User talk:Jeanhousen/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Jeanhousen!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't blank pages

Hi Jeanhousen,
Thank you for your contributions to Commons. I noticed you blanked Category:Château de Septon on Commons. I asume you meant for the page to be deleted, but blanking the page is not the right way to do this. I'd like to strongly recommend to use {{speedy| type reason here }} and add it on top of the page you would like to have deleted; This way it will be placed on a special list that administrators check regularly for deletion. Without this it might take a long time before it's noticed. Thanks again. 14:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)–Krinkletalk

Hi Jeanhousen, I see you tagged with speedy. It's deleted now.
By the way, you can link to a category by starting the link with a colon (" : "). Without the colon it'll be seen as an actual category. The same is with images (Category:Apples, File:Example.svg). –Krinkletalk 14:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Train stations in the Netherlands Indies : Historique des versions

Bonjour, l'Indonésie ayant conservé la plupart des gares construites à l'époque coloniale, cette catégorie ne me semble pas nécessaire. Je la redirige donc vers celle des gares en Indonésie, Humboldt (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC) one of the things I am preparing for the churches in Belgium is the church naming conventions and category sort keys. On Commons, the current tendency, with the exception of the more mediteran countries (especially Italy), is to use "xxx in/of location" or "xxx, location, further disambiguation such as "xxx church, Mons, Hainaut". In fact, the comma separates the place while a disambiguation between parenthesis is used to state what it is, such as "Chris Peeters (politician)". So don't waste your energy issueing rename requests: after agreement, we will give a complete overhaul of the category names as needed. --Foroa (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for these informations :-)--Jean Housen 16:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering this category


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Saint_Mary_churches_in_Belgium there's a lot of work to do. Il y a du boulot pour ranger tout cela avec des critères sérieux... --Jean Housen 22:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, little time for now, but from Category:Saint_Mary_churches_in_Belgium, it is clear that images that are not encapsulated in a properly named category, cause major categorisation (and related checking and maintenance) problems. I think that my quick prellminary reorganisation of categories of the churches in Belgium helped already. --Foroa (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure !! :-) what I mean : it's quite a problem to be efficient in several languages : onze-lieve-vrouw, notre-dame, sainte-marie enz it's the same thing but we have to put all these churches under the same patron, meanwhile a spanish speaking person can find that's the same as "nuestra senora" Good luck !--Jean Housen 20:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget the holy virgins, holy mother and probably 4 more names. This is only a first exercise. Once you get more experience, you can add the Scandinavian languages, then the slavic ones and then to the languages with other character sets. We are lucky that Christianity is limited in the far East and in Arab speaking countries ;). St-Jakob in Antwerp has been translated to Sint James, so with the various sorts of Saint James, Antonius, ... you can be busy for a long time, even when they are all in one or two languages. So Mary is not too bad to start with. --Foroa (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

File:20100923_amman64.JPG

File:20100923_amman64.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

High Contrast (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Your...

...categorization work in Category:Petra is very good! Merci bien! --High Contrast (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ! It's a pleasure to see things in right places :-) --Jean Housen 16:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar
For your excellent-categorization work and image-contributions about Jordan topics. J'espère que vous continuez le bon travail! Cordialement, High Contrast (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:20100925_petra224.JPG

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:20100925_petra224.JPG, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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

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

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

GeorgHH • talk   17:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories Bundesgartenschau 2011

Hello, your Idea was quit good but the name of the categories is wrong. I will correct this soon. Please do not categorize any files anymore, I will chance the name first. Thanks. --Schängel (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

recent year categorys

I see that you added a lot of 2010 categorys with my pictures. I also do this but only if it is a special 2010 event. For a timeless streetview I dont put a year in. I see no sense in it as i can take the same picture in later years. The date is anyway mentioned by the commentary. The danger is that the 2010 categorys wil become overloaded for searches looking for 2010 events or situations. Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

example (:Category:Tramparade 125 year vicinal railways). I put the whole category in 2010. Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As you like : I have no problems with these details on categorization. But, basically, I think every photographic shot is a single moment in a single place; you can take the same picture 2 years later, but it would'nt be the same place in the same moment; if the place is the same, don't take an other picture : but your first shot will ever been a single place in a single date...--Jean Housen 19:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Categorisation on file date is a waste of contributors' time. As the date field should have a standard format, the categorisation can be done by a bot or implemented as a search filter. — Bjung (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Libramont

