Category talk:Vincent van Gogh/Archive

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

van Gogh Cleanup Project '08...

First of all

This is going to be a "work-in-progress" for quite some time. This section was created to start some brainstorming before doing major changes to sub-categories and, mainly, to file descriptions and filenames. For contributing to the project, please...

  1. add your comments and suggestions to existing topics.
  2. in case, you have to add some idea for a not yet existing topic, please consider to create a sub-heading to an already existing major heading or, after having added text by using the "+"-tab, allow any contributor to move your contribution to the most appropriate place.
  3. in case, some topic seems sufficiently discussed, please mark its sub-heading by ✓ Done (by pasting {{Done}} there).

Thanks, while looking forward to a most efficient cooperation, Wolfgang -- w. (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Any supporters out there?

Users who should be contacted

Please add usernames of trustworthy persons below, in case you are not willing (do not have the time) to contact them yourself.

Users who are willing to contribute to the project

Here, please "subscribe ;)) and please note what you are able and willing to contribute (botwork, research [online/offline?], proofreading, ...). Please note whether you'd accept to be contacted by private mail or not (I imagine that in the future, a mailing list might be useful, both to contributors and to the project. I'd contact you by wikimail, so no need to leave any mail address here.). --W. (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Deutsch: Bequemlichkeitshalber, und auch um Missverständnisse hintanzuhalten, sind deutschsprachige Anmerkungen+Vorschläge selbstverständlich höchst willkommen.
Français : Je vais faire mon mieux pour répondre des contributions en Français. La langue principale à Commons est l'Anglais, bien sûr. Amitiés, --W. (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Abstract

This category page would be by far more informative, if...

  • ✓ Done -- ...all relevant subcategories would appear on the first page, instead of filling that page with lots of images sorted by rather arbitrary filenames and having to push a button for "next 200" to display the other sub-cats.
Today, created a reasonable table. --W. (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done -- ...subcategories would be created for the different working periods as well as, if not yet available, for major van Gogh collections.
  • ...there would be some consensus about comprehensive file names, and later, (long-term-project)
  • ...relevant files would be renamed to such optimized filenames, and, at the very end, (a workaround is given by DEFAULTSORT, whilst talk about "close-to-be-perfect" file name design might take a few more years)
  • ...files of lower quality than already existing ones of same sujet could be tagged as "superseded" and possibly deleted. (long-term-project, see note(s))
  • ...all files would be described using Template:Painting [1]
  • ✓ Done -- ...files not directly related to van Gogh would not show up (at this time [=October2008], all "Van Gogh Museum"-tagged files automatically show up in Category:Vincent van Gogh, introducing some "false friends").

Priority list

First: "Perfect" filenames? See #Talk on File names --Wolfgang (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC) -- Due to contribution of Magnus Manske, this is less urgent now. Thanks, Magnus. Wolfgang (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Second: (about browsing categories) M. Manske created an adequate tool. Wolfgang (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Third: Consider adding an additional line for ID-Numbers to Template:Painting, as described in Template_talk:Painting#ONE_more_line?: such identifier would anyways be helpful for most renowned Artist's Oeuvre.--W. (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Pending, see Template_talk:Painting#Hopefully_more_clear_now Wolfgang (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)-- Wolfgang (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Subcategories as of 20081123

Category:Van Gogh Works by Date

with sub-sub-categories:

Category:Van Gogh Image Themes

with sub-sub-categories:

"self-portraits" is correct - no capitals. 87.194.23.18 04:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

TX. will be done soon. --Wolfgang (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC) -- unfortunately I see in Category:19th century selfportraits that all its sub-cats use same bad spelling +singular form.--Wolfgang (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Normally the format is "XXX by (artist's name)". So "Sunflowers by Vincent van Gogh" for cases where there could be multiple artworks with the same name. Gryffindor (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this information. All the sub-categories in question existed before I got envolved into "vG", which is why I was+am reluctant in proposing CAT-Moves. On the two moves I nevertheless proposed: "...l'Anglois" is definitely the least used term of all possible names for such cat. Besides, I for myself feel that a COMgallery would do a better job (see deWP, frWP) than a COMcat.
Moving "Van Gogh selfportait" to "Self-portaits by van Gogh", which would be, as I learned, an appropriate English term, would kind-of "disturb" the higher Category:19th century selfportraits where a very probably native de speaker had created a quantity of similar CATnames. I however did propose this, just now. Let's see. Wolfgang (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Van Gogh Collections and Exhibitions

with sub-sub-categories:

