JopkeB

Archive: User talk:JopkeB/Archives

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedwig in Washington (talk • contribs) 6 jan 2019 16:58‎ (UTC)

Category:Streekbezoek_Juliana_aan_Voorne-Putten_en_Rozenburg_26-4-1951

Streekbezoek Juliana aan Voorne-Putten en Rozenburg 26-4-1951 has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Themightyquill (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Anonymous_people_of_Spijkenisse

Anonymous people of Spijkenisse has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Brianjd (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi JopkeB, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Groet, Ellywa (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all your contributions, ordening the mess FotoDutch (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Koninklijke familie

Beste JopkeB, Ik zie dat jij bij diverse "Oranjes" een categorie toevoegt "Royal Family of the Netherlands". Ik ben geen expert op het gebied van koninklijke families, maar bijv. over Christina staat in NL-Wiki: "Voor het huwelijk was door de regering - conform de wens van Christina - geen toestemming aan de Staten-Generaal gevraagd. Christina werd daardoor uitgesloten van erfopvolging en was vanaf haar huwelijksdag geen lid meer van het Koninklijk Huis." Maar goed, zij was ooit wel lid, dus die categorie past bij haar. Maar zijn haar kinderen dan nog wel "Royal Family of the Netherlands"? Vysotsky (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Beste Vysotsky, ja, ik ben inderdaad aan het proberen de categorieën over de familie Van Oranje cs duidelijker te stroomlijnen en aan te vullen. En ik denk eenoog in het land der blinden op dit gebied te zijn (geen super-expert, maar weet er wel het één-en-ander van). Mijn toelichting op je vraag/opmerkingen: Er bestaat verschil tussen de Koninklijke Familie en het Koninklijk Huis en het Huis van Oranje-Nassau.

• Tot de Koninklijk Familie behoren alle verwanten van de familie Van Oranje-Nassau, ook zij die niet tot het Koninklijk Huis en/of het Huis van Oranje-Nassau horen. Dus ook de prinsessen Christina en Irene en hun nakomelingen. Net als bij een "gewone" familie.
• Het Koninklijk Huis is zeer strikt bij wet geregeld: alleen de huidige Koning (of regerende koningin), diens echtgeno(o)t(e), zij die gerechtigd zijn tot de troon tot in de tweede graad, plus zijn moeder.
• Het Huis van Oranje-Nassau bevat in feite alle nakomelingen van Willem van Oranje en hun echtgenotes, die de titel Prins(es) van Oranje-Nassau mochten/mogen dragen. Tegenwoordig wordt deze titel nog mondjesmaat verstrekt, alleen aan hen die bij hun geboorte gerechtigd zijn tot de troon.

--JopkeB (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Flickr images by location

Flickr images by location has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Multichill (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Grey or gray?

I noted that you have changed the spelling of grey to gray in a category. Both spellings are used in different parts of the world and there is no general agreement that the US spelling has to be preferred against the UK spelling. Although I have no preference in this specific case, I recommend that you do not spend to much time and effort in americanising Wikimedia Commons, because this will not be useful for those who prefer the British spelling. NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear NearEMPTiness, there was a discussion about harmonization categories with grey and gray in the name, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Gray. The result was, that:

1. There should be one word for all categories about gray/grey, in accordance with the rules for categories, see Commons:Categories#Universality principle.
2. The name for the main category stays Gray. That means automatically that all subcategories should have "Gray" in the name and not "Grey".

So I now am changing all categories with "grey" in the category name into "gray".

By the way, I would have preferred "Grey" as well, as you can read in the discussion, but there was no majority for. Perhaps next time the British spelling will prevail in a discussion.

--JopkeB (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply and clarification. I agree that harmonisation is an important benefit to all users.

• This is a terrible change. WP:ENGVAR is a much more sensible approach. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean? "Consistency within articles" would mean for Commons that all subcategories of -in this case- Gray/Grey should have the same word in the title, see also Universality principle. That is what I am doing. How would have liked to do it otherwise? JopkeB (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe read ENGVAR and the backstory to it?

The point of ENGVAR is to avoid ping-pong edit wars as to which spelling is "right". So it says that strong national ties can be followed (You renamed "Grey vehicles in London" anyway) and that most of all, don't make gratuitous changes just for the sake of doing it, because that just encourages edit wars and bad feeling. As you've done here.

Here's a clue as to how MediaWiki works (because so many people still keep arguing the opposite): it doesn't care about string-matching between members of a category. There is no need whatsoever to arbitrarily rename things, just so that they all "fit" in a parent category, or as matching siblings. This is also against most policies (like ENGVAR) and most factors of usability. The "grey/gray" distinction is tied far more closely to the origins of each specific term (i.e. "Grey vehicles in London"), not some invented need for consistency. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• This is Commons, not EN-Wikipedia. Commons has its own set of rules and one of them is the Universality principle: all subcategories should have identicial names, in this case "gray" and not "grey". Unlike EN-WP, the rule on Commons is: "local dialects and terminology should be supressed in favour of universality".
• I did not rename all those categories on my own, but there was a discussion preceding it, open for over three years, so not overnight. And the outcome was that the spelling on Commons should be "Gray" and not "Grey". Consequently all subcategories with "grey" in the title should be renamed. So why would there be a edit war? I expect this is a once in a lifetime change, because it is a lot of work and there alway should be held a new discussion.
• All those people who still take offense of "Gray", should be aware that there are a lot of not-native English speakers on Commons (perhaps the majority), who not only have to put aside their own native language on Commons every day (not only for gray, but for all words and terms, so I think complaining about one word shows that those native English speakers are not aware of their privilage position), but also are not caring a bit about one or the other spelling, just wanting one spelling for all categories involved. Because it is very handsome to have one spelling when you are searching for categories, parent categories and so on, and not frequently have to try whether you should use a parent with the other spelling. I guess this is one reason why the Universality principe was implemented.

