the discussion, and maybe create a task force for creator templates here. Jane023 (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Me again! I just wanted to let you know there is a discussion about WikiData and Commons here: Commons talk:Wikidata for media info. Jane023 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

ok, thank you! Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Vincent[edit]

I have a question for you, because of the location of this painting (File:Dieric Bouts & Hugo van der Goes - Triptiek van de Heilige Hippolytus.jpg). The discussion is here. Maybe you can tell anything to it (because of your geographic origin). thanks --Botaurus (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I can. According to the Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD) (see and the Royal Institute of Cultural Heritage (KIK-IRPA) (see it is located at the St. Salvator's Cathedral in Bruges. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick information. --Botaurus (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam[edit]

Hi Vincent,

I reverted your last edits. Before you reverted mine without any comment. I do not see any reason, why this category should not belong into categories Category:Paintings by painter by museum and Category:Aert Anthonisz. VG --Oursana (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Oursana, firstly, Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam is already in Category:Paintings by painter by museum, via Category:Paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam by painter. So this is overcategorisation. Secondly, Category:Aert Anthonisz. only contains 7 files and does not need diffusion, in my opinion. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I was afraid about this. is sorted via museum and directly by artist, necessarily to find the artists. When artists are in several museums you do not have the problem because there is the cat museum. But also here it is not overcat, simply the parent cat Paintings in ...(Museum) is sorted extra in the first section. Otherwise you should also delete all Paintings by (painter) in ..(22 museums)-cats. You cannot mean this.
You created Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, with notice also be found in Category:Aert Anthonisz. To take Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam as an undercat therein gives a good overview. I hope you can agree, it makes information clearer and is within the usual system, see your first categorization. Otherwise information about Aert Anthonisz. paintings in Rijksmuseum is lacking. I would very much appreciate that you can keep this categorization. VG ––Oursana (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I see. Maybe the first group should be put in Category:Paintings by museum by painter. Just an idea.
Yes, but to have an overview in one cat is very practical. i often use it to check.--Oursana (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
ok, no problem. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam was intended to diffuse Category:Paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. So it's not that I don't see the use of categorising paintings by painter by museum. I just don't see why such a small category (7 files) should be diffused. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not want to diffuse Category:Aert Anthonisz. (7 files), but adding Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam is not diffusing, just gives more information. I competely agree with your notice to double keep the files in Category:Aert Anthonisz., but then include also Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam as sub. It is not disturbing or diffusing, simply gives information about rijksmuseum..VG--Oursana (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Could be, but this does cause overcategorisation. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but sometimes must be to find files back. You did overcategorization first by keeping files of Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam in Category:Aert Anthonisz. as well. All other problems result from this. So I do not understand that you keep the files in two cats (which as such I do not mind) and you do not want to show the subcategory. In case you want to revert again what can we do? Could we try to get a third opinion or could we keep it. Or you simply do not use Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam for 3 files and sort them without extra cat. The last I do not prefer. But when you see problems with Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam as subcat to Category:Aert Anthonisz., perhaps the solution could be this way round.VG --Oursana (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam doesn't have to be a subcategory of Category:Aert Anthonisz., but maybe I'm being too finicky. It would be interesting what other people have to say about this. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Vincent, I asked User:Botaurus, who does not answer in this matter. Do you have any other ideas? VG --Oursana (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Painters from the Northern Netherlands (before 1830) and Category:Dutch Golden Age paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin[edit]

Hallo Vincent,

ik probeer al en tijd NL categorie te begrijpen. Moet niet Dutch Golden Age paintings aangepast worden, aan Paintings from the Northern Netherlands (before 1830), zie ook Category:Dutch Golden Age paintings in the National Gallery, London‎…. of redirect van Painters from the Northern Netherlands (before 1830) terug naar Dutch Golden Age painters. Ik zal het beter vinden als painter and paintings categorie gelijkelijk genoemd worden. En denk je Category:1620 paintings from the Netherlands zou better 1620 paintings from the Northern Netherlands (before 1830), en 1620 paintings from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830) (Jacob Jordaens) zijn. VG --Oursana (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ik denk niet dat dit strikt noodzakelijk is. "Noord-Nederlands" is een verzamelnaam voor een zeer grote groep schilders (Van Geertgen tot Sint Jans tot Cornelis Troost), die onderling erg van elkaar verschillen. Termen als "Renaissance" en "Gouden Eeuw" zijn niet ideaal, maar ze zijn wel nuttig om enige ordening aan te brengen in bijvoorbeeld een categorie als Category:Dutch paintings in the National Gallery, London (228 files). In bedoel de meeste mensen kunnen zich wel een voorstelling maken van de term "Dutch Golden Age" (Hals, Vermeer, Rembrandt, enz.).
Bij Category:Painters from the Northern Netherlands (before 1830) is dit anders. De meeste schilders zijn bekend bij naam, dus je mag ervan uitgaan dat iemand die deze categorie raadpleegt gericht aan het zoeken is naar één specifieke schilder. Een verdere onderverdeling van deze categorie lijkt mij dus niet nodig en ook niet wenselijk.
We hebben hier dus te maken met twee verschillende problemen met twee verschillende oplossingen.
Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hartelijk dank--Oursana (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Four generations Princes of Orange - William I, Maurice and Frederick Henry, William II, William III (Willem van Honthorst, 1662).jpg[edit]

Hallo Vincent, kan je ajb die File-naam corrigeren (- Honthorst). Bedankt --Oursana (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Multilingual tags: Title[edit]

Hi Vincent, ik vind die multilingual tags erg handig. Wat denk je over een bouwkast system voor titelen als Adoration of the Child with Saint Jerome, Saint Mary Magdalene and Saint Eustache. Als die heiligen en die verbindungswoorden vertaald zijn kan je heel wat titelen daarmee produceren. VG --Oursana (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hoi Oursana, dat kan handig zijn. Maar misschien lukt het ook met de bestaande templates. Bijvoorbeeld
{{Saint Jerome}} {{and}} {{Mary Magdalene}}
wordt Saint Jerome and Mary Magdalene. Het sjabloon {{With}} blijkt ook al te bestaan. Dus misschien dat je met al deze elementen een nieuw template kunt maken. Maar wat je ook kunt doen is template {{Title}} verder uitbreiden. Ongeveer zo:
{{Title|Adoration of the Child|with|Saint Jerome|Saint Mary Magdalene|and|Saint Eustache}}
De bruikbaarheid hiervan is echter wel beperkt. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Dank je, Vincent, ik zal het proberen.--Oursana (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Hieronymus Bosch- The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things.JPG[edit]

A new version is available [15]. greetings --Botaurus (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

ok, thanks you. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Followers of Hieronymus Bosch Category:Bosch followers[edit]

Hallo Vincent, dank jouw excellent werk is het een grote vreugde om door de cats and files van HB te gaan. Boven genoemde cats horen imho zamen onder Followers of Hieronymus Bosch. Maar ik wil je graag eerst vragen, of er een nagedachte bij is, die ik niet zie.

File:Jheronimus Bosch copyist 001.jpg heeft een ref-fout, die ik niet kan oplossen. Ik heb Category:Paintings paraphrasing Jheronimus Bosch weggenomen. Deze file is in Category:Bosch followers, is terwijl die kleur-uitvoering File:Follower of Hieronymus Bosch - Adoration of the Magi - Upton House (open).jpg in Category:School of Hieronymus Bosch is, buiten Category:Paintings after Hieronymus Bosch. Die verhoudinge van deze categorie zijn voor mij onklaar. Meschien kan je hier verder helpen. VG --Oursana (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hoi Oursana, ja, dat klopt. Category:Bosch followers moet inderdaad verplaatst worden naar Category:Followers of Hieronymus Bosch.
Ik zal kijken of ik File:Jheronimus Bosch copyist 001.jpg kan verbeteren. Die constructie met voetnoten stamt nog uit de tijd dat het niet mogelijk was "References" in template "Artwork" te vermelden.
Toeschrijvingen aangaande followers, workshop, copies enz. zijn soms erg ingewikkeld. File:After Jheronimus Bosch 023.jpg is een getrouwe kopie van het middenpaneel van File:J. Bosch Adoration of the Magi Triptych.jpg, dus een kopie. Maar File:Circle of Jheronimus Bosch Last Judgment.jpg is geen kopie, maar bevat wel heel duidelijk elementen uit het rechterluik van File:Jheronimus Bosch 023.jpg. Vandaar de categorie Category:Paintings paraphrasing Jheronimus Bosch. Maar strikt genomen vallen werken als File:Jheronimus Bosch copyist 001.jpg, omdat ze zo afwijken van het origineel, onder followers. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Replacing Google Art Project template with Artwork template[edit]

Hi, I noticed on some images like File:Rembrandt van Rijn - The Concord of the State - Google Art Project.jpg that you replaced the Google Art Project template with the Artwork template. This removes all the GAP metadata and removed it from a number of hidden categories to which it is automatically added by the template. In the future, please do not do this. Instead, edit the fields labelled "commons_" at the beginning of the template. These will allow you to override any of the fields with any information you choose, without these other deleterious effects. Here is an example edit by me showing how I added your metadata to that image. Thank you. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor @[edit]

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Jan Havicksz. Steen - The Doctor's Visit - Google Art Project.jpg[edit]

Hi Vincent, mag ik jouw vragen om hier het laatste gedeelte von Provenance, het actuele bruikleen, weer terug te zetten op credit line, zie VG --Oursana (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, dat kan, maar is dat niet dubbelop. Op {{Artwork/doc}} staat dat credit line "may also be part of the museum's obligations to the donor". Volgens mij is daar hier geen sprake van en hoeft credit line dus niet per se gebruikt te worden. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hoeft niet, maar boijmans, zie link boven, schrijft zelfs Credit line, zie ook Meschien kan je dan /ook/ deze referentie actualiseren, zie met, User:Mattes#Credit-line. VG --Oursana (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
ok, ik heb het aangepast. Ik zal binnenkort nog even kijken naar {{Boijmansonline}}. Ik begrijp dat die een update kan gebruiken. Bedankt voor de aanwijzing. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Bedankt. Ik heb net RKD geactualiseerd. VG --Oursana (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Ik heb het so gedaan als ik het bedoelt heb als voorstel. Het mag ook graag anders. Boijmansonline is heel langzaam en werkt soms helemaal niet. Darom heb ik die andere website gevonden. VG --Oursana (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