As Category:Paintings in the Van Gogh Museum spoiled CATvG with "false friends", all vGs therein are kicked out into Category:Paintings by Vincent van Gogh in the Van Gogh Museum which still needs some cleanup, but had a good start. It is now, as should formally-correctly be, a subCAT to the other. Wolfgang (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This category should, until reasonably discussed and decided otherwise, contain every artwork by van Gogh exept paintings, therefore: Drawings, mixed media and letters (sketches). Of the almost 900 van Gogh pieces this museum holds, by far more than half would fall into this category.
Maybe, Category:Draughtmanship by van Gogh in the Van Gogh Museum would be a better name? Similar would apply to Kröller-Müller Museum subcategories. Wolfgang (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Use format "Paintings by Vincent van Gogh in the Kröller-Müller Museum". If there should be more than paintings, such as drawings, use "Drawing by Vincent van Gogh in the X Museum". If you want to create a higher category, use "Works by Vincent van Gogh in the X Museum". Gryffindor (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
To prevent over-categorizing, I-for-myself-would just want to create one of those "Museum" categories, which would be Category:Works by Vincent van Gogh in the X Museum. What do you think? To myself, when re-doing almost a.l.l_existing vG file descriptions, it would not really make a difference. So, the question is, would it it be more intelligent to have those subcategories to one more "still-to-be-created" parent cat Works by Vincent van Gogh in the X Museum, YES-or-NO? Wolfgang (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC) + Wolfgang (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question. Sort the images by type (painting, drawing, etc.) and by museums. Each museum should have its own painter category. If you want to create an overarching category (I don't know why, but whatever), it should be called "Paintings by Vincent van Gogh by museums". Gryffindor (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Trying to clarify:
  • Category:Van Gogh Museum, for instance, automatically tags its content as Category:Vincent van Gogh, which means that any piece of this museum shows up in the vG category. Where no connection to vG is given by the file description (or perceivable by itself), such is quite disturbing. ONE idea (which I could not realise) would be to prevent this "automatic categorising". The way I went was to separate "vG"-pieces from other artist's work kept by same museum by an additional category -- which is not really satisfying, but a workaround.
  • THEREFORE, I disliked to create two sub-sub...-CATs for such, but wanted to have something which, according to naming conventions, should read approximately "CAT:Works by vG in the X museum". I admittedly was wrong about the syntax. Wolfgang (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Van Gogh-related Images

(contains photographs and other possibly relevant stuff which was not created by v.G. himself or which hardly would be needed as "Van Gogh picture" (the *.svg of his signature, for instance).)

Category:Superseded van Gogh files

Proposals for future Sub-CATs

Deutsch: Wie wärs mit einer Cat. für Zeichnungen und einer Cat. für Fotografien? --Rlbberlin (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Ja, bin dafür. Und wenn wir gerade dabei sind, "Categorie:Van Gogh portraits by others" wäre vielleicht auch eine Kategorie wert? --W. (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Näher besehen ist die Kategorie für Zeichnungen nicht sinnvoll, da er meist Mischtechniken verwendete. Meine Vorschläge kommen unten. --W. (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
English: SHORTLY: Rlbberlin proposes categories for photographies and for drawings. I reply, first, that I'd support, but now, that I feel reluctant about "...drawings" because he more often than not used mixed media technique. My further proposals are listed below. --W. (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Van Gogh Non-Paintings -- that's not 100%seriously, I'd need a good term. [4]

Use "Portraits of Vincent van Gogh" for portraits of him by someone, and if he painted the portraits use "Portraits by Vincent van Gogh". Try not to overcategorise however, it could make navigation cumbersome in the end. Gryffindor (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry: We were talking about vG's draughtmanship. Re. "Portraits" etc, there was no question.