JopkeB (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

A section added by one editor. The same editor who wanted to replace "aircraft cockpits" with "driving cabs of aircraft" and then rewrote the whole category policy page to justify his invented and undiscussed "universality principle". Because some people just can't realise that the whole world doesn't speak German. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That was 9 years ago. And untill now this principle is still valid. Untill it is legitimately removed, I shall keep this rule. JopkeB (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Surnames from Belgium

Surnames from Belgium has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

You specifically created Category:Surnames from the Netherlands which is related. --Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Public Transport

Hello, Strictly speaking the images that are in Category:Public transport need to be in "Public transport in X" however moving them all to "Buses" is nonsensical and could be seen as vandalism, Please be careful and please seek consensus before making such huge changes, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

No, this is not nonsensical. I saw well over 1.000 files in Category:Public transport, most of them buses, so far too many. Since Category:Buses is a subcategory of Category:Public transport, I moved them there. I think that eventually they need to be categorized in "Buses in X", which will be a subcategory of "Public transport in X". I did not mean to do vandalism at all. JopkeB (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi JopkeB, I'm struggling to put it into words but imho public transport and buses are generally 2 different things but either way I think it would be better to seek a community consensus on this, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I rely on the category structure in this kind of cases. Otherwise I can ask permission for every edit I make for overcrowded categories.

In this case "Buses" is a subcategory of "Public transport" (via Category:Public transport by mode and Category:Bus transport). For me this makes sense. I see only files that are about buses used for public transport. It is very rare that a bus is owned by a private party and only used by that members that private party, I can only think of the bus of the royal family of the Netherlands and I cannot even find a photo of it in Commons.

If you think the category structure is not right, please make a discussion page for it, and if you are right, the files in "Buses" will get extra parents. For now, I leave it as it is. JopkeB (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@User: Davey2010, I just checked my mail and saw that you reversed over 3.000 of my changes. I was stunned. I made the changes in good faith and with good intentions, to relieve Category:Public transport, a main category that was (and is now again) overcrowded. Is your behaviour constructive? Do you own this category and may no one else touch the files in it? Then you'd better put a note in the category to first contact you about intended changes that someone wants to do. JopkeB (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

" Is your behaviour constructive? ", Yes - I disagreed with your changes so reverted as I am entitled to do so, The onus is now on you to seek consensus for your changes. –Davey2010^Talk 18:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is being continued on Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Public transport. --JopkeB (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Verwijderen van categorie

Dag JobkeB, ik zag dat je de categorie 'Jazz musicians from France' bij David Texier hebt verwijderd. Ik had met opzet die daar gezet omdat hij niet alleen pianist is maar ook o.a. componist. Ik heb het nu opgelost door er twee categorieën aan toe te voegen. Wouter (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, Dank voor het herstel, mooi opgelost. JopkeB (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in Round 1 of the 2022 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2022.

Round 2 will end at 18 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Historical images of ...

Hoi Jopke, Ik begrijp niet goed de noodzaak om deze categorieën op grote schaal te verwijderen, te verplaatsen naar photographs by year ofzo .. Is het geen goede categorienaam? Het leek me best een bruikbare koepelcat waarin ook prenten kunnen staan. Beste groet. Peli (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Nee, het is inderdaad geen goede categorienaam, zie Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images. Te algemeen, teveel een vuilnisbak. Beter is het om specifieker te categorizeren, desnoods per eeuw, en je kunt dan nog steeds "images" gebruiken (bijvoorbeeld voor plaatsen met weinig bestanden), voor alle soorten afbeeldingen, inclusief prenten. Bij het verplaatsen zie ik ook overcategorisatie, waarbij files zowel in de "historical" categorie zitten, als in meer specifieke. JopkeB (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:1 July - calendar sheet.png

And also:

• File:April 1 - calendar sheet.png
• File:December 1 - calendar sheet.png
• File:August 1 - calendar sheet.png
• File:August 15 - calendar sheet.png
• File:June 1 - calendar sheet.png
• File:February 1 - calendar sheet.png
• File:March 1 - calendar sheet.png
• File:October 1 - calendar sheet.png
• File:1 November - calendar sheet.png

Yours sincerely, JopkeB (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Loanwords_of_Dutch_origin

Loanwords of Dutch origin has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

RZuo (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

CfD help

Just a quick thank you for lending your hand on CfDs. I haven't had as much time lately for Wiki, but I try to poke my head in the CfD door when I can. Your efforts are appreciated. Josh (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Hello & thank you for good work! However you recently categorized several photos taken in California, Florida, Nebraska and Illinois as "Group photos in Sweden". Please always read image info provided on its page before you categorize any image! Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice. I'll be more careful and change these files. JopkeB (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:CategoryTOC

Hi, this template is used for navigation in a category by alphabet rather than a category markup.Larryasou (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! You are right, I apologize, I undid my reverse action. JopkeB (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Ayasofyaatnight.jpg

Misschien nuttig voor uw handboek: Interior is binnen, exterior is buiten. U hebt in 2022 minstens twee foto's verkeerd gemarkeerd. Zie ook Ayasofyaatnight(4). Het was een serie van vier, twee binnen, twee buiten. Dan is oplettendheid geboden.
@Dosseman: Dank voor uw oplettendheid. Ik zal voortaan proberen beter op te letten. --JopkeB (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Ach, ik ben nu een dag of twee bezig de chaos in de Hagia Sophia foto's te ordenen, en dit was een licht incident. Ben net bezig een Duitse administrator te corrigeren die de Hagia en de Kariye kerk door elkaar haalde. En hij was zeker niet de enige. En de binnen- en buitenfout wordt ook veel gemaakt. Leuk om weer eens in onze moerstaal te kunnen communiceren. Dosseman (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Ja, soms maken ze/we er een zootje van. Ik houd het maar op onwetendheid of (zoals in mijn geval) onoplettendheid. En ja, op zo'n internationale site kom je weinig mensen tegen die Nl spreken, en soms moet je ook dan nog Eng schrijven, bijvoorbeeld bij discussies; Nl gaat gemakkelijker. Goed werk trouwens! Ga vooral zo door. JopkeB (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Fop in kerken