Hello Jean, thanks for all these images :-) --:bdk: 22:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

... It's not at all my own field (I'm an art historian), but all these machines and pictures are fascinating ; thanks for the precisions you added ; out of my lawn mower and chainsaw, I'm not very accurate in these matters !22:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Jean Housen
yeah, no problem, we also have a lawn mower category *g*
Anyway, especially this machine is not seen very often. It's still a prototype (for several years now), so it's really great to have a photo here. --:bdk: 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Top Hat 2010

Hello Jean, and thanks for uploading all those nice reenactment images. If you've got more of those please try to also add categories of the vehicles types. I've put some of those on your recent files but you might want to check Category:GMC CCKW, Category:Jeep vehicles and Category:Dodge WC series for future uploads. Regards, De728631 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your help and precisions : I can't easily identify these old vehicles. I do my best in my own field (.. I can make the difference between the details of an old church of 11th century and his rebuilding in 19th century, but for trucks and so on I'm afraid I don't get the right patterns). I will try to do my best. Kind regards, JeanJean Housen 21:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Namur categories

Namur categories can be confusing, as there the town of Namur and the province of Namur. Passenger trains in Namur is bit excessive. Trains are usualy fotografed in trainstations and are never specific to a town. Location for train pictures is mostly meaningful om wich station or railway line. And with a railway station the location is a parent category.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:20100719_liege20.JPG

File:20100719_liege20.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Moros y Cristianos 08:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

File:20100719_liege21.JPG

File:20100719_liege21.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Moros y Cristianos 08:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

File:20100719_liege23.JPG

File:20100719_liege23.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Moros y Cristianos 08:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories of ships

Found that you added Category:Ships of Greece to a file that has Category:Passenger ships of Greece. But the latter category has already Category:Ships of Greece, so you are overcatgorising this way. --Stunteltje (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I know, and it is voluntary: it is just to get a complete list of Greek ships, and then we can redistribute them in sub-categories and I know that everything must be in its place, and preferably one place, but there is a difference between the storage in a library (where you can store every book at a single location) and an intellectual categorization, where the categories of passenger ships and ferry-boats are confounded in most cases, so it seems important to keep an overview of all the Greek ships, moreover, it is likely that the categories of vessels by type or usage will soon move to a specific page ...

Why do you want to have all individual ship-categories on one page? No other country has that system, because one can find a ship via the country category. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Je le sais, et c'est volontaire : c'est juste pour avoir une liste complète des bateaux grecs, et alors on peut les redistribuer dans des sous-catégories ; je sais que chaque chose doit être à sa place, et de préférence à une seule place, mais il y a quand même une différence entre le rangement dans une bibliothèque (où l'on ne peut ranger chaque livre qu'à un endroit unique) et une catégorisation intellectuelle, où les catégories de bateaux de passagers et de ferry-boats se confondent dans la plupart des cas, donc il me semble important de garder une vue globale de tous les bateaux grecs ; par ailleurs, il est probable que les catégories de bateaux par type ou usage pourront bientôt migrer vers une page spécifique... --Jean Housen 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments

The first results of the "Wiki Loves Monuments" contest are arriving on Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2011: work, work, work ... --Foroa (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