Dag Vincent Steenberg, volgens een anonieme editor is Ivo Lismonde niet correct. Kan ik dit hier wijzigen of is dit aan rules onderworpen? Lotje (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Lotje, Dat is dan een fout van het RKD. Wellicht heeft men daar 2 personen onder één naam geplaatst. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Bedankt, ik zie dat het ondertussen door een vriendelijke anoniem werd aangepast. :-) Lotje (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Provenance models[edit]

Hi Vincent, I happened on provenance templates you created some years ago, such as {{Bought by the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam}} and {{Ceded to the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam}}. {{ProvenanceEvent}} can do the same job with the advantage of being much more used and of being translated into a lot more languages. On the other hand, these specialized templates allow for a more idiomatic languages. What do you think? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jastrow, there templates were created before {{ProvenanceEvent}} was. {{Bought by the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam}} is not in use any more and {{Ceded to the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam}} only on a small number of files. As far as I'm concerned they can both be deleted. Their use is limited. I mean, bought by the Rijksmuseum. Bought from who and for how much. Of course you could add all of these parameters, but then you're just copying {{ProvenanceEvent}}. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I thought as much. I'll do the replacements, then I'll delete the templates. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
ok, thank you. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Featured picture nomination - Ed Koch[edit]

Hello Vincent,

Please support or oppose this nomination:

DmitryBorshch (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Hallo Vincent, blijkbaar is die website veranderd en het template werkt niet meer. Ik kan het niet actualiseren. Ik denk jij kan het. Nieuwe website is voor Category:Christ Carrying the Cross by Hieronymus Bosch (Ghent) Bedankt en VG--Oursana (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Oursana, ok, de redirect is kennelijk verwijderd. Als het goed is moet de link nu weer werken. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Vincent, het is beter maar het beeld verschijnt niet.
Warom heb je tl Category definition zonder discussie teruggezet? Dit wordt regelmatig gebruikt, vooral als die files verschillende informaties hebben en je kan daar ook die wikidata-link plaatsieren.
Bedankt voor File:Cross, Bosch.jpg.
ok, dat was misschien een beetje bot van mij. Maar, als ik het goed begrijp is {{Category definition: Object}} een poging om data horend bij een bepaald object centraal te beheren, vooral als er verschillende versies zijn van één en hetzelfde object. Dat is op zichzelf een goed idee. Steeds maar {{Artwork}} kopiëren is niet ideaal en de kans op fouten is groot, maar er moet toch een betere manier zijn. Voorbeeld. Ik probeerde laatst File:IngresOdipusAndSphinx.jpg te bewerken via Category:Louvre RF 218, door de nieuwe parameter "Place of creation" toe te voegen. Echter zonder succes. Tl Category definition: object maakt gebruik van tl Artwork, maar is het niet. Dus in feite hebben we nu dus 2 templates Artwork. Dit vind ik nogal vreemd.
En dan is er nog het aspect van gebruiksvriendelijkheid. We maken al gebruik van onnoemelijk veel templates, zodat het voor de beginnende gebruiker haast onmogelijk is om beschrijvingen te bewerken. En dan wil men ook nog tl Artwork (resp. tl Information), de basis van iedere beschrijving, vervangen door een duplicaat van tl Artwork, die zich ook nog eens in de Categorie-pagina bevindt? Zelfs toen ik dit voor het eerst tegenkwam, moest ik eerst een tijdje zoeken om te begrijpen wat er aan de hand was. Sorry, maar ik vind dat gewoon niet kunnen.
Maar hoe zit het eigenlijk met wikidata? Ik dacht dat dat het project was waar data centraal beheerd werd? Waarom wordt daar niks mee gedaan op commons?
Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Institution:Rijksmuseum Amsterdam[edit]

What's your intention with this template redirect? For now I have removed your speedy tag as it drawed 1000+ images into speedy deletion. --Denniss (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What I want to do is rename Institution:Rijksmuseum into Institution:Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. Because the second currently exists, this is not possible if it isn't deleted first. Unless there's another way. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't you delete the redirect if there are no links to Institution:Rijksmuseum. Your reasons I do not understand. VG --Oursana (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I can't. I'm not an admin. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Master of the Legend of St. Barbara[edit]

Hoi Vincent, ik heb je category voor deze meester weer teruggezet, want het blijkt dat niet alles van deze meester staat op naam van Aert van den Bossche of Aert Panhedel. Zie bericht hier. Ik heb ook net een lemma gemaakt in de engelse wiki. groet, Jane023 (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


Template:MFAonline 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 template, 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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Micione (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png For all the work you did Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Cheers! Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Higher resolution files[edit]

Hi Vincent, I took great care including relevant information in the meta data of artwork. By uploading higher resolution images you delete this meta data. Could you please consider the pro's and con's. I don't say an overwrite is denied, sometimes a present file is just not a good one, but I think the advantages have to outweigh the disadvantages. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jan, I think I know what you mean, but just to be sure, could you give me an example. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I throw them out of my watchlist when that happens, so it took a while, but f.i. File:Cornelis van Haarlem - Bethlehemse kindermoord.jpg--Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I saved your upload for this file on my computer and found the following meta data:
Titel: De kindermoord te Bethlehem
Onderwerp: De kindermoord te Bethlehem
Opmerking: *oil on canvas *245 x 385 cm *signed: CCornely. H. fecit
Auteurs: Cornelis Cornelisz. vam Haarlem
Genomen op: 28-11-2011 0:51
Programma GIMP 2.6.11
Verkregen op:
And so on...
So my next question is, why did you add this information and why is it an advantage? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
If you want to be informed about the benefits of metadata it is best to look at appropriate websites. But I would like to point at the source and copyright information that is retained with the file whenever it is copied away from here. Furthermore, the metadata of an image contains the colour profile with which the file was processed the last time. F.i., stripping the metadata from an image that was processed with an Adobe colour profile will make the colours look way to thin. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I think I see what you mean. But isn't it better to put the source in the "Auteurs" field and put "Public domain" in the "Copyright" field? At the moment you give the impression that the Rijksmuseum is the copyrightholder. This is not the case. See for example Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
That is an old example. I uploaded that image 3 years ago. Since then Rijksmuseum changed their website and even put a link on the image page to the public domain declaration at Creative Commons. See File:Portrait of a 19-year-old man, possibly a self portrait, attributed to Pieter de Hooch.jpg for a more recent version of the metadata I am using, in case of Rijksmuseum images. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
ok. What I'll do is go all of these uploads one by one. See if these were realy an improvement and try and restore metadata. This might take a while. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
If you want, but you don't have to go back and restore metadata. The only thing is, just consider the pro's and cons when uploading a new version. Sometimes an image is mediocre and an upload is an improvement, sometimes it is just a higher amount of pixels, but not really an improvement. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vincent, File:Jan Steen 025.jpg is a good example of the effects of discarding the colour profile. This file contains a colour profile. This one doesn't. As you can see, even the Mauritshuis is at the process of learning. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

ok, that's interesting, because I have exactly the same experience with the Rijksmuseum. I already had to cancel several uploads of high-resolution images from their website, because although they were higher in resolution they were a bit greyish compared with what we already have. So something must have gone wrong there processing these images. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it does not go wrong, it is simply that they want to give professional publishers an advantage. When you download a file Rijksmuseum actually says in their pop-up "Rijksstudio voor professionele gebruikers: bestel een gratis TIFF bestand met kleurreferentie van deze afbeelding..." So you not only get an image without jpeg artifacts, but you also get the colour profile with the image. Amateurs like us, we have to make a reasoned guess what the painting looks like. Many museums do it like that. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I just noticed that the comparison above only reveals the difference in the Chrome browser. Apparently, Internet Explorer discards the Adobe colour profile altogether. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Anatomy lesson of Dr. Tulp[edit]

Sorry about that edit I made on the template. Don't know how I got there. I was updating a Featured Image originally uploaded by Durova with the new (public) version offered byu the Mauritshuis. I wasn't aware there was another file with the higher resolution version as well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Restorationist's Barnstar.png The Historical Media Barnstar
Thanks for working through the Rijksmuseum uploads. Your edits create a lot of extra value. (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for all those wonderful uploads! Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

File:St. Christopher, oil on panel painting by the Master of Frankfurt.jpg[edit]

Hallo Vincent Steenberg, om eerlijk te zijn, ik denk dat de eerste geupload afbeelding moet het recht blijven. Het principe zou anders uit de hand lopen. groet --Trzęsacz (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Collections F.W. Ross, La Haye, A. Durand, Paris et al., p 67.jpg[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Collections F.W. Ross, La Haye, A. Durand, Paris et al., p 67.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Google Art Project[edit]

Hello! Thanks for your edits in Dolls’ house of Petronella Oortman.

Do you know how to download pictures from Google Art Project page? I want to upload a better version of Madonna col Bambino by Jacobello del Fiore?