Ter informatie, mijn wijziging op Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands is nu tweemaal teruggedraaid. Zie ook mijn OP. We moeten dus maar wachten tot iedereen klaar is met de discussie, dan kan de tekst (wellicht gewijzigd) weer teruggezet. Jammer, want Engelfriet is echt de beste op dit gebied, en ik was heel blij met zijn input uiteraard. Twijfelde zelf nu ook over mijn eerdere besluit tot behoud van de foto van het kunstwerk. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Tsja, niet iedereen is overtuigd van de waarde van de inzichten van experts en moeten dan kennelijk altijd nog hun eigen mening geven, voordat er conclusies kunnen worden getrokken. En allerlei zijwegen inslaan ... 't Is niet anders, afwachten. JopkeB (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA

Armed escort carrying the wounded to the Senegalese border from Sara, Guinea-Bissau, 1974

Dear JopkeB, The great thing about Wikimedia Commons is that the images are all free! Most of them can be freely used only citing the author! Thank you for the opportunity of celebrating this again, cheers, Hansmuller (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Stuiver

Ik heb de acties van de discussie voltooid, denk dat dit de beste plek is om dat te laten weten, want ik weet niet of dat in een gesloten discussie mag :p ReneeWrites (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Dank voor je snelle actie en het doorgeven. Ja, dit soort mededelingen meld ik in ieder geval wel in een gesloten discussie en heb daar nooit commentaar op gehad. Dus ga gerust je gang, dan weet de rest ook dat het is gebeurd. JopkeB (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Oke, dan weet ik dat ook voor de toekomst :) Ik heb een comment hierover toegevoegd. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, dank. Overigens mag het ook in het blok daaronder, bij de Actions of de Notes. JopkeB (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Data vs evenementen

Hoi Jopke, ik zag dat je sommige data-categorieën (zoals "Netherlands photographs taken on 1933-08-31" als categorie onder een categorie betreffende evenementen (zoals "Koninginnedag 1933" hebt geplaatst. Ik zou dat niet gedaan hebben, omdatː

1.De waarschuwing bij data-categorieën luidtː This category should only contain photographs. Any other media types present in this category should most likely be moved into a parent or sibling category. "Alleen foto's" betekent volgens mij dan "dus ook geen categorieën"

2.Foto's van de voorbereidingen die eerder hebben plaatsgevonden komen dan onder de verkeerde datum te hangen;

3.Herdenkingsspeldjes, posters, en toegangskaartjes van het evenement staan dan onder de foto-categorie, en die horen daar niet.

Maar dat is dan mijn mening. Misschien is dit al eerder uitputtend overlegd zonder dat ik het wist, en ik niemand onnodig nog erger uitputten. Echter, we delen dezelfde liefhebberij, maar maar verschillen misschien hier een beetje van mening. En als we dit niet bijtijds bespreken, kan het een vervelende,onnodige edit-war worden. Dus samenvattendː vind je mijn argumenten overtuigend? Of heb je ze al eerder gelezen, en is desondanks eerder al anders over dit onderwerp besloten? Groetjes, en ga door met de goede werken, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Beste Jeff5102, dank dat je de moeite neemt om dit onder mijn aandacht te brengen. Mijn antwoorden:

1. "only ... photographs" interpreteer ik als: geen grafieken, icons, filmpjes, geluidsfragmenten, e.d., zie ook Category:Media types.
2. Ik ben er inderdaad één keer eerder op gewezen, en toen ging het inderdaad over een subcategorie die over een andere datum ging. Sindsdien let ik erop dat ik alleen categorieën in zo'n datum-categorie plaats, als er geen misverstanden kunnen zijn, en anders plaats ik (foto's in) die subcategorie in de juiste datum-categorie.

Ik vind het vooral handig om een hele categorie in één datum-categorie te zetten, zodat je alle foto's van die datum die bij elkaar horen, ook in de datum-categorie bij elkaar ziet staan, vooral als het om een grote datum-categorie gaat, waarin je anders door de bomen het bos niet meer ziet. JopkeB (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Bedankt voor je uitleg. Ik heb daar een andere mening over. Echter, ik heb niet het idee dat op Commons de ene zienswijze de andere in de weg zit. Groetjes!Jeff5102 (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

FOP in kerken

Dag JopkeB, de discussie over Churches and Dutch FOP. is nu gearchiveerd. Denk je dat het mogelijk is een finale conclusie te trekken en die te verwerken op COM:FOP Netherlands? Mijn eerdere bewerking werd 2x teruggedraaid, dus heb ik dat maar laten zitten op dat moment. Maar het is jammer om na al die energie die iedereen erin gestoken heeft de richtlijn niet te verduidelijken. Zou dat toch nog een keer in die kroeg besproken moeten worden? Met hartelijke groet, Ellywa (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Nee, helaas, ik kan geen finale conclusie trekken, daarvoor zijn de meningen te verdeeld. Dit is een zaak voor een echte jurist, gespecialeerd in Nederlands auteursrecht, of we moeten een rechterlijke uitspraak afwachten (als die er ooit komt). Zelfs de argumenten van Arnoud Engelfriet blijken niet doorslaggevend, dus dan weet ik het al helemaal niet. JopkeB (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Dank je, voor je snelle reactie. Ik denk dat ik voortaan wel uitga van de insteek van Engelfriet, als ik zulke verwijderverzoeken tegenkom (alleen voor werken die permanent in een kerk zijn opgesteld, maar dat argument kwam ook niet over). Je moet toch iets..... Groet, Ellywa (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/09/Category:Technology assessments

At Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/09/Category:Technology assessments you asked what the difference is between a category and itself. I'm guessing that is not what you meant to do. - Jmabel ! talk 05:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Jmabel, you are right, the other one should be without the last s. I juste corrected it. JopkeB (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

foutje gemaakt bij Category

Hallo Jopke, Ik heb bij een nieuwe Categorie een foutje gemaakt van 1 letter, maar vind nergens waar ik het kan herstellen: Bij de net aangemaakte Category:1990 paintings by Fons Heijnsbroep - de p moet een k worden. Wil jij het even corrigeren? Zal het nooit meer doen;) groetjes FotoDutch (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hallo Jopke, Het is me al gelukt! Moest er even inkomen. FotoDutch (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hoi Jopke, Nee, het is me toch niet gelukt. Wil jij daarom de correctie van de letter p naar de letter k doen? FotoDutch (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done! (Ik heb rechten om categorieën te hernoemen.) Als je het volgende keer zelf wilt doen: ga in de categorie naar de tab "Meer" en scroll naar "Hernoemen". Vul het scherm in. Vervolgens zal er binnen enkele dagen iemand met rechten aan de slag gaan en krijg je bericht als het gelukt is. JopkeB (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Bedankt! Nou snap ik waarom het me telkens niet lukte!FotoDutch (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Beste FotoDutch, Ik zag dat je mijn wijziging in Category:1990 paintings by Fons Heijnsbroek weer had teruggedraaid. Moet de Categorie-naam dan misschien Category:1990's paintings by Fons Heijnsbroek zijn, met een 's achter 1990? Dan verander ik dat nog. JopkeB (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hallo Jopke. Ik zat flink te klungelen. Sorry. Er is de category Category:1990 paintings by Fons Heijnsbroek nodig voor mijn werken uit het jaar 1990. En daarnaast de Category Category:1990's paintings by Fons Heijnsbroek om al de aparte jaren van 1990 t/m 1999 in onder te brengen. Zo had ik de opzet tenminste begrepen. FotoDutch (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Ja, dat klopt. Maar dan moeten ook de parent categorieën kloppen en de parent "Category:1990s paintings from the Netherlands" klopt nu niet met de titel Category:1990 paintings by Fons Heijnsbroek als er ook een Category:1990 paintings from the Netherlands is (wel als die er niet is). Dus daarom had ik die veranderd. JopkeB (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Jij bent het meest deskundig hierin. Maak jij de beste keus en dan zal ik die volgen. Ik ben al blij als het me lukt de afbeeldingen te plaatsen Begin oud te worden, zucht..FotoDutch

Ik zal een nieuwe categorie Category:1990s paintings by Fons Heijnsbroek maken en zorgen dat de parent-categorieën kloppen, alleen nu ben ik nog met andere dingen bezig. Wordt vervolgd. Ga gewoon verder met afbeeldingen plaatsen, zorg dat ze in het juiste jaar geplaatst worden en ik zorg voor een correcte bovenliggende categorie + juiste parents. --JopkeB (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done JopkeB (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hartelijk bedankt! FotoDutch FotoDutch (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't move all the categories back to "black colored people"

Don't move all the categories back to "black colored people"Smasongarrison (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Why not? Will you change the files yourself, which have now wrong categories, like Category:Black people in art (which are not in art) and Category:Black people? JopkeB (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I will, but "Black-colored" is worse than being in a disambiguation one. It means people who are literally the color black. Smasongarrison (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Then start a discussion (in the left column of a category) and propose a better name. JopkeB (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The name is fine for describing people like these images:

Smasongarrison (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Please make a good description in Category:Black-colored people with a reference to the correct category/categories for images of people with a black skin and add these two images as well, to make it clear. Perhaps also adjust Category:Black people, with more explanations, to lead editors (like me) to the correct category. Would that category be Category:People of Black African descent? JopkeB (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'm glad we were able to clear this up. How does this look? Category:Black-colored_people Smasongarrison (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Great, absolutely fine! I am glad too. JopkeB (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Excellent! :) Smasongarrison (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Street photography en de intentie van de kunstenaar en het kunstwerk

Hoi JobkeB, alleereerst hartelijk dank voor je grote inzet op Wikipedia en op Wikimedia Commons in het bijzonder. Met het Wikiboek Handboek Wikimedia Commons voor nieuwelingen en editors ben je drie/twee jaar terug een interessant initiatief gestart, waar ik zelf tot m'n spijt nog nooit aan toe ben gekomen om daar op te reageren.

Door m'n eigen break van een half jaar ben ik zelf ook niet meer toegekomen aan enige copyright controverses, die hier aan de oppervlakte zijn gekomen. Ditzelfde geldt voor de open vragen in Category talk:Street photography, waarbij je wellicht is opgevallen dat ik zelf was afgehakt bij de afronding van de Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/11/Category:Street photography.

Hiervoor was er een expliciet protest van jou hier, waar ik ook niet adequaat op gereageerd heb door de felle controverse met Fons Heijnsbroek toen. Het gevolg hiervan is dat deze bewerking (en andere bewerkingen) is blijven staan, wat bij mij is blijven steken. Mede door andere recente ontwikkelingen zou ik hier graag eerst eens met jou persoonlijk op willen terugkomen.

De laatste genoemde discussie speelde exact een jaar terug, en de afsluiting van de discussie over criteria over Street Art vier maanden later nu acht maanden terug. Deze zaken zijn bij jou wellicht ook bezonken. Om te beginnen zou ik je willen vragen of dit voor jou nu naar alle tevredenheid is opgelost? -- Mdd (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hallo Mdd, Dank voor je complimenten. Voor zover ik me kan herinneren en nalezen, zijn de door jou aangehaalde zaken goed opgelost, mede omdat Josh er bij één ook nog is ingesprongen.

Waarop zou je nog willen terugkomen en met mij bespreken? JopkeB (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Bedankt, dat gaat niet meer lukken op korte termijn, maar ik kom daar graag nog eens op terug. Mvg. -- Mdd (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Klimaatbeheersing (climate control)

Hallo JopkeB,

In de foto van de keuken in het Snouck van Loosenhuis zie jij blijkbaar ergens klimaatbeheersing (climate control), maar ik mis een voorwerp dat daarover gaat. Die enorme afzuigkap zou je er misschien onder kunnen scharen, maar die gaat meer over geurtjes, dan over luchtverversing e.d. Rond 1900 (van toen is deze keuken) werd er nog niet zo aan klimaatbeheersing gedaan. Maar, wat zie ik over het hoofd? Met vriendelijke groet, Dqfn13 (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hallo User:Dqfn13,

Ja, ik bedoelde inderaad die enorme afzuigkap. Een afzuigkap doet meer dan alleen geurtjes afzuigen (hoewel het ontbreken van geurtjes ook bij luchtkwaliteit hoort), ook schadelijke stoffen die vrijkomen als je bijvoorbeeld op gas of hout kookt.