Noted

Lots of great work being done - just curious - with the creation of the NEI train station category as a sub cat of train stations in Indonesia - at least 75% of the latter could/should go in the former - are you into that sort of re-allocating? I have been very very low activity/edit over the last couple of months - but it looks like a project if you were not interested in fixing... cheers SatuSuro (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the photographs from the KIT / Troppen Museum are very interesting, but there's a risk of disturbing a clear vision of what looks Indonesia today. Thus I'am trying to work essentially on the buildings and their fonction - I'am an archaeologist and art historian very interested in history of architecture (it'a a work for several months, at least), to :

  • 1) always ask for each picture : what ? where ? when ? who ?
  • 2) Give the more exact localisation (now I'am in the level of Kabupaten/Department/Regency and Kota/City
  • 3) establish a distinction of what is before/after 1945, on a fonction basis (hospitals or schools of the Netherlands Indies and of Indonesia are surely not organized the same way). But it's sure that the buildings are in the same place before 1945 and after :-), thus localization by nowadays administrative divisions and names are very important.

I'am today not absolutely sure of all the details of this reorganization, but my aim is to get lots of pictures regarding colonial Indonesia and today Indonesia, with easy links between the lots. All this can surely be undoubtedly be improved , as I begin to see, having a better vision from click to click of the 45000 images from the Tropen Museum !!! --Jean Housen 16:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen some of your great work there. It might be a good idea to find a place for KIT categories in Special:WantedCategories before they get categorised/somewhere away. --Foroa (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


Category:Gare des Guillemins

Category:Gare des Guillemins 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 category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

JuTa 20:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


Category:Greece in the 20st century

Category:Greece in the 20st century 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 category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

JuTa 21:03, 16 November 2011 (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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely Jean-Fred (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely PierreSelim (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:20110903 liege14.jpg

File:20110903 liege14.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BrightRaven (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:20110903 liege15.jpg

File:20110903 liege15.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BrightRaven (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:20110903 liege16.jpg

File:20110903 liege16.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BrightRaven (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:20110903 liege13.jpg

File:20110903 liege13.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BrightRaven (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:20110903 liege17.jpg

File:20110903 liege17.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BrightRaven (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:20110903 liege19.jpg

File:20110903 liege19.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BrightRaven (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:20110903 liege24.jpg

File:20110903 liege24.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BrightRaven (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:20110903 liege12.jpg

File:20110903 liege12.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BrightRaven (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:20110903 liege23.jpg

File:20110903 liege23.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BrightRaven (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:20110903 liege11.jpg

File:20110903 liege11.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BrightRaven (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:20110903 liege21.jpg

File:20110903 liege21.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BrightRaven (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Durbuy

2 Verlaines in Category:Durbuy? Best. --Foroa (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

C'est le même village : soit on garde l'une des deux dénominations, soit on crée un Verlaine-sur-Ourthe, Durbuy, et l'on redirige les deux vers cette catégorie, ce qui permet d'éviter la confusion avec le Verlaine en province de Liège...--Jean Housen 15:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Excavator categories

Hello Jean!

First of all, thanks for categorizing excavators by type. This is a quite useful effort!

But please add to every excavator-type-category one of those categories Wheeled/Tracked 360 degree diggers or compact excavators and so on. Like here: [1]. --High Contrast (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the advice... I must confess that's a matter I'm discovering !!! --Jean Housen 18:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Happy editing. --High Contrast (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cities and villages in Greece

Hi Jean

I've noticed you've added Category:Cities and villages in Greece to the categories in Category:Cities and villages in Kos. However, Category:Cities and villages in Kos is already in a sub-category of Category:Cities and villages in Greece.