Wolfgang (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk on sub-categories, file names and file description

Talk on File names

  • How about creating "close-to-be-perfect" filenames on v.Gogh-Pics?
    At this time, I think that a file name sorting "by itself" by date and location (where the oeuvre was created) would do best. For my personal "collection" of some 600 (gathered from www, to display the 140 of the Albertina Exhibition plus relevant ones which could not be shown but appear in the catalog, plus quite a few more -- none of which is uploaded to COM up to now), I'd use e.g.
van Gogh 1888-04--1888-05, Arles - Peach Tree in Blossom F_404 JH_1391.jpg, which means,
v.Gogh -- date, location created -- English title of the picture
Furthermore the F_ and JH_ catalog numbers as sole perfect identifiers (work's titles are quite arbitrary, and their translations are even more arbitrary). For the #Albertina2008 catalogue items, I'd crosscheck with the catalogue. For others, I'd compare CCoW and vGG data. --Wolfgang (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Use the format laid down by the Yorck project, so your next images should be named Image:Vincent_Willem_van_Gogh_141.jpg, then Image:Vincent_Willem_van_Gogh_142.jpg, etc. Don't forget to add the paintings template for proper descriptions. Gryffindor (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I highly disagree about totally arbitrary numbers like Yorck project (which isn't our's, btw.). There are already two officially accepted catalogue raisonnées for vG's oeuvre, for decades, none of which is complete, nor really chronological. Yorck would be worst. I'd highly prefer, and like to do, a chronology filenaming according to up-to date research (see section above). Data are available. Wolfgang (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The numbers are not arbitrary if you upload your new images chronologically following the naming pattern. Gryffindor (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to totally disagree: The order by which anyone uploads any pics to COM is "by-far-worse-than-just-arbitrary". And, once more, COM is not The Yorck project.
Actually, what is of least importance in the file names I proposed, is their names in English which vGogh never used. Besides, he himself hardly ever gave definite names to his pieces, those titles are quite arbitrary in most cases, too. Wolfgang (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Think about it: You can create a perfect numbering system for example by taking all his paintings chronologically. Start with his oldest painting as let's say number Image:Vincent_Willem_van_Gogh_141.jpg and then just continue chronologically until his last painting. In that case you have a perfect numbering system which makes sense. Any other file versions of the same painting can have the added "b" or "c", etc. which will streamline the order of the files and make navigation easier. Gryffindor (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(This talk was moved to a more appropriate place) Wolfgang (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, let's stop this talk for a while. When looking at your way to handle tpl:Painting (=not the way its description suggests), as well as your handling of renames, I am not confident in your advice at all. You did not even take the effort to get "trusted user" status, as far as I see (therefore, someone else has to care for the renames you propose). I do not want to blame you, but I do think that you are substantially unaware of following facts:

  1. There are some 2038(?) van Gogh pieces in both of the two worldwide accepted "catalogue raisonnée"s of his oeuvre.
  2. Both catalogues miss a few of them, that is why most literature lists both. The later of these catalogues, JH, is more chronologically than F, but meanwhile partially outdated (on this point) as well, due to more recent research.
  3. COM should not try to repeat any of the two existing very complete websites on this artist. I do think that some 100 more items would be sufficiant to give an up-to-date encyclopedic insight into this artists oeuvre and into the development he had during his 10 years' work period.
  4. The only not-arbitrary file name system would be, to "stick" at the creation date, which for vG's oeuvre sometimes is possible precise to the day, and for the month in most cases. That is exactly what I did propose. If there is a better way, please show me, but I for sure will not rename hundreds of files according a silly system, nor upload another hundred to names which are less-than-intelligent.
    Wolfgang (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Samples of good file descriptions

To show what I want file descriptions to look like, and to possibly get feedback ASAP, I described the following files the "non-dirty" way:

Less-than-perfect file descriptions

|Title= other languages might rather be added here than disgustingly blowing up legends in COM-galleries -- see Vincent van Gogh#Potato / Pommes de terre / Aardappelen /Kartoffel --
|Technique=is not given by recommended+available template --
|Dimensions= is not given by recommended size converter. --
|Location=Amsterdam (originally: template "de|Amsterdam") I felt that thisone city's name is perfectly understood in any western country, therefore removed the language template. It would be different for cyrillic or asiatic letters. --
|Country= seems to come from an outdated version of Template:Painting and is not displayed anyways. --
|Gallery=Van Gogh Museum -- I really miss thisone, and one more for Kröller-Müller Museum (the probably second largest collection). --
|ID= is badly missing -- so sorry about that, being the only relevant identifier. (F_82 JH_764, in this case) --
|Notes= template "de|Genremalerei" -- I feel this should rather be a category than to be hidden within the |Notes=... --
|other versions= -- there are just too many. In this case, I used a "+" to have this line displayed and thereby inform users of the file, but unless all existing files are reasonably renamed and cleaned up, it's hardly worth while to waste anyone's energy on putting other filenames into this line. I did a trial run on Image:Women of Arles.JPG. --
Category:Neo-Impressionist paintings feels definitely wrong in this case.