I think it's necessary to create Category:Google Art Project works in Museo Correr and upload pictures there. --AnatolyPm (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Anatoly, You're welcome. I'm afraid I'm not able to help you with that, but User:Dcoetzee will know. Ask him. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! --AnatolyPm (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Johannes Hermanus Koekkoek[edit]

I had asked the question as to how to add paintings to the page on this painter, but now I see this is done automatically if the correct category is given. BUT could you have a look at this and - if you know how that is - add a sub-category paintings with details, since I uploaded one painting and several details out of it. Or tell me how to do it? Thanks! --Haendelfan (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Haendelfan, Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. To create a new category you open a file for this new category, for example File:L botan instit 1878.jpg, then click on edit (bearbeiten) and add a new category or rewrite te existing one. For example [[Category:Botho Straußberger]]. Then save (Seite speichern). The new category (if it doens't exist already) should appear in red, like this: Category:Botho Straußberger. Click this link and place the new category in an existing one, for example by adding the text [[Category:Printmakers from Germany]] in the work field. Press save and you're done. For more information, see Commons:Categories. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ocker en Johanna Gevaerts[edit]

Volgens deze gebruiker zou deze afbeelding een foto zijn gemaakt in het Dordrechts museum. Gelet op de resolutie van de afbeelding heb ik daar zo mijn twijfels over. Jij bent meer ingevoerd in de museale collecties dan ik. Is dat schilderij uit een particuliere collectie ooit tentoongesteld geweest in Dordrecht? Zou jij daar eens naar willen kijken. Met vr. groet, Gouwenaar (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, Volgens het RKD is het werk voor het laatst gesignaleerd in 2012 op een veiling bij Christie's. 'Huidige verblijfplaats onbekend' dus. Op de webpagina van het Dordrecht Museum over Schouman komt hij niet voor. Maar het schilkderij kan wel in bruikleen aan of tentoongesteld in het Dordrechts Museum zijn geweest. Maar een concrete aanwijzing hiervoor kan ik niet vinden. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata en creator sjablonen[edit]

Hoi Vincent, ik zie dat jij een hoop creator sjablonen hebt aangemaakt hier op Commons. In de afgelopen tijd hebben we een hoop van deze sjablonen aan Wikidata kunnen koppelen. Er zijn op dit moment zo'n 18.000 creator sjablonen en daarvan zijn er minder dan 3000 nog niet gekoppeld aan Wikidata. Ik ben nu voor de Nederlanders (alle varianten) de missende items op Wikidata aan het aanmaken. Heb je er wel eens aan gedacht om wat meer actief op Wikidata te worden? Dingen zoals d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings zijn volgens mij best wel in jouw straatje. Multichill (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Multichill, Ik draag heel soms bij aan wikidata. Ik heb bijv. zonet een wikidata link toegevoegd aan Template:Infobox artist. Dat scheelt een hoop werk in het beheren van interwiki links op gallery pagina's hier op commons. Zie bijv. Jan ten Compe. Misschien dat m.b.v. een bot een wikidata link op alle pagina's die een dergelijke infobox bevatten toegevoegd kan worden. Alleen, hoe ik ook andere data vanuit wikidata naar andere projecten kan importeren is me niet helemaal duidelijk. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Die link toevoegen aan Infobox artist lijkt me niet zo handig. Elke gallery zou gewoon gekoppeld moeten zijn aan Wikidata. Dat ook nog eens handmatig in de infobox zetten is wat dubbelop. Dat sjabloon zou gewoon automatisch moeten kijken of er een koppeling is met Wikidata en als dat het geval is, een icoontje met link laten zien. In de software staat dit nu nog uit, maar dit gaat wel ergens begin volgend jaar worden aangezet. Tot die tijd overleven we het toch wel met de links in de linker balk?
Jan ten Compe ziet er nu heel raar uit. Ik dacht dat het door jouw edit aan de infobox kwam, maar het is zo te zien iets anders.Multichill (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
ok, dat is helemaal makkelijk.
Die pagina van Jan ten Compe is nog niet af en bestaat nu slechts uit twee losse schilderijen en twee schilderijen die bij elkaar horen. Vandaar zoveel kopjes voor zo weinig beelden. In de toekomst wordt het hopelijk fraaier.
Ik zie nu trouwens dat die pagina wél is gekoppeld aan wikidata. Super! Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Rembrandt, Laughing man[edit]

Hello Vincent, I noticed you uploaded a higher resolution image of that painting. Thanks for that. I also noticed you uploaded it because it shows the "original colors". You might want to look at to see that these are not the original colors. The varnish protects the painting, but it starts to turn yellow, the moment it is applied. And it collects dust, dirt, smoke and sticky fingers. It is hard to imagine that Rembrandt willingly wanted to make the subject look this green. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jan, yes, it is rather green. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with any restoration. I'll undo my changes. Thanks for noticing. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

File:'Elk zijn meug' Rijksmuseum SK-A-368.jpeg[edit]

Sorry, I didn't realize that Schalcken's 'painter by museum' category was itself a subcat of 'Dutch Golden Age' (the subcategorization of Rijksmuseum paintings seems to be a bit inconsistent). Thanks for catching that. Revent (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. The idea is not to diffuse categories that don't need to be diffused. For example Category:Paintings by Jacob Spoel in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam has almost completely taken over Category:Jacob Spoel. If possible I try to avoid that. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, my main interest in messing with these is to add additional data that wasn't imported by Fae's bot, and 'fix' the licensing (his bot didn't use the autocalculating templates or know the death year, so there seem to be a lot of 'PD in areas with a copyright term over 70 years pma' for artists that died 150+ years ago). As far as the categories like that, most I've looked at seem to be using a 'files in this category are also in' notice pointing at the artist's own category, with some images in both, and not listing the 'painter by museum' as a subcat of the 'painter'. I don't know if that's the 'accepted' method though, or if there really is one. There doesn't, tbh, seem to be a consistently applied method. I'm not really 'opinionated' about it, other than thinking using a consistent method would be good. Revent (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:'Het ponteveer' Rijksmuseum SK-A-4841.jpeg[edit]

Hi. You moved this out of 'Paintings by anonymous artists in the Rijkmuseum Amsterdam', which I had created and intended to populate, and into 'Paintings by Nicolaes Berchem in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam'. Per the Rijkmuseum, this is not the painting by Berchem, but an anonymous 18th-century copy. The painting by Berchem is File:Het ponteveer Rijksmuseum SK-A-31.jpeg. This was misclassified by Fae's bot. Revent (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. 2 reasons. Firstly, even though the painting is a copy, because the painter is unknown, it is still part of a group of paintings by Nicolaes Berchem and his school. Like this all paintings related to Berchem are in the same category instead of being scattered around. Secondly, without any context a caterory called 'Paintings by anonymous artists' is not very useful. According to Commons:Categories categories are there to find files. Why would someone be looking for something that is unknown? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, not really arguing with the decision to do so (I didn't change it back). I just wanted to make sure it was 'intentional', and not a misunderstanding going back to the way the bot had attributed it. Revent (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, there is still a lot of work to do. Many files in Category:Paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam that are copies, school of ..., attributed to ..., etc. are listed as "Anonymous", making it difficult sometimes to find files through search. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
BTW, if you have any comments about how I'm filling out the data on these, feel free to let me know. I'm trying to include all the given data from RMA, RKD, and Bild (if I can find it in the latter two), and use as many of the internationalization templates as possible. If there is something I'm missing, or a 'better' way to include the info, just ping me. I'm not really an 'art person', just a gnoming-type that migrated over here from enwiki because I got tired of the drama there. Revent (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't say! I know all about it.
Some other interesting references templates are Template:Origins unknown (for, Template:Linz Collection (for These concern art looted by the nezis in WWII. Most of the art restituted to the Netherlands ended up in the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands Art Collection (the so-called NK Collection). Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Something you might find interesting... I had realized while looking at these that the Rijkmuseum website actually offers higher resolution images of most of these works than are available through the API (See 'Le voeu du faisan' Rijksmuseum SK-A-4212.jpeg for the 'drastic example' I uploaded... began talking about this in IRC with Multichill, and it turns out he knows the collections director at the Rijk... he sent her an email, and hopefully we'll get a bulk import of the 'better' images sometime soon. It looks like (from the 20 or so I looked at) that these average between 2-5 times higher resolution... the one we started out discussing here, 'Het ponteveer', is currently at 4.7MP here, but the downloadable one is 37.6MP, which is a massive difference. Revent (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. The files from RM are higher in resolution, but the color on these are slightly duller. Higher resolution doesn't always mean better quality. I think the resolution of the images uploaded by Fæ is sufficient. Maybe you should discuss this with User:Fæ. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I did look at the "zoomed" version of RM images, as I could potentially have de-zoomified to grab the higher res version. There were some oddities that stopped me going ahead, possibly colour or blurriness, though this was quite a while back so I don't recall the reasons. Multichill understands the issues, so let's see what he comes up with. It might be an idea to have a test sample or set uploaded and compare the quality. I would be happy to automate going back over the uploads and refreshing them with higher versions if these become available (either on the internet or via a shared disk somewhere). -- (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Fae: I had noticed, from looking at about 20 or so, the differences you are talking about... the 'higher resolution' ones are saved as jpeqs with a quality setting of 79 and 4:2:0 color (and no EXIF), while the smaller ones are saved at a 90+ quality setting and 4:4:4 color, and an EXIF that indicates they were processed in Photoshop. As far as 'detail', the higher res ones seem, to my eye, to show finer details of the painting, but there is a color difference... the question, really, seems to be which is more 'accurate'. The Rijk has a form for requesting 'corrected' tiffs via email, and I just got one for comparison (SK-A-2347), but it came with a disclaimer (I had mentioned a desire to compare the colors in my request) that it was an older photo, and not up to their current quality standards. Glancing at the file, the issue might be that it has only a greyscale calibration target, not a color one, but it is at approximately the larger resolution. I'm on my laptop, atm, and it's not the best for comparing images, but I'll compare the color maps on my desktop in a few, and ping back. As far as comparing, I'd uploaded the one I linked earlier, and also the one I just mentioned ('Bij de wieg' Rijksmuseum SK-A-2437.jpeg) in the web versions, but I'm not going to mess with any of the others (other than adding metadata) until we reach some sort of conclusion (and a bot doing it if needed would be great). 'Bij de wieg' does seem to have a bit of a greenish cast in the higher-resolution, though. Revent (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
To reply to myself, lol. Upon examining the color map of the tiff version (and it's visual appearance) it is much closer to the appearance of the original API version. I uploaded it at 'Bij de wieg' Rijksmuseum SK-A-2437.tif for comparison. I also converted it to a jpeg (using higher quality settings than had been used for the 'web' high-res) and put it up over the 'greenish' version at the 'original' location, 'Bij de wieg' Rijksmuseum SK-A-2437.jpeg. My 'experiments' using the greyscale calibration target included in the tiff showed that the image seems to be /slightly/ dark, but not enough to be noticeable without directly flipping back and forth, so I didn't 'correct' for that... it was an extremely minor difference. Examined closely, the tiff-derived version does appear, IMO, to be more detailed, though it's not 'obvious' at a quick glance, I think because the processing of the API version enhanced the 'whiteness' of the cracks in the paint, making them 'appear' sharper though they are not... the difference is more visible if you look at things like the details of brushstrokes.
Please, btw, don't take this as me trying to be 'pushy' about a particular version, btw... if you want to revert the images I overwrote, and have them up separately, or replace them all with better images direct from the museum, that's fine with me... goal here is just to get the best images we can. Revent (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Gemeente Museum Den Haag & Mondriaan[edit]

