User talk:Nous

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Nous!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. 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 (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Frontispiece of "Al-Kawakib al-duriyya" by Al-Busiri (CBL Ar 4168, f.2a).jpg

Copyright status: File:Frontispiece of "Al-Kawakib al-duriyya" by Al-Busiri (CBL Ar 4168, f.2a).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Frontispiece of "Al-Kawakib al-duriyya" by Al-Busiri (CBL Ar 4168, f.2a).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 19:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Abbasid Islamic Art Gold Bracelet (28085742774).jpg

Hello Nous, I am sorry that you had to revert changes to some Abbasid objects, but I can explain what went wrong. I myself publish pictures from a recent trip to Berlin and doing so I noticed that several pictures had wrong names. I took pictures of the notices in the museum and found they would speak of a thing from period A, and the name would mention period B. This happened to pictures that were imported from Flickr, taken by a Gary Todd. I contacted this professor and he and I concluded something must have gone wrong during the importing, as his names and the texts he wrote did fit the text on notices. I found they were imported by a Donald Trung. I wrote to him (he speaks my language, Dutch, and probably lives here also, though his interest is mainly Asian moneys), suggesting he made some mistake in importing. He answered he did not make mistakes. As I disagreed I made a thorough analysis of his work and came to the conclusion he probably imports a series of pictures, say “Abbasid Art”, with the first four or five being indeed from that period. But if a picture from another period is imported and he does not notice a difference he somehow uses that “Abbasid Art” again, thus creating the wrong names you found. I just checked in his discussion at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Donald_Trung , and all my input is invisible now, so he probably archived that, or even deleted it. I thought all discussion was kept, but that seems not to be the case, and I did not keep a copy. I have during the last few days had some wrong names changed, with the blessing of Gary Todd, with whom I’m in regular contact. Things were wrong with many objects, an example still waiting renaming is Ayyubid Islamic Art (28418064810).jpg , you can see my explanation there. I came across your name earlier and it dawned on me that you probably re-categorized objects, without having the name changed. When I started with the museum I found there was a category for things Ayyubid, but many objects in just a general category, so I moved them. In doing so I must have erased some of your re-categorisation. I am sorry for that. I think Donald Trung caused a lot of errors, and it would be nice if someone would correct them all. I think he is too proud or convinced he does not make mistakes to correct them himself, and I have thousands of pictures waiting, so cannot do it. It would imply checking each picture with Flickr, see if things went wrong, then check if maybe prof. Todd made an error himself (I found some), then have a right name put in Wikimedia. It would be a horrible job. I hope at least Trung will be more careful in the future, but who knows? A final remark to you: I think you tried to properly categorize the finds in this (and probably other) museums, but in doing so you, for instance, put some categories into others, and I disagree with some. I yesterday wrote for instance: “Putting Ottoman art within a category of Turkish art is problematic, the Ottoman Empire was much larger than current Turkey, and not all groups living in it can be called Turkish. As a result one now finds objects from Egypt, Syria and so forth as "Turkish Art". Apart from this I feel that not all objects in a museum are by necesity (sic) "art". I have too many other activities to try and correct this, but think some discussion is in order.” I have seen this often, the problem with categories in general is that the names of empires, cultures, periods tend to overlap, some moving to the other camp, and it is very hard to always get them right. I hope you understand I do not make mistakes often, and try to research whatever I do. If you google my name (Dick Osseman) you will find I have several websites with my pictures. The Turkey one has been on line for over 15 years, had over 125.000.000 views, with thousands of viewers helping me to optimize the information I present. Many of them professors from major universities or other specialists. I intend to publish the valuable ones on Wikimedia (have done so with Jordan and Syria pictures already). So I have some track record. Sorry for causing trouble, thanks for a quick response. Dosseman (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ayyubid Islamic Art (28086738533).jpg

Hello again. I wondered if it would be much trouble for you to ask a mover to change the name. I often do so (though the number of mistakes is astounding). Using the museum data base I often supply the (German) text from there, adding it to the "description". And I check what was the name on Flickr. The two sources provide adequate background to claim an "obvious error" was made. If the name is not changed a later editor might again move the items to the wrong category. Dosseman (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Name of painter annulled - why?