My yesterday's edits moreover prove that, without the table required in #Priority list which might be edited and completed offline by WORD or similar, it would be a hell of a job (and very probably beyond my personal threshold of pain) to get all existing file descriptions to first grade level. So please give feedback whether such table can be computed by a bot, and who might be able+willing to do it. Please give also feedback on my ideas as described above -- I'm aware that I do not have sufficiant practical experience with categorizing pieces of art, and I noted more than once that I'm poor in technical concerns, and less than perfect with "my" English. Thanks. --W. (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk on Category:Van Gogh Exhibition Vienna 2008

Pasted parts of a talk from deWP private page:

Deutsch: [...] Deine vorgeschlagenen Unterkats halte ich persönlich für wenig sinnvoll. Bei den Museen ok, da lässt sich drüber reden. Einzelne Ausstellungen sollten jedoch keine Kats erhalten. Es werden einfach zu viele. Ebensowenig halte ich von unnötigen doppelten Uploads. Überlegenswert wäre da meiner Meinung nach allein, das Uploaden unter korrektem, aussagekräftigen Dateinamen und Löschung des Vorherigen. [...] Julius1990 Disk. 19:37, 28. Okt. 2008 (CET)
Soweit ich mich schlau machte, gab's in den letzten hundert Jahren in Europa ganze drei relevante Ausstellungen, nämlich die Jahrhuntertausstellungen 1990 in Amsterdam (Gemälde) und Otterlo (Grafik). Die heurige Albertina-Ausstellung (hierzulande die erste nach ca. 50 Jahren) versucht die Brücke zwischen diesen beiden zu bauen und wird dabei von den Kapazundern aus A. und O. einigermaßen unterstützt.
Also hielt ich es für durchaus relevant, wenn erstmals jemand die Arbeit des populär als "Maler" rezipierten Künstlers auf die grafische Qualität seiner Malerei hin zu untersuchen wagte+schaffte (nicht die Ösis allein, sondern ebenso prominente Kuratoren aus A+O, wohlgemerkt).
Wie gesagt soll mein Vorhaben ohnedies kein "Artikel" werden, sondern eine Zusammenstellung per Kategorie, welche imo die WP nicht "aufbläst", jedoch für diejenigen, die reinklicken wollen, sehr informativ wäre. [...] --w. 20:32, 28. Okt. 2008 (CET)
English: SHORTLY: Julius1990 would accept renaming of files, but no duplicates,[5] and no sub-category for any exhibition. My reply was that there were app. 3 European vGogh exhibitions of major importance during the last 100years, which were the centennials 1990 in Amsterdam and Otterlo, and the actual one in Vienna: If a crew managed to gather 140 pieces from all around the world, and is assisted by most competent people from Amsterdam and Otterlo museums due to their new concept of juxtaposing vG's grafic art to paintings, this might very well be worth one more category. --W. (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I confess: I already did it ;) [4] --W. (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Die Aussage, es gab in den letzten 100 Jahren nur drei relevante Van-Gogh-Ausstellungen halte ich für sehr gewagt. Die herausragende Bedeutung der beiden Ausstellungen in Amsterdam und Otterlo bezweifle ich nicht, sehe aber nicht die überregionale Bedeutung der aktuellen Ausstellung in Wien. Es gehört zum zeitgemäßem Ausstellungsmarketing beinahe jede Ausstellung als epochal darzustellen. Ob solch eine Bedeutung tatsächlich vorliegt läßt sich meist nur mit etwas zeitlichem und/oder geografischem Abstand sagen. Der aktuellen Picasso-Ausstellung "Picasso und die Meister" in Paris würde ich solch ein Prädikat schon jetzt zukommen lassen. Die Bedeutung der Wiener Ausstellung sehe ich nicht höher als beispielsweise die Bremer Ausstellung 2002/3 "Van Gogh - Felder" zur Landschaftsmalerei, der Wiener Ausstellung von 1996 "Van Gogh und die Haager Schule", der Essener Ausstellung "Vincent van Gogh und die Moderne" von 1990/1, der Ausstellung "Van Gogh and Gauguin : the studio of the south" in Amsterdam und Chicago 2001/2, den Ausstellungen "Van Gogh in Arles" 1984 und "Van Gogh in Saint-Rémy and Auvers" 1986 in New York, der Ausstellung " Van Gogh - die Zeichnungen : seine Meisterwerke" in Amsterdam und New York 2005 - um nur ein paar Beispiele zu nennen. Ich spreche damit nicht der aktuellen Wiener Ausstellung ab, dass sie von guten Kuratoren gemacht ist und ein anständiger Katalog