Klimaatbeheersing gaat over het hele arsenaal: het reguleren van luchtkwaliteit, temperatuur en luchtvochtigheid in gebouwen. En als je de categorie-lijn van Category:Exhaust hoods naar boven volgt, kom je uiteindelijk bij "Ventilation" uit (die ik net als 2e parent Category:Climate control heb meegegeven). Met vriendelijke groet, JopkeB (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Oké, zo had ik het nog niet bekeken. Bedankt voor de uitleg. Ik heb ook ooit een smuiger in een keuken gefotografeerd, daarvan weet ik niet zeker of die ook in die categorie hoort. Dit geldt trouwens ook voor een openhaard in het Westfries Museum in Hoorn, die kamer was (waarschijnlijk na de verbouwing nog steeds) ingericht als taveerne. In ieder geval alvast een goed weekend, Dqfn13 (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Graag gedaan (de uitleg).

Voor open haarden, schouwen en soortgelijke stookplaatsen, inclusief schoorstenen: zie vooral de bovenliggende categorieën, die geven vaak uitsluitsel.

Ook een goed weekend! JopkeB (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

CfD notification

Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Cobblers; you have edited the related Category:Shoemakers. - Jmabel ! talk 04:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Crowds at the Stanthorpe showgrounds (14616088815).jpg

No idea where you got Canada for this one; it's Australia. Letting you know just in case this may lead you to others where you might have erred similarly. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea either (too long ago). My mistake. JopkeB (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the category issue

I'm working through renaming the categories I created already - there are a lot. Unfortunately, I'm going away for a week, but as soon as I get back I'll fix the rest of them. I honestly had never seen that category discussion, otherwise I would have chosen differently!

FWIW, I'm trying to photograph South West Sydney - I've got an extensive set of photos I've taken over the last year and a bit. I had setup a category structure, I didn't realise that "Historic images of..." was not allowed when I did this, but it is just as easy to convert them to "History of...". It will just take me a bit of time.

The category I'm working through is Category:History of Sydney which covers all the Local Government Areas of Sydney.

Once again, apologies for the mistake. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: Thanks for your message. It is OK, apologies accepted, I totally understand, one cannot follow all the category discussions. I am glad you will fix it. It looks like you are doing good work! If you have enough images of for instance a century, decade or year, you may make subcategories for them as well, a century would already help. JopkeB (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Edit warring. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright op Loesje Posters

Hoi JopkeB, drie jaar terug heb je hier documentatie toegevoegd over de Loesje posters, en dat klonk aannemelijk. In dit verwijderverzoek heb ik eergisteren daarna verwezen, maar dat lijkt user:Donald Trung daarna te ontkennen. Kun je een reactie geven op zijn stellingname, en misschien ook over dit verwijderverzoek als geheel.

Misschien voor de duidelijkheid. De discussie daarover is eerder hier begonnen, een discussie omtrent de afronding van de verschuiving van de hele serie Category:Posters of the Netherlands by year, en daaruit kwam de massanominatie voort. De opzet van de categorie-boom was altijd al bedoeld om twee redenen: tonen van grafisch werk en tonen wat copyright-technisch wel kan (de-minimis, werk met toestemming, en werk vrijgegeven door derden). Nu verschillen wij beide over deze laatste categorie, maar dat kunnen wellicht later weer eens oppakken.

User:Donald Trung heeft hier de afgelopen vijf jaar werk van een andere soort categorie geupload an mass, zie hier: Grafisch en encyclopedisch niet interessant en (wat ik noem) borderline-onder-copyright. Eigenlijk zou ik willen, dat hij al dat werk verplaatst naar Flickr en maar een selectie op Commons aanbied. En dat is niet persoonlijk bedoeld, want zoiets heb ik ook al een paar jaar geïntroduceerd met het werk van Fotobureau de Boer... en kan Commons met veel meer collecties gaan doen als het aan mij ligt.

Nu is dat laatste het totaalplaatje, wat ik het komende jaar verder wil gaan promoten. Alvast bedankt, mvg. -- Mdd (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done --JopkeB (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Bedankt voor je reactie, en excuses voor meteen dat hele verhaal. Wat ik er hier echter nog niet bijgezegd had was, dat dit onderwerp direct gerelateerd is met wat ik twee maanden terug onder #Street photography en de intentie van de kunstenaar en het kunstwerk ter sprake wilde brengen. Misschien heb je al eens gezien, dat het werk van Donald Trung bestaat uit zo'n 135.000 afbeeldingen waarvan er 4.000 gebruikt zijn op Wikipediaprojecten, zo'n 3%. Als je eens kijkt wat voor werk hij upload, dan zie je allerlei variaties op een thema.

De afgelopen week liep ik daar weer tegenaan met het verplaatsen van de categorieboom van Posters uit Nederland per jaar, waarover ik hier nog met Ciell heb overlegt over de afronding. Vier maanden terug ben ik user:Donald Trung zelf al eens gevraagd naar de bedoeling van enige van z'n werken, zie hier, en daaruit heb ik later dit verbinding gelegd.

Nu schijnt hij zelf beledigd te zijn, dat ik het ook maar suggereer. Hij ziet het als een persoonlijke aanval. Maar zelf ben ik daar eigenlijk gedurende die vier maanden mee bezig gebleven. In die tijd heb ik een dertiental series gemaakt en op Flickr gezet, zie hier. Dat was eigenlijk een groot avontuur aanvankelijk geïnspireerd en in gang gezet door z'n werk. Het is eigenlijk een raar verhaal, dat zijn zo vertekende beeld op Rotterdam bij mij de behoefte en energie losmaakte om daar tegenin te gaan. M'n conclusie is dan ook dat zijn werk provoceert, en als zodoende zekere kwaliteit heeft. Het knapste lijkt nog wel dat hij al dat werk bijna ongezien Wikimedia Commons heeft weten binnen te smokkelen.