Hoi Vincent, Ik was benieuwd of je contacten had bij het Gemeente Museum Den Haag? Volgens de Volkskrant gaat het Gemeentemuseum dit jaar een heruitgave maken van een boek over het werk van Mondriaan, met veel meer beeldmateriaal omdat het nu in het publieke domein terecht is gekomen. Dat zou een mooie aanleiding kunnen zijn om eens contact met ze te zoeken ivm een mass-upload van zijn werken. Als je geinteresseerd bent, Wikimedia Nederland is geinteresseerd in ondersteuning regelen (projectmatig begeleiding, workshop ruimte financieren, contact organiseren, enz). Ga jij naar een van de WMBE of WMNL nieuwjaarsborrels? Groet en Happy editing in 2015! Jane023 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Even een puntje hierop. Ik begreep uit de krant ook dat de trust in New York die de rechten van de erfgenamen beheert claimt dat de copyright nog niet verlopen is op sommige werken. Ik weet dat dit voor Nederlands recht niet waar is (en waarschijnlijk is het daarom oké om in Nederland de werken als PD te beschouwen en een publicatie te maken), echter voor de VS zou dit weleens kunnen kloppen voor de werken die na 1923 gemaakt zijn (en voor 1968 gezien de overlijdensdatum). Zie Commons:Licensing#Material_in_the_public_domain. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Zie de discussie op Category talk:Paintings by Piet Mondriaan, die geen duidelijke conclusies oplevert anders dan dat het heel vaag is wat wel en niet beschermd is in de VS. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hoi Jane, bedankt voor je bericht. Ik steun je voorstel, alleen ik vrees dat Basvb gelijk heeft. De rechten van Mondriaan vallen, wat publicatie of commons betreft, onder de Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Dit is een zeer ingewikkeld verdrag, maar zover ik dat kan nagaan komt het hierop neer: alle werken van Mondriaan die voor 1923 gepubliceerd zijn in de VS zijn op dit moment rechtenvrij. Commons interpreter dit vrij ruim en beschouwt ook ongepubliceert werk van voor 1923 als rechtenvrij, maar hoe het ook zij, ongeveer de helft van de werken van Mondriaan zijn voorlopig niet rechtenvrij (de verjaringsperiode is 95 jaar na publicatie/creatie). En aangezien de Holzman/Mondrian trust in het verleden bewezen heeft er geen gras over te laten groeien, vrees ik dat we het voorlopig met de helft van zijn werken moeten doen. Hetzelfde is ook gebeurd met Theo van Doesburg. Zie Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings by Theo van Doesburg.
Ik heb helaas geen tijd om naar een wiki borrel te gaan. Misschien ga ik dit jaar naar een wiki bijeenkomst op zondag. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Inmiddels heb ik begrepen dat alles in de collectie van de Gem. Museum in den Haag wel OK zijn, maar dat de kwestie heeft ook te maken met waar Mondriaan woonde toen hij de werken maakte. Zucht. Dus er zijn werken in de V.S. die niet vrijgegeven zijn en dat ik mijn tijd op deze aarde niet vrij zullen komen. Toch leuk om te weten. groet, en wie weet, tot een Wikizondag! Jane023 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


Beste Vincent,

Bedankt voor de identificatie via de bron (had ik kunnen zien, maar nu ook opgelost!) van plaatjes in Category:Paintings by Anonymous in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam). Mochten zich echte anoniemen - wachtend op identificatie? - voordoen,

  • hoe en waar zou jij daar een categorie voor zetten?

Jij hebt hier meer ervaring in. Groeten en bedankt, Hansmuller (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

PS. Vaak zit een beeld (bijv. File:Diponegoro by Pieneman.jpg) zowel in de categorie van de kunstenaar als in de categorie Paintings by ... in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam). Dubbelop lijkt me, of wenselijk voor het overzicht (maar dan moet ook alles in die categorie)?

Beste Hans, Een categorie voor anonieme werken leek mij niet zo handig omdat het dan erg lastig wordt te vinden wat je zoekt. Een Rembrandt kun je plaatsen in Category:Paintings by Rembrandt in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, maar als je alle anonieme werken op eén hoop gooit, dan is het erg lastig daar wijs uit te worden. Voorlopig kun je de anonieme werken kwijt op één van de subcategorieën van Category:Paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, bijvoorbeeld Category:Dutch 18th-century paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. Natuurlijk wordt die steeds voller, maar dan kun je deze weer differentiëren in subcategorieën, bijvoorbeeld Category:Paintings by Cornelis Troost in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Beste Vincent,
  1. ik dacht meer aan een aanvullende categorie waar liefhebbers uit de hele wereld kunnen kijken naar ongeidentificeerde schilderijen, wie weet komt iemand met de juiste schilder. Dus Category:Paintings by Anonymous in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam gaaat niet ten koste van Category:Dutch 18th-century paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, t'is extra.
  2. wat is je idee over mijn tweede vraag (boven, PS.)? Groeten en bedankt, Hansmuller (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Hans,
@1: Volgens mij is commons niet de aangewezen plek daarvoor. Origineel onderzoek is niet toegestaan. Daar kan ik verder weinig aan doen helaas.
@2: Over die categorieën. Het rijksmuseum heeft iets van 7000 schilderijen in zijn beheer. Die zijn allemaal op commons te vinden. En dan ga je differentiëren, en differentiëren, en differentiëren. En op een gegeven moment merk je dat je categorieën aanmaakt die je niet had zien aankomen, bijvoorbeeld Category:Paintings by Pieter Dubordieu in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. Bovendien bevat die cat bijna evenveel files als Category:Pieter Dubordieu zelf. Ik vind het een beetje een raar gezicht dat Category:Paintings by Pieter Dubordieu in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam bijna alle files in Category:Pieter Dubordieu opslokt. Daarnaast komt het een goed overzicht naar mijn mening niet ten goede. Vandaar deze oplossing. Natuurlijk zijn er voorbeelden waarbij deze oplossing niet nodig is, maar dan is er meestal een metacategorie, zoals Category:Paintings by Rembrandt by museum. Naarmate het aantal files hier op commons groeit, zullen er steeds meer van die metacategorieën bijkomen en zal de oplossing die ik had bedacht steeds minder vaak nodig zijn.
Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

template Template:De Anderen[edit]

Hi Vincent, zou jij dat kunnen repareren. VG --Oursana (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

✓  Done ok, bedankt voor de tip. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 ;-)--Oursana (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Jan Sadeler (I)[edit]

You removed Category:Painters from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830), yet according to the definition on the category page, he seems to belong to it, since it includes artists born in Brussels before 1786. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but there are now voices on commons to use the name "Flemish". Since this name is more accepted in the English speaking world than the name "Southern Netherlands", I'm slowly letting this category 'die out' in favour of Category:Painters from Flanders. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Fine with me. Thanks for clarification. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Voor je onvermoeibare, precieze en veelomvattende werk voor de beeldende kunst. Voor al die vele honderden artwork templates die je zo zorgvuldig toevoegt en invult. Dank je wel! Spinster (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Frans Hogenberg[edit]

@ Vincent,

that gallery was not a good idea.

  • Frans Hogenberg's main work was Civitates orbis terrarum.
  • That world atlas of cities comprised six volumes, all edited by Georg Braun.
  • Frans Hogenberg was the main autor of that atlas, but not the only.