vorliegt, sondern dass diese Ausstellung wesentliche neue Erkenntnisse zu van Gogh zusammenträgt und diese erstmals anlässlich der Ausstellung der Öffentlichkeit präsentiert werden. Für Österreich sicher eine sehr bedeutende Van-Gogh-Ausstellung - für die weltweite Van-Gogh-Forschung sicher eine von vielen Ausstellungen. Ob nun all diese Ausstellungen eine eigene Cat. in commons benötigen möchte ich eher verneinen. Das soll dich beim upload von Bildern und Zeichnungen aber genausowenig zurückhalten wie bei der Neuorganisation der cat:van Gogh. Gruß --Rlbberlin (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ich schließe nicht aus, dass die von Dir genannten Ausstellungen mindestens ebenso bedeutsam gewesen sein könnten (Kompetente scheinen die genannte 1996er Wiener Ausstellung allerdings kaum als "vG" zu listen), und bin mir auch derzeit üblicher Vermarktungsstrategien bewusst, nehme demgemäß die möglicherweise überspitzte Formulierung [ein klein wenig ;] zurück. Ansonsten schließe ich mich bezüglich meiner Behauptung der Meinung folgender Damen und Herren an: de:Klaus Albrecht Schröder, Heinz Widauer [1] (de), Sjaar van Heugten (Chefkonservator des Van Gogh Museums)[2] (en), Marije Vellekoop [3] (en) (allesamt Herausgeber). Weiters erheblich zum 450-Seiten-Katalog beitragend: Teio Meedendoorp, Martin Bailey [4] (en), Fred Leemann [5] (en). --W. (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC) -- Die Albertina-Ausstellung soll übrigens die zweitgrößte nach der Amsterdamer von 1990 sein.--W. (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
English: SHORTLY: User:Rlbberlin says that my statement "there were but three major exhibitions in Europe during the last 100 years" is over-emphasizing.
I replied that this might be possible to some extent [I'm quite enthusiastic about that 2008 show, and that's why I started "all of this" ;)], but that I'd rather share opinions of major [and international] contributors to the show and catalog; see weblinks above (most of them are in English). --W. (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC) -- Besides, Organizers declare the Vienna show to be the second largest after Amsterdam 1990 --W. (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about exhibitions. The photos of people and places should definately be separated from the VG works. 87.194.23.18 04:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The Albertina2008 exhibition imo reflects the artist's life and contributes to the understanding, how the draughtsman influenced the painter. Regarding photographs, I'll be active soon. --Wolfgang (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how useful it is to categorise images by exhibitions, which happen all the time. In the end you could have thousands of categories just for exhibitions. But if you insist whatever.... I wouldn't do it. Gryffindor (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This exhibition, as explained in the its CAT header, ist the firstone to focus on the complete oeuvre (and the second largest ever, after Amsterdam 1990), and to enlighten the interrelation of drawing and painting in the oeuvre. This very probably should be designed as a gallery, but a category, imo, is a first step "at low expense". We're talking about c.140+ items. Wolfgang (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick+Dirty adding categories

Did today some edits to fill desireable CATs with a few items. --W. (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This means, that most edits in file descriptions of 10-30 just consisted in just adding an addidional sub-category withou checking the content. --W. (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Did more of those, on 2008-11-01. --Wolfgang (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I'm going to change my username soon. In any case, the one person who in future will URGENTLY request feedback HERE is supposed to be ME ;)).

On "Duplicates"

The category, as-is, is quite laborious to search for a certain item. I will not do such unless the required list or table is available and some OK on my "construction" of filenames is given (albeit by mail). It would be by far less effort to risk uploading a few "duplicates" "by chance" and later having speedydeleted the poor ones ("poor" due to description, filename, ...).