Hello Nous, while working on the Chester Beatty Akbar-nama I came across this image: File:Akbar Receives Gifts from the Ambassadors of Badakshan. Miniature from Akbarnama (CBL In 03.54 a).jpg

As the name of the painter is clearly written under the picture, I inserted his name, Surdas, in the description. Can you explain, why you annulled my remark? Greetings, --Von der Forst (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Maryam (Mary) at the palm tree with baby `Isa (Jesus) (CBL Per 231.227).jpg

File:Maryam (Mary) at the palm tree with baby `Isa (Jesus) (CBL Per 231.227).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

77.119.221.121 22:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Rugs and carpets categorization

I see you excluded "Persian rugs and carpets" from several cities, while 13 cities still have it. Now situation is messy. Can you please explain me what's your idea? That we exclude "Persian rugs and carpets" from all cities, and put "Rugs and carpets of Iran by city" as a subcat? Orijentolog (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I rearranged it myself, now it looks better and I hope you'll agree. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Frankly speaking I'm not sure yet, I should still think more, and perhaps we should consult someone else. IMHO both can stay, we already have similar examples like Gardens in Iran and Persian gardens. If there's (let's say) a 17th-century carpet from Herat, it's quite easy to put it under Rugs and carpets of Herat (subcat of Rugs and carpets of Afghanistan) as well as Safavid carpets (subcat of Rugs and carpets of Iran by dynastic period), so problem is solved. But in the case of gardens, there are some Mughal gardens which are Persian in style, and I can not fit them under any Iran-related category (including dynastic periods), just under Persian gardens. Perhaps there are similar carpet issues.

P.S. Speaking of mess, in last months I was organizing Art of Iran by city (242), Art in Iran by city (93) and Art from Iran by city (38), so it's not bad now, but still there's a lot of mess. It's hard to solve it in one year, not one day! :) --Orijentolog (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, just to remind you, some categories could be non-diffusing and may partly overlap with others. The strongest argument for keeping both categories is traditional common classification of Oriental carpets to Anatolian (aka Turkish), Persian and Caucasian. On the first sight even the first one seems unnecessarily, since we have Rugs and carpets of Turkey, but for example carpets from Mosul (northern Iraq) are traditionally classified as Anatolian/Turkish. The biggest issue aren't this exceptions, but lads like one that you mentioned: those who would like to re-invent terminology to fit in their nation-building pseudohistorical "ethnic-national art". In their eyes Turkish and Persian carpets are "ethnic" so here we must invent their own "ethnic carpets" despite no museum or scholarly institution uses such. Furthermore, there are also common names for weaving techniques like Turkish knot, used on some Persian carpets, and Persian knots, used on Turkish carpets. Perhaps we also need new ethnic knots! :) It's so bizarre, ridiculous, and disgusting.

Anyway, if there's some 18th-centry carpet from Mosul, city of Arab Iraq with many Kurds, it uses Persian knot and artist's name sounds very Armenian, just put it under Anatolian where it indeed should be. The region of Karabah has fine carpets, but wait, Armenian or Azerbaijani? Use Caucasian, as all serious ones. Finally, if we have Anatolian and Caucasian, then no need to erase Persian. I see now issue of putting Anatolian under Turkey and Persian under Iran, because from a historical point of view, it's correct.

Now I remembered one more example of imperfect current categorization. Rugs and carpets of Bijar are traditionally classified as "rural Persian" carpets, and today I found them under "Kurdish" and "by city" i.e. something totally opposite. But I don't plan to bomb your mind with all this exceptions and issues, I'll do my best to keep it organized and if you see slightest objection, just contact me. :) Regarding individual carpets today I opened Rugs and carpets of Iran by name, to include such (named category) cases. --Orijentolog (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Haha... well, those Polish nobles were self-declared Iranian Sarmatians, what more evidence you need?! :) My favorite dispute of all time is the origin of ajwar, which comes from the Balkans, but inventor may be from ten modern nations. That's one serious dispute, not childish like was Copernicus a German or Polish. If science proves ajwar belongs to particular nation, the world would say "wow, what a magnificent smart nation" and for rest nine they would also say "what a bunch of savages with bows and arrows, they even stole ajwar". :) --Orijentolog (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you agree with this title?

Hey Nous. First time I uploaded a group of pictures from the Aga Khan Museum pertaining to the same object.[1] Do you think the title is appropriate? Trying to keep it consistent. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

(it is definitely not this accession number, which is from different painting) ... really?