Best regards, Ulamm (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

hello Ulamm,
I'm not familiar with this artist. I have noticed that a lot of engravings are attributed to him (or designed by him?), but I've also noticed that a lot of those engravings are not signed. So you're saying that many of these cannot be attributed to him? Then, how do I establish who was responsible for which engravings? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
According to this portal I think that for most tables of Civitates orbis terrarum the author can be identified.
But Civitates orbis terrarum is such a magnificant work that all tables of it available in WM Commons aught to be presented together. (Clicking "Suddivisione dell'opera" you can get to the other five volumes.)
Frans Hogenberg's other prints shan't be forgotten, but they are not that big step in the history of media.--Ulamm (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wim Pijbes[edit]

Hallo Vincent. Ik merk dat jij zowat de expert bent van de collecties van het Rijksmuseum. Ik heb me al suf gezocht welke twee schilderijen op de achtergrond staan bij het portret van Wim Pijbes, en nu je de categorie verwijderd heb, begin ik te vermoeden dat de foto daar helemaal niet werd genomen. Heb je enig idee waar? Groet, Henxter (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hoi Henxter, ja, de datum op de foto klopt volgens mij niet helemaal. Ik denk dat de foto eerder is genomen, vermoedelijk tijdens de tentoonstelling Rembrandt, the Late Works. Deze afbeeldingen, File:Amsterdam - Rijksmuseum - Late Rembrandt Exposition 2015 - Portrait of a Gentleman with a Tall Hat and Gloves c. 1656-1658.jpg en File:Amsterdam - Rijksmuseum - Late Rembrandt Exposition 2015 - Portrait of a Lady with an Ostrich-Feather Fan, c.1658-1660.jpg, hebben dezelfde achtergrond, dus dat moet haast wel. Dus de foto is wel in het Rijks genomen. Alleen heb ik hem uit die cat verwijderd omdat Category:Wim Pijbes al in Category:Rijksmuseum Amsterdam staat. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Schitterend. Dank je wel. Henxter (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pieter Franciscus Peters[edit]

Hallo Vincent, du hast in der Kategorie und in dem Creator eine Namensform gewählt, die nach allen mir bekannten Quellen höchstens als eine Nebenform, aber nicht als Hauptform des Namens angegeben wird. Meiner Meinung nach soll die Kategorie und der Creator in die übliche Namensform Pieter Francis Peters umbenannt werden. Grüße --Mewa767 (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Mewa, Das RKD (Niederländisches Ambt für kunsthistorische Dokumentation) spricht von Pieter Franciscus Peters (II) oder Pieter Franciscus Peters (jr), aber nennt geichzeitig die Quelle Pieter Francis Peters, Maler : Biographische Notizen (siehe Die Ursache dieses Unterschieds ist mir unklar. Ich kann also nicht genau sagen welcher Form die Hauptform sein sollte. Es macht aber schon neugierig. Welche Quellen hast du bis jetzt gefunden? Grüße, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Zoomable images[edit]


I see you upload a lot of archive material. I would like to direct your attention to Help:Zoomable images, a page that directs you to tools that let you download the full resolution from sites that have their images in image viewers. --Vera (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

ok, dank je. Ik zal de volgende keer kijken hoe dit werkt. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

JarektBot (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi Vincent, kan {{RMAaria}} gecanceld worden omdat het nu geen extra website meer is? VG --Oursana (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Klopt dit sjabloon kan vervangen worden door {{RMAonline}}. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi! A watercolor is a painting, not a drawing [16][17], see: en:Watercolor painting. --Micione (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Watercolours are usually classified as drawings. See for example I think the criterium for drawings is that they have to be made directly without being re-worked in a later stage. However, this is a bit confusing, because frescos for example are also made directly. And you wotldn't call a fresco a drawing.
But we are talking about categories here. If it is less confusing or easier these two files can be put in Category:British paintings in the Art Gallery of New South Wales. That's ok with me. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Pieter Balten 001.jpg[edit]

Hi, Vincent Steenberg, volgens Rijksmuseum Amsterdam/Collection/Paintings/Hoogendijk collection bevindt dit werk zich niet langer in het Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. Aangezien het Theater Instituut Nederland, (ik citeer: 2013 opgeheven en opgevolgd door Theater in Nederland... (zie ook discussie Brimz) stelt zich natuurlijk de vraag waar de collectie van het Theater Instituut nu is beland. Enig idee hoe dit kan worden achterhaald? Het spreekt voor zich dat alle lemmata, waaronder ook Marskramer, die verwijzen naar het werk, dementschprechend dienen te worden aangepast. Alvast bedankt. Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Lotje, Ik heb het even gegoogeld. De collectie van het Theater Instituut Nederland heet nu Bijzondere Collecties Uitvoerende Kunsten en schijnt onderdeel te zijn van de Bijzondere Collecties van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Zie Het door jou genoemde schilderij is dus niet teruggegaan naar het Rijks, maar bevindt zich nu dus in de UvA. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Dankuwel, ik heb het bestand gelijk aangepast. Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Temporary Exhibition templates[edit]

I'm been looking at the lately, and I noticed that you were the last to touch many of these, so I thought I'd drop you a note. It's my intention, unless someone screams bloody murder, to start working over time on converting the 'many' of these that are basically just 'slightly variant' copies of {{Temporary Exhibition}} to actually use the template itself. I'm not quite sure why it evolved as it did (all the local copies), but it's totally unmaintainable as is... I've seen at least four or five different 'sets' of translations, and we can't really move toward using wikibase for this type of information as it currently stands. I'm not talking about changing how they 'work', or what text is rendered, just getting rid of several hundred-odd copies of essentially identical code. Revent (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Revent, That's ok with me, as long as there's no loss of information and as long as there won't be a category for each and every exhibition that ever took place. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
(nods) Yeah, not intending to use that 'feature' of the template anywhere it isn't already. Eventually, however, WikiData will have items for these exhibitions, and the catalog information... there is a "Sum of All Paintings" project you probably know about. Cleaning these up will make using that data, or at least connecting to it, easier down the line. Revent (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
See, for example, {{Fayum Portraits: Painted Portraits from Roman Egypt}}... not that it's an old one, I just created it, but that's what I'm intending to do to them. Revent (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Stadhouderskade 81[edit]

Beste Vincent, je het me wel aan het werk gezet. Ik ben momenteel bezig met het beschrijven van monumenten aan de Stadhouderskade. Bij het oproepen van die categorie kreeg ik steevast een smal gebouwtje van Isaac Gosschalk. Dat zou toch wel een monument zijn, dacht ik. Ik kon het niet plaatsen en fietste diverse keren de Stadhouderskade op en af. Niet te vinden. Dan maar zoeken en zoeken. Gosschalk is de ontwerper van de Heineken, stond het wellicht op hun terrain? Nee. Bij toeval kreeg ik een foto te zien op de Beeldbank Amsterdam. En ja. In 1931 is het gebouw zodanig door brand beschadigd door brand dat het afgebroken is. In 1933 kwam er nieuwbouw op die plek, maar ook die is alweer weg. Er staat nu een saai kantoorgebouw. In dat Stadhouderskade 81-artikel een link naar de brandfoto.Ceescamel (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hoi Cees, Goed speurwerk! Zo zie je maar, nieuwsgierigheid loont. Ik bedoel, je had het ook als een vergissing kunnen aanmerken en dan was er waarschijnlijk nooit iemand achter gekomen welk huis dit precies was. Bedankt! Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Untangling links to Hermitage paintings[edit]

Hoi Vincent, ik ben bezig met de collectie van schilderijen van de Hermitage die Multichill net op Wikidata heeft gezet. Ik dacht helemaal in kerstsfeer te komen met het zoeken naar afbeeldingen en kwam File:Magi-rembrandt.jpg tegen die een bijna kopie is van File:Rembrandt The Adoration of the Magi.jpg. Op de RKD staan beide te boek als Hermitage, maar volgens Bredius (1935) is de eerste 70 cm hoog uit Göteborgs konstmuseum en volgens de website op Hermitage is die van hun de 45 cm hoog. Ik zag dat jij een hoger resolutie van de eerste had ge-upload, maar de Göteborgs konstmuseum website heeft geen afbeelding. Weet jij waar je deze nog vandaan had? Ik twijfel omdat Hermitage zegt geen tweede te hebben en ik kan geen ander info vinden in de latere documentatie. Groet en fijne dagen alvast, --Jane023 (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hoi Jane, Ik wist niet dat Multi schilderijen van de Hermitage heeft geüpload. Klinkt als een interessant project. Ik weet helaas niet meer waar ik die afbeelding vandaan heb, maar bij de meta data staat "COPYRIGHT @ 1998 by The Hermitage Museum, All rights reserved. : JRX-1990;0; Anonymous artist of Rembrandt's school. Adoration of the Magi". Dus misschien toch Hermitage? Staat de publicatie van Bredius online? De grisaille staat in Corpus deel 2. Ik zal kijken of we daar verder mee komen.
Ik heb trouwens wel een plaatje gevonden van de Göteborg Adoration. Zie Vergelijking met File:Magi-rembrandt.jpg wijst uit dat het hier om een ander schildeij gaat. Je ziet het met name aan de tulband die op de grond ligt. Kennelijk zijn er dus 3 versies. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Ha leuk, zo kom ik verder, bedankt! Mijn Bredius catalogus is de oude uit 1935 van mijn bieb. Zij hebben (helaas) geen online versie beschikbaar gemaakt. Ik ga deze pubhist versie die je gevonden heb ook al uploaden. In HdG werd al gezegd bij cat. nr. 84 dat er meerdere kopieen in omloop waren van de RCIN versie (die kopieen heb ik nog niet opgezocht). Deze grisaille versie komt helemaal niet in HdG voor. De Wikidata lijst van Hermitage schilderijen heb ik in mijn enwiki gebruikersruimte gezet hier. Er is nog een aardig lange lijst van "unmatched painters", maar hier wordt aan gewerkt. Dat is hier.--Jane023 (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

IJme Gerardus Bijvoets[edit]

Hoi, ik kwam hier weer evens langs voor een plaatje. Ik ben nog bezig met de Stadhouderskade (nr 62 nu) en zie nogal wat gebouwen voorbijkomen van architect (kennelijk b-garnituur) IJme Gerarddus Bijvoets. Zou het niet handig zijn op commons een aparte categorie te hebben. In zijn Nederlandse artikel staan sowieso al vier foto's.Ceescamel (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hallo, tuurlijk. Hij heeft een eigen wikipedia artikel nl:IJme Gerardus Bijvoets dus waarom niet? Mvg, Vincent
Sorry, mijn vraag was eigenlijk of jij hem wilde aanmaken. Ik ben hier "slechts" bezoeker.Ceescamel (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
✓  Done gepiept. Zie Category:IJme Gerardus Bijvoets. Meer kon ik zo 1, 2, 3 niet vinden. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Beeldbank Amsterdam[edit]

Stadsarchief Amsterdam Overtoom met links de Overtoomsevaart met in het verschiet de Luie Brug aan het begin van de Overtoom 010001000385.jpg