  • Besides, I guess that from the 140 items needed to "show" Albertina-Exhibition on wikipedia, not more than 25 are already available on COM, and that in some cases mine might even be better.
  • Last: Only after all files are reasonably named, one can compare them with reasonable effort. Unless there are 100% identical or definitely scaled-down versions, I think it is hard to talk about "duplicates" at all - slight differences in colour might seem meaningless to someone, whilst another one might care and highly prefer a certain one of such files, even of lower resolution. It is definitely not sheer filesize that counts. --W. (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC) + --W. (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • See the Church of Auvers on this, in Category:Van Gogh 1890 Auvers. --Wolfgang (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
If you find an image that is not strictly speaking a duplicate but another version of the same painting, use a name of the image that is close enough to the original from the Yorck project, if it exists. See for example Image:Albrecht Dürer 097.jpg and Image:Albrecht Dürer 097b.jpg, the latter being the second version of the same painting. Gryffindor (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I did have exactly same idea, but was later told that renaming files causes quite some troubles to admins, as MediaMoveBot does not seem to work properly at all, up to now. I was told this by only one admin "feeling reluctant to renaming", however. My question on this issue would be, whichone is the minor damage. Wolfgang (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Desirable Templates

Template:Superseded van Gogh files

If such can be created "at low cost" (I remember I saw similar in some painter category) it would be helpful. Putting the template should tag the file as Category:Superseded van Gogh files. To be used for low-res or otherwise low-quality files.

Although Template:Superdeded exists,
usage: {{superseded|Example.ext|reason why new file should be used in preference}}, it is less than perfect because it adds tagged pages to Category:Superseded but not to Category:Superseded van Gogh files

What is the use of such a category? Do not overcategorise. Gryffindor (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I saw such in some other artist's category, a while ago (unfortunately forgot whichone) and found it might be helpful to "select-out" third- and less-than-that rate "duplicate files", in order that they might be deleted some day after a SHORT discussion, or, at least, that from that moment on, they would not be used in articles any more, just because the person linking them was not aware that there are more satisfying items of same subject. Please have a look at Category:Van_Gogh_1890_Auvers with f.i.v.e files from same painting (the church). Wolfgang (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I don't like it either if there are too many versions of the same painting, because some versions are just bad derivatives of the original colours (too dark, too light, etc.). Just put up a tag of duplicate in that case and have it deleted if no one objects. Gryffindor (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not think this is THAT easy in many cases, and commented on this issue, a while ago, under #On "Duplicates", as, btw, did you. Wolfgang (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Van Gogh Museum