We should only place images and categories in the most specific category, see COM:OVERCAT for further information. I've reverted you changes to the ones in Category:Cities and villages in Kos, but I'm guessing you've made changes to others that should be reverted? Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've noted the problem ; I'm trying to create a more convenient standard for cities, villages, hamlets, in Greece, based on an useful grid, i.e. the new subdivision (2011) of Greece in 325 municipalities within 13 peripheries (=regions). But there's a lot of ambiguation, like Kos, wich is an island, a city in the island, and the name of the municipality formed by a dozen of former municipalities and small villages. I'll try to fix that for the best.--Jean Housen 16:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I came for the same thing. I've reverted your changes in Corfu because of overcategorisation: 'Cities and villages in Corfu Prefecture' is more specific than 'Corfu' or 'Cities and villages in Greece' and, in fact, it includes both. I've seen that you did the same for all the towns, and that's really excesive: Category:Cities and villages in Greece should look just like this Category:Cities and villages in France. I hope you take the time to fix it, and I'm sure the new system ordered under peripheries > municipalities would be neat. Thanks in advance, Qoan (dis-me!) 08:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Prefectures (or Νομός) are suppressed by the Kallikratis reform in 2011 : the administrative map of Greece is simplified in 13 regions and 325 municipalities... It seems easier to have a list of all inhabited places in Greece (Cities and villages) and a list of the municiplities, and their constitutive boroughs or villages ; with this distribution, you can easily manage the others categories on a municipal basis (like "Buildings in ...", "Transport in...", "Culture in..."). For France, I agree that's impossible until France admit that their 36000 municipalities could merge into 8000/9000 !! :) --Jean Housen 08:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to use a flat top level "populated places in Greece", this avoids endless Overcat discussion while resulting in a useful flat list. --Foroa (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I could bot move it if needed. --Foroa (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

--Ok, whatever his title, a flat list of localities in Greece seems very useful ; otherwise the level of prefectures (or nomoi) will soon be obsolete : for all the categorization over the infrastructure (transport, industry, etc), architectural heritage, etc the municipality seems the more useful scale.--Jean Housen 12:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Using one of your pictures in a textbook

I am thinking of using your picture of the Hephaisteion corner (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20100410_athina108.JPG) in a textbook. It would show at about 5 cm high and be credited in the legend immediately below, initially to 'Jean Housen' --but since this is printed text (can't put a working hyperlink to your Wikipedia page), I thought I'd ask if you would like any other information to show, such as location, any URL, whatever. I can also be contacted at thechabon a a t hot mail d d d ot com. Thanks for uploading that picture. Iiiiaaaa (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Forum Claudii Vallensium

Voilà une idée qu’elle est bonne de mettre Forum_Claudii_Vallensium dans Martigny la Romaine. Au faite, la catégorie ayant été juste créée, je t’appellerai dorénavant ‘’Pépé el rapido’’ :-) Pintopc 11:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment :-)) Une catégorie "Martigny la Romaine" me paraissait bien utile, pour y mettre tout ce qui concerne l'antiquité romaine de la ville (archéologie, documents, etc = Forum_Claudii_Vallensium) , mais aussi tout ce qu'il y a autour (folklore, tourisme, etc).--Jean Housen 17:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Photos place Jean De Paduwa à Evere

Bonjour Jeanhousen,

Avant tout chose, je veux te dire que j'adore tes photos prises aux alentours de la place Paduwa à Evere et que j'en ai déjà placé une sur l'article éponyme de Wikipédia.

Une gentille remarque cependant : à mon avis tu devrais veiller à masquer les numéros d'immatriculation des véhicules (au moins des véhicules qui ne sont pas des «transport en commun») ainsi que des publicités si celles-ci sont trop voyantes (mais ce n'est pas le cas dans tes photos). Fais aussi très attention à tes descriptions comme par exemple citer l'hôtel «Gresham Belson». Je connais certains «susceptibles» qui, pour le moment chassent les images sur Liège ou Bruxelles. Un simple exemple : File:Schaerbeek Parc Josaphat nofop2.jpg. Mais, il y a pire avec des photos sur Liège révoquées (donc disparues à tout jamais de Commons) sans qu'il n'y aie eu, à mon sens, de violation d'une quelconque licence.

Je me suis aussi permis de rectifier les descriptions et de modifier les «Catégorie:Evere» en sous catégorie plus appropriées.