Vincent, jij hebt in het verleden nog wel foto's/beelden van de beeldbank Amsterdam geladen. Zou jij deze of deze kunnen laden. Ik zou ook graag [[ deze] willen hebben, die kan ik voor 3 artikelen gebruiken. Alvast bedankt,Ceescamel (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hoi Cees, De afbeeldingen die je noemt zijn gemaakt door Herman Misset (zie RKD). Mooie tekeningen, maar Misset overleed in 1958 en zijn werk is dus nog niet in het publieke domein. Ik kan ze dus niet zomaar uploaden. Als het nou bijvoorbeeld een anonieme ansichtkaart was geweest, uit die tijd, was dit anders geweest. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Dank je voor je bericht, zo is het leven.... Ik heb bij Bijvoets nog wat kunnen zetten. Iemand is lekker aan het fotograferen voor me.Ceescamel (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

De schilder van deze is al wat langer dood. Zou dat mogen; hij is wel wat ver weg, maar toch.Ceescamel (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Eindelijk gelukt. Gebruiker 1Veertje heeft een machine gemaakt waarmee je afbeeldingen van het stadsarchief eenvoudig kunt downloaden. Zie Misschien biedt dit uitkomst in de toekomst. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Dank je wel. Je schrijft eenvoudig, maar ik begin al bij het eerste scherm te stuitere en heb geen idee van de auteursrechtenproblematiek. ik zal Vera vragen of ze bereid is sommige plaatjes over te zetten.Ceescamel (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Dat is op zich niet zo lastig. Je zoekt eerst de geboortedatum van de auteur op. Is dat op 1 januari van het jaar waarin we leven meer dan 70 jaar geleden, dan is het werk in de meeste gevallen rechtenvrij. Gaat het om een tekening of schilderij, dan vink je aan "Reproductie van een schilderij dat zich in het publieke domein bevindt". Gaat het om een foto of een document, dan vink je aan "Deze licentie staat in de volgende wikitekst (moet een geldig auteursrechtenlabel bevatten)" en vul je in {{PD-old}}. Als het om een anoniem werk gaat en dit werk is zo oud dat je er van uit mag gaan dat de auteur meer dan 70 jaar geleden overleden is, geldt hetzelfde. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Beste Vincent, dat kan voor jou niet lastig zijn; ik heb geen flauw benul wat je hierboven (be)schrijft. Maar goed, ik kan wel uit de voeten met wat er soms te vinden is. Ik heb bv het door jou geladen portret van Monarosa Monnickendam weten te koppelen aan een artikel van haar moeder. Paps was Martin Monnickendam, die ik dan weer tegenkwam bij Stadhouderskade 92. Ceescamel (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

ok, sorry. Welk scherm bedoel je dan? deze of deze? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

De Dememorixer levert voor mij al problemen op. Ik ben daar ontzettend onhandig in en dat is voor een groot deel weer toe te wijzen aan mijn gebrek aan interesse is alles wat met foto's etc. te maken heeft. Dat laat ik graag aan anderen over.Ceescamel (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Maar tekeningen en schilderijen wel? Prima. Als je weer eens hulp nodig hebt, hoor ik het wel. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


I agree that the colours do seem changed. I'm worried that the RM may have done something odd with the move from the previous image versions available through the API compared to the versions downloadable at higher resolution from their website. Can you shine any light on why there is this apparent difference?

It may be possible, at some point, to mass upgrade the image resolutions for Rijksmuseum uploads. However if the colour profiles are haphazard, this would not be sensible until we can correct the images to whatever is the most accurate colour versions. Thanks -- (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fæ, I don't really know what's going on. On the Mauritshuis website something similar is going on. If you rightclick an image there you can download a low resolution image without all the color information. But, if you peek deeper, you are able to download a high res image with full color info. This beats me. Apparently both the Rijksmuseum and the Mauritshuis want the public to use the inferior version while keeping the better one to themselves? I don't know. What I do know is that you can download a good quality image with sufficient resolution to see all details and with the most color infor through by entering the accession number of the work of art you are looking for in the url. The image you get by downloading them from their website are useless, if you ask me. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Vincent, we have discussed this before. It's just a commercial decision, I think. If it is for free, it is of less quality. Compare [18] with [19]. Both are the same picture from Rijksmuseum, the first one with colour management, the second without. There is an undeniable difference. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. And this one is even higher in resolution. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I have had a follow up, with further contacts from the Rijksmuseum. I hope to get somewhere on it in a few weeks and perhaps in a month or two may be able to replace the 'asset2' versions via the API with higher resolution originals with good colour profiles, albeit using a specially agreed workflow. -- (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
ok, great! Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I recall seeing a discussion about adding colour profiles to the Rijksmuseum images that can be downloaded from the website rather than the API. I have had an initial email from WMNL for a local contact but yet to hear more. I suggest alternatives like this fix are put on hold until we know what the Rijks can do. It would be a shame to invest time in fixes and then later overwrite them with similar quality 'official' versions. Thanks -- (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

ok, no problem. But I might straighten out previous errors here and there made by myself. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Hendrick Avercamp 008.jpg[edit]

Hallo Vincent, this painting was former attributed to Jan Brueghel (I), and then to Hendrick Averkamp. Now is it Jan Brueghel (II). See also the Web site of Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Kassel. A larger image is here (6000px) and in colour. greatings --Trzęsacz (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

ok, that might explain why I couldn't find further information on this painting. Thanks very much. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Caspar Netscher[edit]

I don't like getting into revert wars with another experienced editor, so let's try to work it out here.

First, use of Creator versus Infobox. Almost all artist's galleries on Commons use the Creator template. It fits the page layout better and is easily reusable on the relevant categories. It also has more information and, since it already exists, I see no reason why you have insisted on the Infobox here. (see Creator:Caspar Netscher)

Second, default image sizes. Commons galleries are used on many different computers, ranging from small screen smartphone to very large screens, and even multiple screen setups. They are also used by people with poor vision who require much larger images than normal. The sizes of screen will inevitably change over time, certainly getting more pixels.

By selecting a particular image size that you think looks good on your screen, you ignore the fact that it will waste space on large screens and require scrolling on small screens, as well as making it more difficult to view for those with poor eyesight. If you allow the images sizes to default, they will appear at the size that the viewer has chosen as his or her default. It seems to me that the viewer should control the size of the thumbnails he or she sees, not you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I don't really understand your first point. At the moment {{Infobox artist}} is used in 772 pages and seems to work reasonably ok. If you don't like its appearance or layout, then let me know. Maybe we can improve it. Personally I prefer it on gallery pages. After all, {{creator}} was originally indended for use only in {{information}}, {{artwork}}, etc. Only later it was added to category pages for maintenance purposes (to see which creator had its own creator template and which doesn't, if I understand correctly). However, I see no point or need to use it on gallery pages, like the one you pointed out. You say that template creator "fits the page layout better". I think template Infobox artist does that job much better with TOC on the left and the box itself on the right, just like on wikipedia. And yes, template creator contains useful information, useful for example for filling out {{artwork}}, but do you really need to repeat all this information on a gallery page. I think not. I mean, what works better Piet Mondrian or Piet Mondrian?
Sorry I got carried away a bit, but might have become a little attached to this template to be honest.
About the image sizes, I wasn't aware of any of the points you made. It was never my intention to cause problems to people who use different divices/screen sizes that I do. I will have a good look at that. Thanks for pointing that out.
But staying with Mondrian, what is your take on autogenerated gallery pages based on wikidata like Category talk:Paintings by Piet Mondrian. Are they the future?
Regards Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
On the first point, I agree that it's a toss up if there is a TOC. Piet Mondrian works at least as well your mockup with Creator. Most of the galleries I see do not have TOCs so, my opinion is biased. That's probably because I do New Page Patrol, so I see every gallery created by new editors -- those who do not have the Autopatrolled user right. I think the layout question is different on Commons than on WP, because on WP the content is text and that easily sets to the left of the Infobox. In a Commons gallery, the content is rows of images, so I think it is better to use the horizontal Creator rather than start the page with a vertical box and then switch to horizontals. However, it's a subjective choice, and there's no policy on it, so do what you will.
On the second point, yes, please think about it. Why not let the viewer choose a convenient size?
As for autogenerated galleries -- why would we want them? We have categories, which are an alpha-sort list of all the images on a subject. Then we have galleries, which are both carefully selected and put in a rational order by humans. While both "carefully" and "rational" are not always the case, that's the intention. Why do we need a new collection? I see that these are in date order. We could accomplish the same thing by adding a tab to the category pages that allowed sorting by creation date, perhaps by upload date, as well as in alpha order. It would take some coding, but far less human time than creating a third collection method.
I also see that the collection includes works for which we do not have images. It seems to me that that may be against policy -- Commons is fairly aggressively a place for media files, not articles, so creating a page that shows works of art that we do not have seems much like writing more than a sentence or two


Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


File:BoschTheCrucifixionOfStJulia.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Oompahloompah2016 (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


Achim (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Amsterdam photos?[edit]

Do you take photos of places in Amsterdam? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, no. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, Happy editing :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Damenporträt von "Fabritius"[edit]

Hallo Vincent Steenberg, du hast das Damenporträt Portrait of a Lady by Carel Fabritius in the Niedersächsisches Landesmuseum Hannover.jpg dem Barent Fabritius zugeordnet. Ich war diese Woche wieder im Niedersächsischen Landesmuseum. Dort ist immer noch die Beschreibung, die dieses Bild ohne wenn und aber dem Carel Fabritius zuordnet. Ich könnte dir die Beschreibung notfalls zumailen. Woher hattest du deine Information? Wollen wir nicht der Museumsleitung glauben? --Hajotthu (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Hajotthu, Das stimmt. Ich habe mir damals basiert auf Aber deine Anmerkung hat mir zum Zweifeln gebracht. Ausserdem gibt das RKD keine richtige Quelle für ihre Zuschreibung, nur eine Ausstellungskatalog.
Ich jedoch die folgende Quellen gefunden:
Ich hab diese (noch) nicht geprüft, aber die letzte Quelle (Women with Pearl Earrings: On Paintings Apparently by Carel Fabritius, in Hannover, Vaduz, and Amsterdam) schlägt vor das dieses Bild in die Literatur Carel Fabritius zugeschrieben wird. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Vincent Steenberg, danke für deine prompte Antwort. An der Zuschreibung für Carel besteht für mich kein Zweifel. Kannst du dein Verschieben bitte wieder rückgängig machen.--Hajotthu (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
✓  Done Entschuldigung für die Verspätung. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Rijksmuseum Amsterdam/Collection/Paintings/NK collection[edit]

