User talk:Jane023/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Structured Data - computer-aided tagging designs
I've published a design consultation for the computer-aided tagging tool. Please look over the page and participate on the talk page. If you haven't read over the project page, it might be helpful to do so first. The tool will hopefully be ready by the end of this month (October 2019), so timely feedback is important. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 |
File:Élisabeth Sonrel - The Goddesses Before Paris.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.
|
-BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
|
File:Élisabeth Sonrel - The Goddesses Before Paris.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. |
Abzeronow (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Un grazie per WLM e un libro sulla conoscenza libera per te
Gentile Jane023,
oggi ti scrivo a nome dell'associazione Wikimedia Italia per ringraziarti di aver partecipato a Wiki Loves Monuments Italia. Il tuo contributo è particolarmente apprezzato perché le tue foto sono usate in due o più voci di Wikipedia o di un altro progetto Wikimedia.
Come piccolo omaggio avremmo piacere di spedirti una copia (tutta in carta riciclata) del libro di Carlo Piana, Open source, software libero e altre libertà. Fornisci un recapito per ricevere una copia del libro.
Il libro comprende anche un capitolo sul tuo lavoro! Si parla infatti di libertà di panorama, cioè la libertà di fare e diffondere foto come le tue, ma tutto l'anno e su tutti i monumenti d'Italia. Finché resta la legge attuale, per aumentare le foto caricabili puoi chiedere a un ente vicino a te di aderire a Wiki Loves Monuments. Speriamo che questo libro ti sia utile per apprezzare quanto hai fatto e per trasmettere la passione della conoscenza libera a una persona a te vicina.
Se desideri una copia ma non puoi fornirci un indirizzo a cui spedirla, contatta la segreteria Wikimedia Italia e troviamo una soluzione insieme.
Grazie ancora e a presto,
Lorenzo Losa (msg) 10:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
|
Category:Benjamin_Altman_bequest 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! |
Oursana (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Commons - Media Search
Greetings,
The Structured Data team is working on an alternative, image-focused prototype for media search on Commons. The prototype uses categories, structured data as well as wikitext from Commons, and Wikidata to find its results. The development team would like your feedback on the prototype, as they are looking to work to further enhance the search experience on Commons. If you have a moment, please look over the project page set up on Commons to find a link to the prototype and leave your feedback on the talk page. Thanks for your time, I'll be posting message similar to this one to other pages on Commons. The team is looking forward to reading what you think. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Hallo Jane023, zonet maakte ik Category:Michiel Mosijn aan, in anlaogie met Michiel Mosijn (Q21638307), maar misschien was dat initieel niet de bedoeling. Thnks. Lotje (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ja volgens mij is dat hetzelfde kunstenaar, bedankt! Jane023 (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Dient de Michiel Mosyn dan verwijderd of een rename? Lotje (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Geen idee, dat zie ik niet. Jane023 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Dient de Michiel Mosyn dan verwijderd of een rename? Lotje (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Sedelmeyer-Lepke 1897 catalogue of 66 paintings sedelmeyer00rudo 0009.jpg
|
| This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Sedelmeyer-Lepke 1897 catalogue of 66 paintings sedelmeyer00rudo 0009.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Pieter van der Croos - Landscape with lighthouse and figures on a beach.jpg
|
|
| This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Pieter van der Croos - Landscape with lighthouse and figures on a beach.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 17:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Commons - Media Sarch, new feedback round
Greetings,
I'm following up on a message from earlier in the year about the prototype development for Special:MediaSearch. Based on community feedback, the Structured Data team has developed some new features for Special:MediaSearch and are seeking another round of comments and discussions about the tool. Commons:Structured_data/Media_search is updated with details about the new features plus some other development information, and feedback is welcome on Commons talk:Structured_data/Media_search. Media Search works in any language, so the team would especially appreciate input around support for languages other than English. I look forward to reading about what you think. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Portrait of a Noble Young Lady
Dag Jane023, ik zie dat je Category:Anna van Egmond hebt toegevoegd aan Category:Portrait of a Noble Young Lady. Ik ben het daar wel mee eens, maar ik wil je vragen of je eens wilt kijken naar deze discussie, waar hetzelfde onderwerp aan de orde is.
Kort samengevat gaat het om het volgende: er is veel gedoe geweest over de bron (Couwenbergh) die suggereert dat het schilderij wel eens een afbeelding van Anna van Egmond kon zijn. The Banner heeft er een zaak van gemaakt om die bron, een artikel op een persoonlijke website van kunsthistoricus Couwenbergh, ongeldig te verklaren, en na een discussie van zes weken is dat geschied. So far so good, maar nu heeft RKD ná die discussie juist die bron wel degelijk gebruikt om aan te geven dat er is gesuggereerd dat het schilderij een portret van Van Egmond zou kunnen zijn. Mijns inziens, en ook volgens Emigré55 die het artikel aanmaakte en met de bron kwam, is Couwenbergh als bron daarmee min of meer peer reviewed of toch in elk geval gevalideerd. Met RKD als referentie (ongeacht wie zij zouden aanhalen), lijkt mij dat niet alleen hier op Commons, maar ook op Wikipedia de suggestie rond de identiteit van de geportretteerde wel degelijk genoemd kan worden, en eigenlijk zelfs genoemd móet worden.
Degene die op de Engelse Wikipedia veel aan Pourbus en aan dit schilderij heeft gewerkt, Emigré55, staat nu echter onder verdenking juist op dit punt (zie eerstgenoemde link). Misschien zou je – gezien je edit hier – jouw zienswijze daar, of op en:Talk:Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus), kort kunnen geven, want het lijkt nu voor Emigré55 een totaal verloren zaak en dat is mijns inziens niet terecht.