Amicalement,

--Omondi (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Par exemple Category:Cities in Indonesia in the 21st century

Bonsoir, je ne comprends pas l'intérêt de ce genre de catégories, Humboldt (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC) ===Bonsoir. Dans un premier temps : ce n'est pas moi qui l'ai inventée, voir les catégories supérieures auxquelles cela renvoie Category:Cities_in_the_21st_century, il y en a vraiment beaucoup : je n'ai fait que rester cohérent par rapprt à un modèle en cours :-) Dans un deuxième temps : c'est vrai que cela semble très formaliste, moi aussi de prime abord j'ai eu ce sentiment. Comme je l'ai par rapport à de nombreux catégories de Wikimedia, qui semble parfois hanté par des bataillons qui classent tous les livres à reliure rouge ensemble, tous les livres de plus de 30 cm de haut ensemble, tous les livres, etc que cela ait du sens ou non. Dans un troisième temps : quand il n'y a que quelques occurences, comme c'est le cas ici, c'est un peu vain, en effet. Mais quand il y en a beaucoup, comme par exemple Category:Cities_in_Germany_in_the_21st_century, cela peut permettre des recherches croisées et comparatives intéressantes. Cela dit, je n'en fais pas mon fromage !!! --Jean Housen 19:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Parent category Sambre

Hello, take notice that Sambre as parent category does n't double the Bridges over the Sambre category. A commons rule. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC) And I propose making a category: Sambre in Belgium and a category: Sambre in France, similar to what has been done for Meuse, etc. What do you think of that? --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Alte Lahnbrücke, Erbacher Hof, Dom Limburg Mai 2011 01.jpg

The file was lost due to an server bug. Recovering is very expensive or even impossible. Please reupload this image if the source is still accessible to you. Yours sincerely McZusatz (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Danke. --McZusatz (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
De rien :-) --Jean Housen 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Redundant categories

Hi Jeanhousen,

I noticed you're adding Category:Buildings in Maastricht to categories which are categorized into the category Category:Churches in Maastricht. In these cases Category:Buildings in Maastricht is already a sub-category of Category:Churches in Maastricht, making the addition of the category Buildings in Maastricht to the church-category itself unneeded and redundant. Please see also the subject on over-categorization. You may want to go back and fix this.

Kind regards, Otter (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Otter,

I don't think its unneeded (if a bit redundant) : as I can see, the category Category:Buildings in Maastricht contains (as it was, and as it is now) 3 series of categories :

  • buildings by function, or buildings forms derived from a function (churches, schools, etc)
  • buildings that can be listed in other ways : as cultural heritage monuments, as public buildings, as religious buildings... we could add as commercial buildings, as 19th century buildings, etc
  • a flat list of buildings in Maastricht by name : that's the better way to see a first sight ALL the buildings who deserve a category and thus are supposed to have a value (it would be rare to get more than 4 or 5 pictures of an ininteresting thing...). Moreover, it's also the best way to get a first sight of a building, whatever the categories it may be in : for exemple the Post en Telegraaf Building is a Post Office, but also a public building and a cultural heritage monument, but it is first of all a building in Maastricht. And when the items on the page Category:Buildings in Maastricht will exceed 2 or 3 hundreds items and became to heavy to be useful, we could split it in "Buildings by function", etc

Best regards, --Jean Housen 10:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jeanhousen,
I agree with you about the first two series of categories, they're very useful. Regarding the third series, the overview within a category, a page can be created with a selection of the pictures within the category and its sub-category. The commons policy as stated here is against redundant categories. In case of Category:Buildings in Maastricht there are already to many images in that category to get an easy overview anyway. Could you please create an overview page?
Kind regards, Otter (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Furrier's shops in Maastricht: Versionsgeschichte

Bedankt und danke! --Kürschner (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC) --- Oh, et merci! --Kürschner (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File:20090803 antirio01.jpg

File:20090803 antirio01.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Veggies (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:20090803 antirio02.jpg

File:20090803 antirio02.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Veggies (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:20090803 antirio02.jpg