Daniel Villafruela (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Timurid Empire

Hi! I think you didn't understand my edition in Timurid dynasty. I don't know how you see it, but for me, the members of the ruling dynasty are people of their own empire, right? I just group these members in the dynasty, and make the connection of the family as a whole to the page of the people of the Empire. Because the ruling family IS a family of the Empire. And in that family category we still have people of the Empire, and not individually in the middle of other non-related people. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Kitab al-Tasrif

I'm trying to nail down details about this work of Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi al-Ansari, which is reportedly in the George Beatty Library in Ireland. The author passed in 1000 AD, yet the metadata indicates the volume is 13th century. I am also unable to locate it in the Beatty library's online collections. Do you have a better source, or even the original source from which this photo was taken? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.27.78.49 (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Illustrated history books/chronicles categories?

Hey Nous, hope you are doing well. I was wondering, would you be willing to create a category for all these illustrated Islamic histories on Commons, that would underline their historic purposes? Would it be useful? For instance:

• Suleymanname (Ottoman)
• Jarunnameh, British Library (Add MS 7801) (Iranian)
• Ḫulāṣat at-tawārīḫ (Iranian)

As we both know, not all illustrated works were histories/chroncicles (they were made for a wide variety of reasons), but some clearly also fulfilled the role of a history book/chronicle. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

For example, I just added these categories, but we might be able to standardize it a bit more comprehensively.[2]-[3]-[4] Pinging Orijentolog as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

One small thing

Hi Nous! :) I hope you're well, thanks for your recent contributions. There's one thing I need to tell you: when I was organizing tons of Iranian artworks, I was thinking is it good to put periods in centuries or vice versa. Some of periods fit into centuries (Afsharid, Zand, Pahlavi), some centuries fit into periods (16th, 17th under Safavid, 19th under Qajar, etc). Decades and years also, although it may geographically vary (like for Zand & Qajar). So, to avoid contradicted & messy categorization, long ago I decided that it's the best way to keep centuries and periods strictly separate. Yes, a one-man consensus. :) I hope you don't mind, but that's the reason why I removed periods from ceramics-by-century categories which you opened this summer. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

P.S. There's no any setback, I checked all cca 60 files and in the cases you replaced period with newly opened century, I just restored period back. --Orijentolog (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem, when I get some time, I can edit all manuscripts and other topics also. :) Every single file and cat. As you probably noticed, I'm too much busy with architecture & geography at the moment. --Orijentolog (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course I did, with reason. I want to remind you that, at the moment, categories Art in [country] by century are primary categories. For example, there are categories Art in France by century, Art in Spain by century, Art in Iran by century... but there are no categories like Art of Spain by century. Few countries indeed have it, like Art of Italy by century, but that's the recent improvisation, few months old, done half-baked and messy.

In a similar fashion, Art by city by country also contains Art in France by city, Art in Spain by city, etc. There are exceptions, however, namely Iran and Italy. We have Art of Iran by city as the primary category, also Art in Iran by city, as well as Art from Iran by city. I know because I organized every single subcategory.

Yet another example is Works in Iran by year which has a lot of artwork located outside of Iran. That doesn't matter, the primary meaning is "produced in Iran in a particular year". Therefore your warning that it can mean being in two countries is discovering hot water. It's nothing new. If some artwork has categories Art from Isfahan and Louvre, it's quite easy to conclude both origin and current location.

More importantly, I don't see the reason why some (e.g.) 999 coin produced in Iran should have a category like 999 works in the United States. Only 999 works in Iran is relevant and logical, as a subcategory of 999 in Iran. Having 999 in the United States is ridiculous. When the American auctioneer sells the coin to someone in Canada, then what? Delete that and open 999 in Canada? This tells us how bizarre is the chronological sorting by current locations. I remember well such bizarre editing, like replacing 6th-century BC works in Iran with Paris (?!). Truly astonishing. Some countries have such improvisations for imported foreign artworks, such as France, but such categories are of secondary importance. Also, opening tens of thousands of duplicates like 999 works of Iran and 999 works from Iran for Iran and other countries makes no sense either.

Summarized, please do not confuse the Art in categories with the strict meaning of the country of current location. In many cases it has a primary/generic meaning. Frankly speaking, I'd like to see all such cases renamed from in to of to avoid confusion, but the status quo is what it is.