Other technical problems

Obsolete, there is no more textbox.--Wolfgang (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: As I'd like to start "my" sub-project "Van Gogh Exhibition Vienna 2008" ASAP, and will do lots of uploads anyways, it seems easier to possibly upload duplicate files[5] for as long as such "List of Content" of the category is not available. What do more experienced people think about?
    Deutsch: Um "mein" Nebenprojekt "Van Gogh Exhibition Vienna 2008" ehebaldigst beginnen zu können, für das ohnedies eine Menge Uploads anfallen werden, wäre es imo einfacher in Kauf zu nehmen, dass ich Duplikate hochlade statt die vorhandenen Bilder Stück-für-Stück zu durchsuchen. Was halten Erfahrenere davon?
    --W. (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Ohne jetzt Dein "Van Gogh Exhibition Vienna 2008"-Projekt zu kennen, halte ich nichts von doppelten uploads, es sei denn das neue Bild hat eine höhere Qualität. Sinn ist es ja gerade eine Bilddatei für verschiedene Zwecke zu benutzen und nicht für jeden Zweck ein identisches Bild mit neuer Bezeichnung hochzuladen. Die Neuorganisation der Cat. soll doch gerade mehr Übersicht bringen - mit weiteren Duplikaten wird das Gegenteil erreicht. --Rlbberlin (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Derzeit läuft hier (in Wien) eine Ausstellung in der Albertina, die höchst überzeugend die grafische Qualität seiner Malerei durch Gegenüberstellungen darlegt. 140 Exponate, Katalog "Gezeichnete Bilder", 450 S.; gut ebensoviele (eher: einige mehr) als die ausgestellten Bilder werden im Katalog wiedergegeben +besprochen. Ich würde gern (wenigstens) den Inhalt der Ausstellung zusammenfassen und dafür meine vorgeschlagene Konstruktion von Dateinamen verwenden, weil ich sie bereits für jedes dieser 140 Bilder vergeben habe, bevor ich sie mir "runterholte" ;).
Eine derarige Kategorie wäre "selbst-sortierend" nach Zeit und Entstehungsort [ich gebe zu, nicht 100% ausstellungskompatibel, da die Bilder nicht rein chronologisch katalogisiert wurden. Nur würde es beim dzt. Zustand der Bildnamen und -Beschreibungen in der Kategorie imo einen weit größeren Aufwand erfordern, vorher auszumisten, als hinterher ggf. die vielleicht schlechteren Duplikate (das wären ca. 25, schätzungsweise) einfach wieder löschen zu lassen (und, falls bessere voorhanden waren, diese ev. umzubenennen).
Meine Idee ist, das Wichtige in die Bildbeschreibungen hineinzupacken [deswegen mein Insistieren auf eine Extra-Zeile im Template:Painting, um nicht allzuviel Mischmasch in |Notes= stopfen zu müssen]. Mehr als eine Kategorie mit einer Kurzbeschreibung soll das vorerst nicht werden. Knackpunkt dafür ist allerdings eine halbwegs "abgegessene" Disku über akzeptierte sich selbst nach Datum sortierende Dateinamen (#Talk on File names -- wenn die nicht durchgehen, wird's für mich um Etliches komplizierter, da ich mindestens eine Galerieseite anlegen müsste, was ich grundsätzlich für -- wenigstens vorerst -- vermeidbar halte. --W. (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC) - Nachgebessert --W. (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Question on desired change of Template:Painting:
    I every now-and-then find descriptions by this template containing lines that are not displayed (maybe from outdated versions). Might it do any harm to later editing, if I'd create and insert that line I want and accept that it will not be visible unless when editing?
    Deutsch: Da ohnedies in vielen Nutzungen von Template:Painting Zeilen aufscheinen, die nicht angezeigt werden, denke ich an eine Notlösung: Könnte ich die von mir gewünschte Extrazeile einfach hinzufügen und vorläufig damit leben, dass sie bloß in der Bearbeitungsansicht angezeigt wird? Oder wäre solches sehr unerwünscht oder ev. sogar störend?
    --W. (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Try this page & associated talk page for cat moves. -- Deadstar (msg) 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Translation Help needed

  • ✓ Done -- Category name Van Gogh Œuvres in the Van Gogh Museum
    Sorry for my less-than-perfect English. I created this sub-cat because I wanted to show the way I'd like to do it, but meanwhile am not sure any more whether plural "Œuvres" is correct English at all? (one could say so in French, but not in German, for instance). As there will not be more than 8 items until this language problem is checked, repair will not be a major problem. It should be the best translation for
    Deutsch: Van Gogh-Werke
    ("paintings" would not be adequate, as they also house drawings, printwork and letters which often contain remarkable sketches) Would "works" be more appropriate? --W. (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposals:

  1. Van Gogh works in the Van Gogh Museum
  2. Van Gogh pieces in the Van Gogh Museum (which feels, by now, best for me) --W. (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
"Works" - not "Œuvres" - which is never used in the plural in English. 87.194.23.18 04:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
TX. I'm glad I finally chose the good one (you propose) an will have "SPEEDY" deleted the wrong one ASAP. This part of our conversation will be "hidden" after either one more comment or within 24 hrs. --Wolfgang (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I'm about to change my username, so, be sure that the guy who insists in feedback tomorrow (or the day after ;) is still me. I'll keep the signature I use by now)


On en:SHORTLY:

These quick-and-dirty translation are done to give de=0 or fr=0 readers an approximate idea what the talk was about. If any de- or fr-contributors feel mis-interpreted, they are PLEASE invited to edit any of my "SHORTLY"-translations. Thanks. --W. (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC) (+fr) --W. (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Albertina2008 catalogue

(I forgot to note its title in English)

en-ISBNs 978-3-8321-9158-0 and 978-3-8321-9133-7; some 450 pages on 140 exposed items, and at least 150 more, because quite many of the items desirable for the exhibition were not lent by their owners. It publishes research data on the Van Gogh Museum's items which otherwise would not be published but by 2009.

de-ISBNs 978-3-8321-9125-2 and 978-3-8321-9157-3 [I use thatone and think it "rules"])--Wolfgang (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes and references