Hallo Vincent Steenberg, waarom werden bepaalde nummers doorstreept? Op het Instituut Collectie Nederland verving ik een rode wikilink door een interwikilink. Brimz zal het wel weer terugdraaien (business as usual...), maar ondertussen zal het er toch gestaan hebben, en kunnen bezoekers via de bestandsgeschiedenis terugvallen op commons. Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hoi Lotje,
De titel is misschien een beetje misleidend. Het gaat hier alleen om dat deel van de NK-collectie dat aan het Rijksmuseum in beheer is gegeven. De hele NK-collectie is op dit moment alleen maar te vinden op deze site:
Ik heb wel een aantal NK-kunstwerken op de pagina Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands Art Collection gezet, maar deze is nog zeer incompleet. Het is de bedoeling dat straks de hele NK-collectie hier te vinden is.
Met de doorhalingen heb ik willen aangeven dat het betreffende werk niet meer in het Rijksmuseum te vinden is. Omdat het in bruikleen gegeven is aan een andere instelling of omdat het teruggegeven is aan de rechtmatige eigenaar, zoals recent gebeurd is met de collectie Goudstikker. Gewoon, voor de volledigheid.
Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hoi Vincent, ik haak hier ook even op aan. Zoals je wellicht weet ben ik in al een tijdje bezig met Sum of all paintings. Voor het Rijksmuseum zijn de automatisch gegenereerde lijsten te vinden op d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Museum/Rijksmuseum. Hier staan ook twee lijstjes met de missende SK-A schilderijen en SK-C schilderijen. Is niet 100% waterdicht, maar bijvoorbeeld die verbrande schilderijen uit Arnhem die je net online hebt gezet passen er precies in.
Om de missende werken en discrepanties te vinden (zoals werken die ik twee keer op Wikidata heb gezet) ben ik het Rijksmuseum ook met RKD aan het matchen, dit werklijstje staat op d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/RKD to match/Rijksmuseum. Matchen gaat vrij goed, op dit moment hebben meer dan 3200 schilderijen in het Rijksmuseum een link naar RKDimages (volledig overzicht op d:User:Multichill/Painting collections RKDimages).
Zoals je kan zien ben ik naast het Rijksmuseum ook andere collecties aan het matchen met RKDimages. Die lijstjes zijn te vinden in d:Category:WikiProject sum of all paintings RKD to match. Als er voldoende links zijn dan ga ik de RCE kunstcollectie (van en de SNK collectie (van uploaden naar Wikidata. Dat zou een stuk meer overzicht moeten geven.
Is het je opgevallen dat sommige schilderijen op de site van het Rijksmuseum geen afbeelding hebben? Die zijn zo te zien aan de RCE uitgeleend en hebben daar wel een afbeelding. Met deze query kan je dat mooi zien. Ben nog druk bezig om de boel aan elkaar te knopen. Volgende de RCE site zijn het er meer dan 300. Dus mocht je de behoefte hebben om missende Rijksmuseum afbeeldingen toe te voegen.......
Is het wellicht mogelijk dat je {{Artwork}} gebruikt voor schlderijen? Na upload via de uploadwizard kan je "{{Information" vervangen door "{{subst:Artwork/subst|subst=subst:" (voorbeeld. Dat maakt het gemakkelijker om de informatie toe te voegen.
Welke collecties ik heb opgenomen houd ik bij op mijn gebruikerspagina op Wikidata. Ik heb nog een aantal Nederlandse collecties staan die ik nog een keertje moet doen. De eerste keer heb ik het gedaan met data uit Europeana, maar dat blijkt helaas incompleet te zijn. Als je nog een idee hebt qua missende collectie dan hoor ik het graag, voorwaarde is wel dat ze een behoorlijke collectie website hebben anders kan ik er vrij weinig mee. Multichill (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hallo Multi, super. Handige links. Ik kwam ook een heel aantal ontbrekende nummers tegen, maar had niet het inzicht om die te noteren. Dus ik ben blij dat jij dat hebt gedaan. Ik heb ook even nummer 72 achterhaald: Ook verloren gegaan in WOII. Bedankt voor al je werk. Ik zal proberen meteen een tl Artwork toe te voegen aan nieuwe oploads i.p.v. een tl Information. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Ben nog druk bezig met informatie toevoegen, ontdubbelen en koppelen aan de RKD, maar ik dacht dat jij d:ikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Museum/Stichting Nederlands Kunstbezit wel leuk zou vinden. Dat zijn alle NK schilderijen gesorteerd op nummer.
Het Rijksmuseum is trouwens zelf ook bezig om herkomst aan te vullen. Op sommige schilderijen zie je dat nu de herkomst informatie is aangevuld ook met oude inventarisnummers zie [20] & [21]. De tweede link heb ik al verwerkt op Wikidata, de eerste moet ik nog doen. Multichill (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Beste Wensen[edit]

Arla (8307338159).jpg
Zalig Kerstfeest
Vincent Steenberg, een Zalige Kerst en een bruisend 2017!

Lotje (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Christmas cat.jpg Bedankt. jij ook! Groetjes, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Alweer een jaar verder[edit]

Beste Vincent, zou jij voor mij twee foto's kunnen overhevelen van naar de Wiki Commons. Je kan de foto's vinden op Fotoleren en dan invullen Denijs. Ik zoek de foto's van Wouter Denijs en Thomas Denijs. Zoals ik de nu krijg is het de tweede van links en de eerste van rechts. Foto's zijn al zeer oud. Alvast bedankt, Ceescamel (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

SK-A-4625 and SK-A-791[edit]

Hello Vincent Steenberg. I'm very confused about those two paintings, this one and this one. The identification on access number doesn't match with today Rijskmuseum's pages. I contacted the Rijksmuseum in november 2015 about [22] where there was a photograph of the other one. After investigation, the image was changed on the website and I uploaded the new one. But after that the match was changed in WikiCommons. I have never seen those paintings IRL so it's impossible to me to be sure which is SK-A-4625 and SK-A-791, even more if there was confusion about them. Could you confirm that the matching access number/image on WikiCommons are good ? Thank you. Best regards. --Shonagon (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Yes, they are good as they are now. Ignore the Rijksmuseum website. It was the Rijksmuseum that uploaded the wrong image. It concerns two individual paintings. SK-A-791 is part of a double portrait together with SK-A-792 showing Bernardus de Bosch and his wife Bernardus de Bosch. SK-A-4625 is, as Jane023 pointed out, part of the Panpoeticon Batavum, a large series of portraits of Dutch artists mainly from the 17th and 18th century. These portraits are easily recognisable because of their horse shoe shaped golden frames. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem was never really resolved on the Rijksmuseum side, because the conservator of the panpoeticon cabinet said it was too much trouble to open the cabinet to pull out the miniature and count the buttons. Looking at the history of both files, only the one showing seven front buttons instead of 4 front buttons is inside the horseshoe-shaped frame. This doesn't mean that the poet didn't commission the other one with a similar frame for the pendant portraits though (in which case it is possible that the paintings were switched during restoration in 2014, which is another possibility). I agree we should leave these both as is for now. Jane023 (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your response. I understand now. It's ok for WikiCommons and Wikidata, but not yet for the museum's pages. Best regards --Shonagon (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:File:Nicolaes Pietersz. Berchem - The City Wall of Haarlem in the Winter.jpg‎[edit]

Hi Vincent, normaal doen wij geleende schilderijen niet in het uitleende museum, hier Rijsksmuseum, zo Berckheyde om verwarring te voorkomen??--Oursana (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hallo, Daar weet ik niets van. Maar waarom zou dit verwarring veroorzaken? Men kan de herkomst (provenance) lezen. Bovendien denk ik dat je van bruiklenen kunt zeggen dat ze altijd ooit eens terug kunnen gaan naar het uitlenende museum. En dan is het goed als deze al in de categorie hiervan staat. Herinner je je deze nog: Category:The Holy Kinship by Geertgen. Ik meen dat dat ook tot de nodige verwarring heeft geleid. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Ja bedankt, heb ik weer gezien, en met Berckheyde is ook hetzelfde. Maar het bevalt me echt niet, beter was een eigen Caz voor on loan of allen maar in cat. Collectie....Groeten--Oursana (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Eau de cologne-fontein[edit]


de beschrijving van deze tekening vind je hier:

Als je vervolgens via zoekt "reukwaterfontein", en dan bij Archieven --> Bureau Cuypers/Archief doorbladert, kom je hier:

Daar staat bij CUBAt103 de afbeelding.