Maar wat voor precedent schept dit nu? Gaan we iedere straatfotografie kunstenaar zoveel ruimte bieden. Zelf heb ik ook zo'n 10 tot 20.000 eigen foto's, waarvan ik er een paar honderd heb gedeeld. Nu zitten hier implicaties naar zowel het werk van DT als ten aanzien van de omgang met Street photography op Commons, waar jij je dan hebt opgeworpen als coordinator. Nu hoef je hier verder momenteel niet op te reageren, maar ik hoop dat we hier nog iets verder over kunnen afstemmmen. Mvg, Mdd (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Mijn persoonlijke mening (helaas niet die van Commons-beleid): In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister. Liever een goede selectie, zodat eindgebruikers niet eindeloos hoeven te zoeken naar een geschikte foto, dan tientallen foto's over hetzelfde onderwerp, ook nog eens gemaakt op dezelfde dag. Maar kennelijk dumpen te velen liever hun hele collectie (te vaak zonder correcte beschrijvingen en geschikte categorieën) dan eerst een selectie te maken en aandacht te besteden aan goede terugvindbaarheid. Enkele subcategories van Category:Nature of Texel vind ik berucht: vele foto's over hetzelfde onderwerp, waarvoor één of enkele voldoende zouden moeten zijn (van een andere uploader).

Er zijn trouwens ook anderen die "alles" wat ze op Commons aan eigen werk publiceren als "straatfotografie" bestempelen. Na een discussie heb ik gelukkig enkele criteria kunnen vaststellen, zodat het niet helemaal uit de hand loopt. Maar ik ben bang dat we meer niet kunnen doen. En sindsdien heb ik het losgelaten, ik ben geen coördinator daarvan.

Zolang het beleid van Commons niet verandert, mag iedereen net zoveel eigen (en andermans) foto's uploaden als hij/zij wil, ook als slechts 3% wordt hergebruikt. Het is niet anders. JopkeB (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Bedankt en je bent inderdaad niet de coördinator, maar de de coördinatie hebt opgepakt. Ik heb zoals je weet in die discussie meegedaan wat heeft geresulteerd in een constructieve beschrijving, waarin ik me sinds die tijd niet-helemaal heb kunnen vinden. Nu staat het er wel allemaal, maar niet wat de frase Street photography is... a form of autonomous art... inhoud. Volgens mij betekent dat in de allereerste basis, dat het gemaakt is door een bekend persoon (een natuurlijk persoon of pseudoniem) en wel met een karakteristieke eigen autonome artistieke intentie.

Nog eens dat ene voorbeeld. Bij die foto is een maker, die dat met een bepaalde intentie gemaakt heeft. Dat is iemand die al jaren bij de fotodienst van het Stadsarchief A'dam had gewerkt, en daar telkens foto-opdrachten heeft uitgevoerd. De documentatie van die zou eigenlijk in die richting meer uitgewerkt kunnen worden. Maar als vervolgens een straatfotograaf zijn documentatie gaat toevoegen, dan schemert daar doorheen wat hij daar zoal in ziet. Dat zou juist voor iedere straatfotograaf anders zijn en dat moet je dan niet gaan toevoegen.

Wat ik wil zeggen is dat een foto nooit op zichzelf staat, er is een maker met een intentie. In die unieke intentie schuilt eigenlijk al de oorsprong van de auteursrechtelijke bescherming. Niet alleen de vorm maar ook ideeën vallen onder copyright. Nu is dat heel kort door de bocht. Maar wat er nu in die discussie over Valentijnswenskaarten en Loesje posters gezegd wordt, dat gaat allemaal over de verschijningsvorm. Maar dit alles slechts ter informatie. Tzt kom ik graag nog op een en ander terug. Mvg, -- Mdd (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Kitesurfing equipment

I wouldn't usually consider kitesurfing as "nautical". The etymology of that has to do with ships and sailors, and I don't think it has really ever lost that connotation. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have changed it. JopkeB (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Much better. - Jmabel ! talk 05:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Homemade foods

Hi, thanks for organizing the homemade food pics. However, I am not sure some pics are actually what Category:Homemade foods (which is under Category:Home cooking) considered as homemade.

• File:VG Marinated Roast Chicken Breast - T @ The Prince George 2023-10-15.jpg - description says the pub menu mentioned it used "homemade" chicken breast and "homemade" gravy. I believe "homemade" in this context is more like "custom made" or "hand made", but not actually "home cooking".

• File:Kimchi Homely Ramen - Betterday.jpg - Similar to above. Moreover, you put the file in Category:Homemade chicken dishes, but the description only says "Homemade Kimchi". It doesn't say whether chicken was homemade or not.

I got notification of these two files since they are my uploads. You may need to check whether the other files you categorized are correct or not. Onthewings (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right, these two should not be there. I made a search and selected the ones that indeed looked like homemade food on the small thumbs and copied them with Cat-a-lot. But these two have slipped through. I'll check the other ones. Thanks for notifying. JopkeB (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Back

Hi, JopkeB, just letting you know my move and vacation are now complete and I am starting to go through the notifications and get re-acquainted with discussions and projects, so it may be slow going at first--I see you have been up to a lot of good work. I just wanted to say hi and if there are any urgent matters, feel free to give me a ping to move them to the top of the pile. Thanks, Josh (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Josh! Good to have you back and letting me know. I think the most urgent matter is Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/03/Category:Concepts by region, participants were impatient already a month ago. JopkeB (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Environmental soil science

I delete from "Environmental soil science" just because it was yet part of the subcategory category "edaphology". But i agree with your observation, probably "edaphology" is a too much specific category, and "soil science" is the most appropriate. Thanks! Ciaurlec (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ciaurlec: Thanks for your reaction. I saw too late that Edaphology has Soil science as a parent, so I revert my change again. I have no idea what Edaphology is, I trust you know better and I trust your judgement wheter you keep Edaphology as a parent or rather Soil science, as long as something with Soil science is a parent. JopkeB (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Edaphology is related with life sciences, pedology on the other side is related with earth sciences. Theese are some "old" definitions: considering the whole environment make all classifications less semplicistic. That's why i agree with you: probably the best choice was to leave Environmental soil science, directly under category "soil science" and remove it from "edaphology". PS soon i wil try to pot a little order in category "geotechical engineering. Any of yours observations will be strongly agreed, alsjeblieft! Ciaurlec (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I leave it up to you to change the parent or not.