Now, speaking of your (removed) mistakes, I can also say that you acted like the project is your private property and that you didn't consult me before opening all messy categories. But I'm not making such accusations, the errors are actually the result of confusing and inconsistent naming of categories, which I explained above. Long before you started with it, I organized everything under Art in Iran by century, and it's quite easy to understand this is a primary category, regardless of artwork location. You were opening duplicates (named with of) which made the primary category (and subcats) lose its meaning, implying that it contained only artworks inside Iran, although this is not the case. A huge error. Another issue is that you favor usage of from for century-related category names (for manuscripts, textiles and so on), although such naming is largely used for artworks aboard, as a subcategory of the primary category with of / in. This led to even larger confusion. Such category names are largely your personal innovation and are not uniform with other existing categories (jewelry, inscriptions, pottery...), nor they have equivalents for other countries. So you can not say that I changed the sense of categorizing Iranian art, in fact you did it. Many of those categories should be renamed (from → of or in). I was also for years keeping dates and dynastic periods strictly separated, for the reasons I explained you few weeks ago, but you didn't pay attention to that either and you started mixing them up.

And yes, I didn't message you because this is very complicated to explain. There are numerous other related points that could be addressed here, but I believe it's enough for now. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

No need for apologizes, you're an exceptional editor who made excellent job, so I accept any criticism from you. I owe an apologize to you because I unintentionally discouraged you from working, although my plan was very opposite, I was thinking that if I message you about categorizing issues, you may see it as "annoying". Ironic situation. :)

I'm well aware that you didn't see a bigger picture, but I can't blame you for it since it's very hard to check everything and memorize all the categorizing system. To illustrate the issue, few months ago I decided to restart my browser after three years. It asked me "do I want to close 4200 tabs?". Yup, four thousands and two hundred. It happens when you're trying to look at bigger picture.

I do agree we still have a problem, as you said, but there's no easy solution. I would like to see all centuries renamed from X-century art in Iran to X-century art of Iran, speaking of "primary" categories, however, in that case Iran would be an exception among countries. So, we do have both "in" and "of" for primary categories, as well as sometimes "from": like categories which you opened, and also Artists from Iran by century (it may sound like artists aboard). Even if there are three separated categories for three meanings, like for cities (of/from/in), another issue would appear: overlapping. Iran does not have much foreign art, so numerous artworks would contain both "from" (origin) and "in" (location). Yet another naming issue which crosses my mind is that categories like "16th-century paintings of Iran" sound like for depicted country, not as a primary category. Anyway, we must survive with all of it... :) If in future you get any idea for recategorization, and want someone do do dirty job for you, I'm always available to help. --Orijentolog (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

As I informed the uploader, I fixed the mihrabs, earlier there was confusion between two of them. I hope it helps for your article about Abu Zayd Kashani. Greetings! :) --Orijentolog (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Any time. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course I enjoyed it, many thanks, but since we both know I'm an annoying bastard, I'll also give objections: :)

• The two sources I've cited for this mihrab give the date as "August 1215" so 1216 is redundant, although I'm not sure are sources correct. Iranica also says the date Jomādā I, 612/September, 1215.
• I suggest inclusion of the Donaldson's article, at least as "further reading" because it's one of the first Western articles about his artworks and is quite popular.
• Two times you used the hyphen instead of the dash (lustreware - "monumental" and figures - five).
• The first photo in gallery has "march" instead of capitalized March.
• The third photo in gallery has a reference after the full stop, and all other text before it. I believe the former is correct, along with quotation marks (correct examples: .[ref] and ."[ref]). --Orijentolog (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to edit, it doesn't make to much sense that you are writing this to me, and not simply correct my mistakes. That being said - are you sure that this is the same mihrab, that made by Abu Tahir and by Abu Zayd? From the Blair's article I get impression that they made separate mihrabs in this shrine, although to decide this decisevely I need second, careful reading.--Nous (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't participate there for many years, and I don't plan to in future. Yes, this mihrab was made by Mohammad ibn Abi Taher and Abu Zayd for sure (it's signed), while this mihrab was very likely made by the same two artists in the same year. I sourced it in Wikidata. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan museum

Hi Noun, thank you for checking the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:散盤.png. I restored the image. I noted a lot of uploads from the same user have been deleted as well per User talk:Chojacky895. If you want to put effort in these items, I can restore a few, so you can check if these are taken from the same museum website and can be published CCBY4.0. Of course, @Chojacky895: could help as well. Or they can be re-uploaded. Please ping me if you need my help in this. (I cannot follow all pages and my watchlist on a daily basis). It would be better even if some Wikimedian can get into toch with the museum to upload with their help directly from their databases. It are beautiful objects and good photos for people interested in old art. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:The Four Horsemen (CBL WEp 0021).jpg, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest pictures on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Four Horsemen (CBL WEp 0021).jpg. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)