De discussie met The Banner, die afkwam op het onderwerp alleen omdat ik er bij betrokken was, heeft al geleid tot een indef block voor mij (The Banner en ik hebben nogal een verleden op NLwiki, en ik trok het gewoon niet meer dat hij me ook op ENwiki ging achtervolgen), en het lijkt me onwenselijk dat Emigré55 hetzelfde lot moet ondergaan, terwijl hij wat betreft de RKD-referentie natuurlijk volledig gelijk heeft. Ik wil je niet betrekken in de onmin tussen The Banner en mij, hier is volgens mij gewoon common sense aan de orde, maar die lijkt op dit punt op ENwiki ver te zoeken.
Kijk maar of je er iets mee kunt, ik wilde er in elk geval even op wijzen. Groet, Eissink (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC).
- OK - ik wist niet van de block - ik vind het meer dan jammer dat onwiki gesprekken over kunst die kant opgaan. Ik heb een beetje rondgekeken maar ik zie geen andere kandidaten vooor de geportretteerde - al is het haar niet, dan misschien wel haar kostuum of jewelen, dus plaatsing in haar categorie vind ik niet onjuist. Ik heb meermaals plaatjes in juiste biografische categorieen bijgezet die gebruikt waren op Wikipedia artikelen voor de broer/om/vader van de geportretteerde, dus ik vind deze niet zo erg. Sterker nog, ik vind het bizar weinig voor iemand met zoveel straatnamen naar haar genoemd! Jane023 (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
|
File:Jan van Goyen - Strandgezicht met visverkopers te Katwijk, 1641.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.
|
Fæ (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
|
|
File:Jan van Goyen - Strandgezicht met visverkopers te Katwijk, 1641.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. |
Fæ (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Category:17th-century paintings of flowers
Hello, I have seen that you have created Category:17th-century paintings of flowers. Unfortunetely, also Category:17th-century flower paintings exists. Which one should we keep? Best greetings, --Mateus2019 (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good catch! I would choose the first one, because as I type then I see more choices. Jane023 (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hallo Jane023, Ik vroeg me af of een afbeelding zoals deze (volgens beschrijving p. 43, 137) kan worden toegevoegd, of zijn er andere criteria? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Natuurlijk kan dat. Ga je gang. Jane023 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
El Greco catalog raisonné, 1969
Hello. Have you noticed minus in no. 19b-, 19c-, etc. in https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Greco_catalog_raisonn%C3%A9,_1969&oldid=362062309 ? That means: there is no image in the original publication. These signs are only personal notes, and you can correct them.
Most of my catalogs are here (Classici dell'arte - I Gigli dell'arte - Wildenstein Plattner Institute - Loÿs Delteil) and see Category:Catalogs of art by Peter Paul Rubens --Maltaper (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes thanks for your work on that, and I did finally figure that out! There is also one case where there is a color image with catalog number but no catalog number in the black&white pages. I also added a bunch of catalog code numbers that you left out (and I don't blame you for doing that, since I can't find many of them either). I have started cross-referencing the Wethey catalog and am happy to report that it appears there is an almost 100% overlap, which has helped me create items even when I still don't have the image. Some older catalogs do have the images, so eventually these will get uploaded, if not by me, then someone else. Your catalogs have been noticed and we are trying to figure out ways to use them so I am not the only one. It would help if you created items when you upload the images, but I don't want to overload you with work when this is all you want to do. Thanks in any case! Jane023 (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Frans Hals catalog raisonné, 1974 (Montagni)
Frans Hals catalog raisonné, 1974 (Montagni) and Frans Hals catalog raisonné, 1976 are almost identical, but numbering seems a little different. --Maltaper (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes there appears to be some disparity among the method used in the catalogs, which is understandable because it's amazing that there were so many art historians willing to collaborate. I don't have originals, I only have the Dutch versions. Maybe these could be uploaded to the archve.org as borrowable books for comparison? It would help if people could contribute in their own language. I am not sure how many languages are available. Jane023 (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Structured data across Wikimedia is starting!
Hello Jane023,
I send you a copy of the invitation I got from Sannita, as you might be interested to participate--Oursana (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I am writing to you because a new WMF project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW), is about to start. SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet.
The reason why I am contacting you is because of your work on Commons and the other projects, and your opinion would be of great interest for us to kickstart the discussion. We defined a series of questions we would like to have feedback on. If you want to ask a question on your own, or just want to share with us your ideas or opinions, please feel free to do so!
Also, if you know some other user(s) that can be interested, please let me know or invite them to join the discussion. The more, the better!
Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
deleted contributions
Hi. I cannot produce a list of your deleted uploads. The best I can do is your deleted contributions, of which there looks to be about 600 in the File: ns. Some look like revdels as the files are still present. Let me know if you want anything prepared. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting! I had no idea there were that many. There are quite a few to wade through that are 100% legit. Those are edits I made in the early days of Wikidata I believe, before I realized how many close copies there are on commons of paintings that are not on commons yet (perennial problem with the pretty colored version from a recent auction that is preferred for use on Wikipedia to illustrate artist pages over a B&W version of an original). You live and learn! I have also had to learn about copyright of sculpture in various countries. I didn't know how few countries have freedom of panorama. I have uploaded so many images of art by now that 600 is probably less than 10% anyway. If anything gets deleted from a Wikidata item now I notice and will fight for it, as was the case with another mass deletion of museum paintings (I think Winterthur?). So thanks for checking, but I doubt there's anything unacceptable in there. A few could be Wikimania or other meetup photos which included people who made take-down requests (I would not even bother with those). Jane023 (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)