I am afraid that I know nothing at all about geotechnical engineering, so I cannot help you with that subject. But I do know a thing or two about categorizing and therefor I know that a category should have parent categories for all of its aspects, that I can check. JopkeB (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

For your great work

		The Category Barnstar
		Your persistent contribution to Commons:Categories for discussion, particularly in working to cut through the clutter and resolve issues with constructive conclusions and consensus-building, should not go unrewarded. Keep up the good work! Josh (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Category discussion organization

I thought you may be interested in this. I am trialing a new categorization scheme for category discussions. With all of the history now, I've wanted a way to look up previous CfDs that share certain characteristics, sort of like a law library index works to help researchers find case histories. I've started a tree at Category:Category discussions and the idea is to have indices for different criteria. The first four I'm starting with are topic (general topic the category being discussed is about), rationale (the reason given for needing discussion), consensus (how was it resolved), and action taken (what action items were agreed on). This can expand later. Anyway, if interested, take a look and let me know what you think. If it goes much further, I'll work up a template to make adding these cats less labor-intensive. Thanks in advance, Josh (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: Thanks for the notification. So the goal is to be able to find more easily closed category discussions with a certain characteristic? That might be useful. I don't know yet in what situations I would use it, but that might come. JopkeB (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'm just experimenting at this time, seeing what works or doesn't. Josh (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Irregular units, guerilla warfare and counter-insurgency during World War II

Hallo JopkeB, er staat een spellingsfout : Category:Irregular units, guerrilla warfare and counter-insurgency during World War II Guerrilla met dubbele -r- zou correct zijn. Maar alles in one go in orde brengen, dat laat ik liever aan iemand over die hier ervaring mee heeft. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Wat is het probleem?

• Kun je zelf categorieën hernoemen (heb je daar bevoegdheden voor), maar zie je er tegen op? Hernoem dan gewoon de categorie en volg de aanwijzingen in het vervolgscherm (je kunt dan het verplaatsen van de categorieën en bestanden dan desgewenst overlaten aan het systeem, je moet dan geloof ik een code gebruiken).
• Anders kun je het gewoon aanvragen via de tab "Meer", vervolgens "Hernoemen" en het formulier invullen.

JopkeB (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Niet dat ik er tegen opzag, maar ik vraag liever eerst raad. Thanks. Lotje (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Mooi opgelost! JopkeB (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Santa_Monica_by_Another_Believer_to_be_categorized

Santa Monica by Another Believer to be categorized has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Another Believer (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Water wheels vs Watermill wheels

I don't think there was any consensus to separate Category:Watermill wheels from Category:Water wheels, but first of all, you have now produced lots of mess with all the "by country" categories being doubled sorted under watermills or watermill parts (example: Category:Watermills in Germany -> Category:Water wheels in Germany AND Category:Watermills in Germany -> Category:Watermill wheels in Germany; all other countries similar way).

See also COM:OVERCAT. I think, either you have to clean up all the overcategorization a.s.a.p., or if you refuse the actions have to be undone; that is, emptying separated categories and intergrating them back into the "water wheels" tree. --A.Savin 10:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

First of all: Please assume good faith.

Then my answers:

1. There was consensus to separate Category:Watermill wheels from Category:Water wheels, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Watermills.
2. I see that I forgot to remove Category:Watermills in Germany as a parent from Category:Water wheels in Germany (I just corrected it), but I think for the rest of the countries the category structure is good now.
3. Which overcategorisation exactly is still left? Which parents are redundant?
4. I shall not agree to revert my actions within the framework of the outcome of Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Watermills. When you do so, I will report you.

JopkeB (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions and suggestions

You asking about my reversion led to a substantial improvement in Mammoth Lakes, California and June Lake, California. Thank you for asking and for your suggestion! — hike395 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome! I am glad I could help. JopkeB (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Gallery pages with only 1 image

Hello! You can nominate any gallery pages with only one file with {{speedy|Gallery page without at least two images or other media files; see [[Commons:Galleries]] ([[Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#GA1|GA1]])}}. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks The Squirrel Conspiracy. So then GA1. Gallery without images or other media files in Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#(Gallery) should be adjusted to GA1. Gallery page without at least two images or other media files? Can I do that? JopkeB (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. The discrepancy shouldn't exist and a page with 1 image isn't a gallery. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Do you have an opinion or preference when it comes to using "of" versus "about" in the names of categories for galleries? To give an example, the subcategories in Category:Gallery pages about artists are a mix of both and I'd like to standardize it. I'm not sure which is better though. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not know either. That's kind of a disaster. I only know that "about" is broader than "of":

1. about: leaves room for things related
2. of: very specific.

What I know:

• Galleries about geographic subjects (like countries, cities, locations) usually are "of".

In Category:Gallery pages of people by occupation they are all "of", so I would standardise to "of" for subcategories.

When I create a new gallery category I look to parent and sister categories, or I choose what looks well to me. But do not expect more guidance from me. JopkeB (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Spiders

Be careful, spiders are not insects...

Have a nice day Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Is Aphantopus hyperantus not an insect? It looks like a butterfly. JopkeB (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• My apologies, I went to the wrong page, I corrected it... Have a nice day!--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Needless drama about galleries

I get that you disagree with the galleries being deleted. But is there a reason you couldn't have just messaged me about it on my talk page or something instead instantly running to the admin board about it like this grade school or something? I probably would have been willing to meet you half way and revert some of them myself, but I don't really appreciate the overly confrontational way you've handled this and your accusation that I'm committing vandalism. You know as well I do that a gallery only having one image isn't the only criteria for speedy deletion. So I really don't get what your trip is about it. I'm more then willing to retract a few that are borderline and more conservative about it in the future if your willing to chill out and actually have a discussion about it instead of just complaining to admins that I'm committing vandalism at the drop of a hat when there was no reason to. Adamant1 (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to stop the deletions immediatly. And since speedy deletions are handled by administrators, I don't know any other place to ask. And the vandalism is about the premature emptying of the gallery pages, so that the administrator cannot judge whether the GA1 deletion request was justified.