File:20090803 antirio02.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Rijksmonumenten in Maastricht by number

Hi Jeanhousen, thank you for helping out with the categorization of the Rijksmonumenten images. You're putting in a lot of effort, but I'm afraid you're heading a bit in the wrong direction. Categories should have a name, not a number like Category:Rijksmonument 27499 and should have more content than just two images. The guidelines we use:

  • At least 5 images
  • Naming: <address>, <city>
  • Include a (short) description and {{Rijksmonument}}

Multichill (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems the best way to have in a single category all the pictures about a listed building, better than the usual name (wich may change with the time and the functions of the building), and it's the more precise way to identify the listed building, and it's just the same point of view than categories as Category:Aircraft by registration or Category:Ships by IMO number wich are very useful and very logical ... The Rijksmonument number is the best identifier (without equivocation).

--Jean Housen 12:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No Jean, now you're just wrong. Please read Commons:Categories because you clearly don't seem to understand the goals of categorization. Multichill (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but when reading this page, I don't understand where's the problem. I wonder how you can sort the 288 781 files (!) of Category:Rijksmonumenten with known IDs if not by the number of the listed monuments ; indeed, there's a lot of monument without usual name, and you can't create one name for them, and in the case of monuments with a name, I'm not sure that all the pictures taken in a building concern this builiding as listed monument, see for exemple File:WLM - Minke Wagenaar - 07-07-07 Maastricht 053.jpg : the elevator has nothing to do with the kruisherenkerk as listed monument : you can change it or transform the hotel to have an other function : it' an elevator in the Kruisherenhotel, wich is in a church listed as Rijksmonument....
In fine, I come back with these two exemples : Category:Aircraft by registration or Category:Ships by IMO number, it's exactly the same logic, in the case of the ships it is a absolute reference, the vessel may change of owner, name, nationality, it remain THIS ship. In the case of the airplane, the category is more circumstancial, but unpassable if you want identify the aircraft with accuracy,... The same case in Category:Terracotta krater Metropolitan Museum of Art 14.130.14 : if you want to put on exact categories all the pictures of all the greek poteries known in the museums, the best way is the ID number of the pottery in a collection (the most famous potteries get a name, but there's a lot of anonymous potteries), it's exactly the same for a Rijksmonument...
--Jean Housen 13:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
You don't understand it so you're causing a big mess. Categorization is to make images findable. The way you're doing it's impossible to ever find an image again so it's very counter-productive. I already asked you nicely, please stop creating these categories. Multichill (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the above objections. Aircraft or ships are a different ball game. Buildings are identified by location such as an address or, when they are well known, by name. Ships and aircraft have no fixed location so it is logical to use a different way of identifying. --VanBuren (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain how you can find the remains of the city wall, or a monumental house in lets say the Cavaleriestraat with a categorization based on just jumbers? Bear in mind that the people who use the categorization are ordinary people, who are used to find names, and not robots, which better work with numbers. BR Brimz (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My God I never said we can't use names of buildings, or adresses etc but have you in mind that a listed buildings it is JUST one of the quality of the buildings, wich may also be viewed by multiples biases such architects (who may have made interventions or modifications in different times), this is also a functions which changes with the centuries, in wich you can organize events THUS the Rijksmonument number is just a appropriate category to determine all the documents (photography, plans or others) that allow to explain why this monument is listed...

I never suppressed or suggest to supprim names of famous buildings : that's also the criterium I use, but for having an other example : but you have to realize that if a building is listed it is for motivated arguments : an architectural form of quality, a social value etc thus there are visuals elements wich can justify this classification. A facade in a street is an element of this street, but if the facade is listed, it enters in a new category (that's a listed facade !), if the facade is baroque, it enters in baroque facade, if the facade is by an identified architect, thus .... etc.