  1. ↑ Template:Painting might be slightly amended on this occasion, see Template talk:Painting#ONE more line? and #Other technical problems. Partly pending, major part, ID, =done.
  2. ↑ According to most literature, it should read, in English, Langlois Bridge at Arles or similar (Move proposed -- see sub-category description.)
  3. ↑ Should be amended in a way that it does not automatically tag items as Category:Vincent van Gogh, as there are many impressionist paintings without any explicitely explained correlation to van Gogh which fill up the displayed media list. At this time, Category:Van Gogh Museum contains more Non-van Goghs than van Goghs. See #Template:Van Gogh Museum
  4. ↑ a b c Help needed on my less-than-perfect English. More detail may sometimes be found in #Translation Help needed
  5. ↑ a b The multiple meanings and possible problems concerning "duplicates" are explained in #On "Duplicates".

Weblinks

More

Note: If you added text here, e.g. by using the "+"-tab, please allow any contributor to move your contribution to a more appropriate section of this page, in case such is possible. --W. (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

copy+paste from private talk, User_talk:W.#your_message

hi there,

well first of all there are not many users on the Commons, that's why it can take a long time to get a response. And users are involved with their own work, so not noticing something can happen.

About your question: The format for naming images in my opinion is laid down by the Yorck project. So if you want to upload van Gogh images, you have to start with the number Image:Vincent_Willem_van_Gogh_141.jpg, then Image:Vincent_Willem_van_Gogh_142.jpg, etc. Use the painting template

{{Painting| |Title= |Technique= |Dimensions= |Location= |Country={{de| Niederlande und Frankreich}} |Gallery= |Notes= |Source= |Year= |Artist=[[Vincent Willem van Gogh|Gogh, Vincent Willem van]] |Permission={{pd-art}} |Other versions= }} and don't forget to add the language template for each description, see "Country" which oddly in this case means where van Gogh worked, not in which country the art piece is. As for the categories it should be as specific as possible. So a drawing is not a painting, that is true. Divide into "Paintings by Vincent van Gogh" and "Drawings by Vincent van Gogh", etc. depending on which medium was used. You can sort images by type and by location. I cleaned up some categories here, for example Category:Paintings by Vincent van Gogh in the Musée d'Orsay, which should stay as it is.

So basically use the format for files by the Yorck Project. Categorise by 1) medium (painting, drawing, etc.) 2) Location of the painting (which museum) 3) Type (what does it show? apples, flowers, a specific landscape, person, city, etc.). 4) year created (optional). Hope this answers your questions. Gryffindor (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, which however does not REALLY answer my questions. Some arbitrary number seems to me less than satisfying. Did you ever pass by at Category_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh? The questions I put there were by far more elaborated, as were the questions about Template:Painting which lack answers for quite a while. tx, (I'll answer tomorrow, i.e. within ca. 12-18 hrs) Wolfgang (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE, let us move this talk to the place where it belongs, and stop talking here. Wolfgang (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I wondered about the 141 too - so small search got me: Category:PD-Art_(Yorck_Project) under "V", you'll find that in that project they have 140 already. So any new images that are going to be added to the naming scheme will have to start at 141. -- Deadstar (msg) 21:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not at all think that "Yorck project" is to be continued by wikipedia. I mean, I grab new material [well, well-known-but-new-to-WP would be more precise] from (wherever), so, no reason to faintingly continue "Yorck project". Besides, we do have some 380 vG items. 140 of them might be from that project. This is app. the quantity of vG-images I probably will add. Am I wrong about this? Wolfgang (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Besides, Yorck project numbering is highly arbitrary. The feedback about the system I proposed, a while ago, up to now, is unfortunately ZERO. Wolfgang (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Well this is my feedback. Continue with the numbering scheme as laid down by the Yorck project. You might also wanna think about keeping your questions shorter, it's a little tedious to read through all of it and could explain why so far no one has responded. Gryffindor (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
As I mentionned in my mail @Gryffindor from 2008-11-18, I totally agree that this talk becomes "clumsy" to read+answer, but I do not see a remedy as for now, with the exception that I might create a list of some 10-15 questions which I might mail, which, however, would imo not be a reliable base replacing a serious talk within community.
I could also, of course, put same list-of-questions here, where it would again make this stuff more "tedious to read through".
Please let us talk about filenames and possible renames under #Talk on File names, and stop here. Definite question is: Would there be anything wrong about proposed style of vG filenames? tx, Wolfgang (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh/Archive&oldid=17108552"