That is a good idea, to revert the ones with two or more images in it. And if you still think gallery pages with two or more items should be deleted, than make a proper deletion request for them, so that others can give a reaction, just like Jmabel said before. JopkeB (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear I don't have an issue with you taking it up with admistrators as much as that you did it without discussing things with me first and under the false believe that its vandalism. As I said, 99% of the galleries that we're deleted only had a single image and the rest just recreated the category without any meaningful different content or way to expend them, which is a totally valid to have a gallery deleted. And your taking what Jmbel said out of context. The discussion was about galleries that mainly containted content that could be moved somewhere else. It had nothing to do with galleries that only contain a couple of images and/or aren't useful because they purely recreate the category and can't be expanded. None of the speedy deletions were at all related to content that could be moved somewhere else though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

About {{SD|GA1}}

@Adamant1: The {{SD|GA1}} is only for gallery pages with zero or one image, not for two or more: "GA1. Gallery page without at least two images or other media files". So if you want a gallery page with two or more images to be deleted, then you should make a dproper eletion request. That is why I reverted your SD's on such pages. --JopkeB (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I already covered this on the admin board, but that's not what it says. "Mainspace pages (galleries) that are empty or contain no useful content, such as pages that contain text but no images or other media" qualify for GA1. What part of the whole "or contain no useful content" thing are you having such a hard time with? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This is about gallery pages with two or more images. Are you the judge that this is not useful content? Then mention why it is not useful. JopkeB (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I am the judge. Anyone who uses the template is the judge of it's an appropriate place to use it or not. That's literally how this works. I've told you several times including in changeset comments why I don't think two images are useful in these specific cases. Your just refusing to listen or get the point. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This worries me. Because in Commons talk:Galleries#Add "criteria for creation of galleries" section to guideline I proposed that the minimum is two and there was no objection to that number. So you are already deviating from it before this guideline is even implemented. And two is not enough, three, four or five is also not enough for you. Where does this end? How can I trust that a gallery page that I (or anybode else) have created and meets the criteria will not be deleted overnight with wathever number of images because you judge that it is not unseful content? When I use this template I take care that I do it only for gallery pages with zero or one image, so I don't rely solely on my own judgment. JopkeB (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I've been pretty consistent that I think it depends on the situation. I'm not a big fan of having hard and fast rules about these types of things because it just leads to issues like this one though. That said, there's certainly plenty of galleries with 1, 2, or any number of images that I wouldn't nominate for deletion because they have useful content or at least room for expansion regardless of the number of images. You keep treating me like I'm being totally indiscriminate about this when I've repeatedly told you I look into it every time before I nominate something for deletion.

At a fundamental level though if a gallery only has one image of the subject and 5 of something else then I don't think it's useful. Or at least not at that level. If someone is wanting to see images of "X" but they get a gallery full of images of "Y" then I'd say that's an issue and one that means the gallery should be deleted depending on the situation. That doesn't mean I'm being indiscriminate about it though. And I disagree that you aren't using your judgement or that it even matters. The person who created the gallery to begin with certain used their judgement in deciding to create the gallery and what to put in it. If someone can decide that a gallery for Rosa 'Hamburg' should have five images of Rosa 'Elmshorn' and only one for the actual rose that the gallery is about, then I can decide to delete it.

But you and I are mostly curators right? We constantly use our own judgement as custodians of the collection so to speak. Personally, I always try to think about the lowest common denominator of user, try to make decisions that would benefit them, and I don't think anyone is served well by a good portion of these galleries. Regardless, we organize things based on what we think is best. It's just how this works and I reject the idea that there's anything wrong with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not about whether you may decide that a gallery page should be deleted. This is about the way you do that: just by the template SD|GA1, while that template is only for gallery pages with at most one image. In all other cases you might be right (or wrong) to want to delete a gallery page, but it should be done by using a deletion request, so that the community can judge whether they agree. JopkeB (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Your talking in circles. GA1 isn't just for galleries with one image and I'm getting sick of repeating myself about it. Be my guest and do an undeletion for any gallery that you think shouldn't have been deleted, but I'm not doing individual requests just because you won't listen to what other people are telling you and feel like lying about it.

BTW, just one thing to point out here. A lot of the galleries SPECIFICALLY FOR ROSES have the trade mark and copyright symbols after some of the names of flowers. Their also all clearly extremely uniform and well put together with the same format and text. Which at least to me hints at paid editing. The usage of a the trademark and copyright symbol after the names clearly isn't something that a random user who just created the galleries because their interested in the subject would do. SO I'm probably being a little more laissez faire in this particular instance then I would be otherwise, but that's where the personal judgement comes in. 100% it's purgative to make that evaluation. Just like your free to disagree with it, but the way to handle it on your end should be through Commons:Undeletion_requests#Appealing_a_deletion. Not by stalking my edits and repeatedly reverting me or lying to admins to about it in order to get the files undeleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2023 voting is open!

2022 Picture of the Year: Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), Little Egret (Egretta garzetta) and Gadwall (Mareca strepera) in Nepal.

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2023 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighteenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 14 October 2024, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2022 Picture of the Year contest.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2023 voting is open!

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2023.

Round 2 will end at 28 October 2024, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

If you have already voted for Round 2, please ignore this message.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

to category: 'Louis Perlmann Fabrik feiner Stahlwaren - Rasierklingen'

@JopkeB (this message is computer translated) Hello, you had linked this category to 'Factories in Germany' and added a short description again, after my description was unfortunately deleted. Thanks for that.

You also linked it to the category 'Razor blades'. However, I don't think this is a good idea, as the company 'Louis Perlmann' also made razors and presumably other products. In addition, the subcategories for the razor blade brands are already linked to the category 'Double edge safety razor blades'.

I didn't want to simply reset this, but wanted to know your opinion. Perhaps you have a reason why this should remain as it is, which I don't see now.

Thank you and best regards Marek Radler22 (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your caution. But this was nine months ago and I really do not know anymore whay I did this. So if you know a better parent category: please go ahead! JopkeB (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)