Deze kun je helaas niet in hi-res downloaden, dus ik heb screenshots gemaakt en deze met photoshop aan elkaar geplakt om tot de afbeelding zoals die nu op Commons staat te komen

Met vr groeten, --OlafJanssen (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

ok, nou snap ik het. Hij stond onder archieven en niet onder objecten. Bedankt voor de uitleg. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

De Stijl[edit]

Stijl vol 07 nr 79-84 front cover.jpg
Stijl vol 05 nr 01.jpg

Hej Vincent! De afbeelding die hiernaast staat werd op 7 november 2008 door jou geüpload en op jouw verzoek op 26 april 2016 gekanteld. Nu staan weliswaar 'De Stijl' en de jaartallen rechtop, maar de rest van de afbeelding vind ik in de oorspronkelijke oriëntatie toch beter uitkomen. Stond de tekst van dhr. Giedion werkelijk zo op de voorkant? Richard 08:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Richard, Ik heb hem destijds inderdaad liggend laten maken. Het gaat hier namelijk om de omslag van een aflevering van het tijdschrift De Stijl en deze verscheen sinds 1921 in liggend formaat. Zie ter vergelijking deze omslag van een eerdere aflevering. Deze heeft als het goed is dezelfde afmetingen. Dus hij hoort m.i. liggend. Zo wordt hij ook in veel literatuur (niet alle) afgebeeld. Ik weet even geen voorbeeld, maar ik kan het evt. voor je opzoeken. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Nee hoor, dat hoeft niet. Als hij zo hoort, dan hoort hij zo. Bedankt voor je reactie, fijne dag verder! Richard 11:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Samuel de Clerq[edit]

beste Vincent, je hebt in 2013 deze categorie aangemaakt: Category:Samuel de Clerq. De man heette echter Samuel de Clercq, dus de Clerq is zijn alias en niet andersom. Zijn geboorteacte staat hier. Groet,Ceescamel (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Cees, Category:Samuel de Clerq bedoel je? Ja, je hebt helemaal gelijk. Ik heb het even opgezocht op nl.wikisource en zijn naam spel je inderdaad met een c en niet zonder c, zoals het RKD meldt. De variant zonder c heeft 0 zoekresultaten, dus ik neem aan dat dit op een fout berust. Bedankt voor de opmerkzaamheid. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Kan jij hem (laten) omzetten, ik heb geen idee hoe ik dat moet doen. Ik heb het RKD trouwens bericht, want hij stond er ook vermeld onder zijn "goede" naam.Ceescamel (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Prima. Zal ik binnenkort doen met het goede RKD record. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry dat ik zomaar kom binnenvallen, maar kan ik ondertussen de commonslink aan het lemma toevoegen? Daar staat nl: Samuel de Clercq, ook wel Samuel de Clerq ... Lotje (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hoi Lotje, Laat me de categorie eerst hernoemen dan zal ik vervolgens zelf wel een commonslink toevoegen op wikipedia. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
✓  Done aangepast op commons, wikidata en wikipedia. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Frits Eschauzier[edit]

Hallo Vincent Steenberg, zou een Category:Frits Eschauzier of Category:Frits Adolf Eschauzier nuttig kunnen zijn? Lotje (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Lotje, Wat mij betreft wel. De voorkeursnaam van het wikipedia artikel lijkt me de beste. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Portretminiatuur van een officier Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed B1988.jpg[edit]

Ook afbeeldingen die de RKD in deze lage resolutie heeft kunnen met de Dememorixer watermerk-vrij worden gemaakt. Speciaal voor de RKD heb ik een stukje code toegevoegd die bij thumbs het watermerk weghaald door een stukje te knippen uit de thumb van 500x500, die geen watermerk heeft, en deze over de 650x650 thumb te plakken. --Vera (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hoi Vera, super! Heel erg bedankt. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Creator:Désiré De Keghel[edit]

Vincent, you created the page Creator:Désiré De Keghel which states that artist was female, while Wikidata claim that artist was a male. The only articles are in Dutch and French, which I do not know, could you check it for me. --Jarekt (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Jarekt, Wikidata is right. He is male. I was confused with Désirée, the female form. Sorry about that. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


Template:KMMonline 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 template, 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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Plagiat (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

✓  I made an update and revoked the nominationPlagiat (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Van den Broucke-Vranx Diptych 001.jpg[edit]

Hallo Vincent Steenberg de beschrijving op het werk geeft aan: Heer van Wilder. Is er iets wat mij ontgaat? Lotje (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Lotje, Ik heb even gekeken en het RKD is er een beetje cryptisch over. Het RKD zegt over het familiewapen linksboven op het schilderij: "met dit wapen: Van den broecke gez. Musch: uit Brabant bestaan 2 plaatsen: 1) Prov. Noord Brabant, bij Zundert 2) Provincie Antwerpen, bij esschen". Beide plaatsen heten Wildert met een t: Wildert (België) en Wildert (Zundert). Maar welke het moet zijn? Ik zou het niet weten. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Fijn, bedankt Vincent Steenberg, als ik het ooit te weten kom vul ik het bestand vanzelfsprekend aan. Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Piet Mondrian 1.jpg[edit]

Why did you revert the image I have uploaded? I only removed the border using the croptool and there is nothing wrong with that. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, This file is intended for use in the wikisource article Piet Mondriaan en Theo van Doesburg/Schilderkunst, which, I think, should show the image as in appeared in December 1922. Besides, there is a borderless version available at File:Piet Mondrian 2.jpg. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Slag op de Zuiderzee[edit]

Hallo Vincent Steenberg,

Vandaag heb je drie wijzigingen gedaan aan het bestand Slag op de Zuiderzee: een groter bestand, een categorie dat het in het Rijksmuseum zou hangen en na mijn terugdraaiing een categorie dat het ooit in het RM heeft gehangen. Ik vraag mij af of je überhaupt weet waar het zich bevindt en wat de geschiedenis van het schilderij is. Zo niet, dan wil ik je aanraden om in ieder geval het artikel over de schilder te lezen. Ik kan je vertellen dat het schilderij uitsluitend tot de collectie behoord en dat het in eeuwige bruikleen is gegeven aan de gemeente Hoorn. Het schilderij is gemaakt voor de ontbijtzaal van de Staten van Holland en Westfriesland en het heeft die plek, sinds het daar is opgehangen in 1665, slechts een of twee maal verlaten.

Vriendelijke groet,

Dqfn13 (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Dqfn13,
ok, dat was even iets te kort door de bocht van mijn kant. Ik lees nu inderdaad op de site van het Rijksmuseum "transferred to the museum, but kept in its original location, 1935". Ik moet zeggen dat dat niet erg vaak voorkomt met schilderijen in het Rijksmuseum. Ik zal het dan ook binnenkort aanpassen op wikidata 'The battle of the Zuider Zee, 1573' (Q17331972), want de informatie daar is dus incorrect.
Maar wat de categorisatie betreft. Het is wel een schilderij dat zowel voorkomt in de Rijksmuseum database en diverse catalogi van dat museum. Ik denk dus dat het geen kwaad kan het bestand ook in Category:Paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam te plaatsen. Op die manier is het bestand ook via die weg vindbaar.
Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Achteraf denk ik dat dat wel de beste optie is ja, mijn eerste terugdraaiing is met de huidige kennis ook niet nodig geweest. Hoewel de voorgestelde categorie incorrect is, is het bij het ontbreken van een collectie-buiten-de-instelling-categorie wel het meest juiste. Het gebeurd ook niet vaak dat iets uitsluitend tot de collectie behoort en zich definitief buiten de instelling bevindt. Mocht je meer vragen hebben over Hoorn, schroom je niet om het mij te vragen. Ik ben woonachtig in Hoorn en werkzaam bij Bureau Erfgoed van de gemeente Hoorn. Groet, Dqfn13 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Bedankt. Ik zal het bestand zodra ik daar tijd voor heb een uitgebreide beschrijving geven, zodat misverstanden worden voorkomen. Als ik een vraag over Hoorn heb zal ik me bij je melden. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Expositie in Goes jan-feb 1984.jpg[edit]

Hoi Vincent, er klopt iets niet met deze nominatie. Ik reageerde en dan komt het sjabloon steeds in beeld en dat hoort niet. Misschien kun je het nog eens nalopen? Alvast bedankt, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hallo, dat klopt. Ik zag dat je sjabloon {{delete}} gebruikt. Misschien bedoel je sjabloon {{support}}. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Nee, ik reageer op jouw nominatie, ik heb geen sjabloon gebruikt. Mijn tekst staat nu onder het sjabloon i.p.v. op de overlegpagina die bij de lijst hoort. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Oeps, je hebt gelijk. Ik gebruik altijd {{vd}} . Geen idee waarom ik nu 'delete' gebruikte :-) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hernoemen van file?[edit]

Hallo Vincent Steenberg "Landscape with a Kid by Frans Deutmann Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed B1943.jpg", het kind zie ik niet... Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Rembrandt - Tobit Accusing Anna of Stealing the Kid - WGA19108.jpg
Hoi Lotje, Kid is engels voor een jonge geit. Vergelijk Tobit and the Kid. Ik heb het ook voor de zekerheid opgezocht in Pieter J. J. van Thiel et al. (1976) All the paintings of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, Maarssen: Gary Schwartz, ISBN 90-6179-010-7.
en de titel komt daarmee overeen. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Jean Siméon Chardin[edit]

Hallo, Vincent Steenberg, vind je de verwijzing naar de interwikilinks in combinate het sjabloon creator nog noodzakelijk? Lotje (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hoi Lotje,
Die opmerking kan inderdaad weg. Of een sjabloon {{creator}} thuishoort op een gallery pagina is een andere vraag.
Vincent Steenberg (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Pieter isaacsz, ritratto familiare, 1609.jpg[edit]

Hallo Vincent Steenberg zou dit een (zelfportret) kunnen zijn van Pieter Isaacsz (1569-1625)? Zo ja kan iemand misschien ooit eens een detailfoto maken om in zijn creatorbox te plaatsen. Bij Hendrick Avercamp staat (nogal verwarrend) dat Pieter Isaacsz een Deense historieschilder en portrettist is. Lotje (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hoi Lotje, Volgens het gaat het hier volgens het RKD om een portret van een onbekend echtpaar met hun zoontje (zie Wel kwam ik een tekening tegen van lang na Isaacsz.' dood waarop een portret te zien is van Isaacsz. (zie; nr. 17). Misschien hebben we daar iets aan? En over Isaacsz. zelf: hij werd in Denemarken geboren, maar hij had een Nederlandse vader. Is hij dat automatisch Deens? Ik zou het niet durven zeggen. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)