I also want to point that I maintain all the others category that allow to find the document, with always in mind the fact that a building is a multiple ways of approach object, for exemple I have created the category "Monastery houses of refuge" that allows to identify all the houses who were once upon a time an urban refuge for a monastery, and that because I keep in mind the fact the urban landscapes are things which changes with the centuries, and you have to identify the aspects of a building which justify is classification as national heritage monument. Have you noticed that I never categorify an artist drawing as a document in Rijksmonument category, if showing the buildings as it was in the 17th century, but not as it is now. The Rijksmonument categor don't exclude others very useful category, but it is unfair to deny its specificity...

In fine (two times), what interest have a detail view of a piece of stucco in a building, particulary if this stucco has disappeared in the renovation of the building : it don't exist yet, you can put this picture in any intelligent category, and if putting it in "Distroyed stuccos in Maastricht", you have to say where it was, then not in such building (because it is NOT in), but in the file that concern this building as national heritage monument. It may seem a little abstract, but I don't think it'silly :-)

And I repeat that this manner of determine ONE of the mutilples information of a photography taken in a determined place in a determined time don't impeach to describe all the others informations given by the photography, such as the photographs who took the picture (it's an information I don't take care, but I think it's interessant also : for exemple the contemporary pictures of Maastricht by Mark Ashmann are very interesting, because he seems able to have a global view of a scene, that gives informations on the urban landscape, but also on details if a city in the beginnings of the 21th century...

What I intend to do it's just a picture description, putting it in the multiple category it deserves, Rijksmonument is just one of these categories, and if you use it, you have to say "Wich rijksmonument ?", and the more accurate response is "Rijksmonument number xxx"... --Jean Housen 17:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The rijksmonument numbers change quite often for a building. Up to this moment we've used adresses (if the monument hasn't really got a name) in all cities, it would be nice to keep the same kind of categorisation everywhere. The rijksmonuments on id category with 270.000 images in it is a maintainance category, so that's a totally different thing. Basvb (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope the person who respond the last post is NOT working in a public administration, because saying "The rijksmonument numbers change quite often for a building" is like saying "The ID change quite often for a citizen", don't worry, be happy.--Jean Housen 21:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious that you're not very familiar with the subject. Indeed, I've seen RM-numbers for buildings change for several reasons, like combining buildings into one number, or dividing one RM-number into different number for each (part of) building, revoking RM-numbers, because the building has changed/damaged too much to be a RM, etc. Saying that a RM-number is a more stable identification for a RM-building than the address is therefore not true. BR Brimz (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to say, I think you're wasting your time by putting the images in categories by RM-number. The reasons are:
  • It is still not clear if the work you're doing is unwanted, so in the end all your work can still be drawn back.
  • All the RM in the Netherlands should preferably be treated the same way. There are over 150.000 images in Commons of RM. Do you have the time to do them all?
  • The work is very straight forward and therefore preferably done by a bot.
If you really want to help us out, I would like to point your attention to Category:Possible Rijksmonumenten in Maastricht. In this catogory there are over 2500 images which need to be sorted out whether they are RM and which RM-id they are. There is a massive amount of work to do in the Possible Rijksmonumenten-categories, so every help in there would be appreciated a lot. BR Brimz (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion the categorization of rijksmonumenten by id is unwanted. Better are descriptive names like "Voorstraat 140, Amsterdam" or a function name like "Centraal Station Leeuwarden". It would be wonderful if you can help us with the link Brimz noted. If we really want a categorization by id lets do it by bot automatically or with one edit based on the rijksmonument template for all pictures. I doubt such a categorization is desired. By the way, the number of images with a rijksmonument template is currently almost 300.000 not 150.000. Rudolphous (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
If the bot can autogenerate and categorise such categories, well lets do it; it will save a lot of work for all of us. It seems not realistic that a real Rijksmonument will remain with one or two images in the long run (and even so); it is less work to rename categories than all the work to set them up, categorise and fill up with the associated images, descriptions and links. --Foroa (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeanhousen/Archive_1&oldid=517460691"