User talk:Rudolphous/Archive

Image:20070701-nk2007-100m.jpg

Howdy. Since I seem to remember that Dutch women are quite beautiful, surely you must mean that this photograph is from the 100 metres men's race, not women's 100 metres hurdles? --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 06:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, fixed! Greets, Rudolphous 16:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Churandy Martina.jpg

Hi. An image with this name already exists. Please do not upload over images that already exist. -Nard 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:David van Hetten.jpg and similar uploads

Hi. Please note that Erik's permission is for Wikipedia only. "Het is prima als jullie er daarvan willen gebruiken voor wikipedia met bronvermelding." I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. He would have to explicitly agree to GFDL or CC-BY-2.5 (which you both proposed to him). Please follow up on this e-mail exchange and get him to do so. (For the GFDL, you might want to mention that stand-alone commercial use is unlikely to occur, since the license requires also republishing the full text of the license itself when the image is republished.) Once you got his explicit release, forward the whole e-mail exchange to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Without such a release we unfortunately cannot keep these images. Lupo 12:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lupo. Thanks for your message. Please, give me some time to handle this. Rudolphous 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, take all the time you need. Just don't panic if the images are deleted in the meantime: it sometimes takes a long time to get such a permission, but if and when you finally get it, the images can be restored easily enough. We did that e.g. for Image:Babe Ruth statue.jpg... I exchanged e-mails with the sculptor for about half a year (at a pace of one e-mail every month or so :-) until I got the permission. We had deleted the image in the meantime, but when the permission was received, we restored it. Lupo 08:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I got the permission and forwarded the email exchange. Can I refer in better way to the permission in the photo's? Rudolphous 19:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Athlethes from New Zealand

Hi Rudolphous - when you create a new category, please place it in the appropriate subcategory, bbeing as pecific as possible, same as an image. Therefore the category you created goes into Category:Sportspeople from New Zealand. Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson 10:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Template

Hi. Please use {{OTRS pending}}. Thanks--Trixt (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Several images with Permissionmail sent on 15 march 2008 20:04 to permissions(at)commonswikimedia.org will be soon deleted because there is no permission in the OTRS system. If you have the permission, please send it via e-mail as soon as possible to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Thanks--Trixt (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Email sent again. Rudolphous (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your use of the GFDL template

Please don't use {{GFDL|migration=relicense}} on images uploaded after August 1, 2009. Automatic relicensing was only possible until that date (per the terms of the GFDL 1.3 license). For any images uploaded after August 1, 2009, please use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|migration=redundant}} instead (if you want to accomplish the same effect). Or simply choose "Dual license with GFDL and CC-BY-SA" from the license drop-down menu when uploading. Hope that makes sense. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

www.erki.nl

Can you please provide deaplinks to the image or at least the gallery to make your uploads verifiable? A link to the mainpage of a large source is clearly not sufficient. See also COM:EI.--Martin H. (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Gebruikersnaam

Staat verkeerd op File:Leiden - Oude Singel 64.JPG en andere recente uploads. Multichill (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Bedankt, zou nou goed moeten staan! Ik zie trouwens dat we al op 1000 foto's hebben voor WLM :-) Het materiaal wat ik nu heb geupload had ik al een tijdje op de plank liggen. Morgen zal ik een nieuw fotorondje maken. Rudolphous (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos in the Hague

Hi Rudolphous, I am currently trying to find someone in The Hague who can help me with some photos as outlined at en:User:Russavia/Required_photos#.C2.A0Netherlands. As it appears you are in The Hague, would there be any possibility of you helping with sourcing these photos? Any help appreciated. Cheers, --russavia (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Russavia, I'm not living in The Hague, but was there today for the project "Wiki Loves Monuments". I made today 300 pictures, but not this ones. Next time I will try to make those pictures for you. Rudolphous (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Stepped Gables

Hey, ik heb de category Stepped Gable vandaag laten deleten omdat het een misspelling van Category:Stepped gables is en een redirect dus niet op zijn plaats is. Maar waar ik eigenlijk dit bericht om schrijf is omdat ik vind dat die categorie best groot is. Iemand heeft wel een subcategory voor Zwitserland gemaakt, maar eigenlijk vallen ze bijna allemaal in de nu afwezige subcategorie voor Nederland. Er zijn zó veel trapgevels in NL dat er bijna wel een subcategorie per provincie kan worden ingesteld. En de steden Amsterdam en Delft hebben waarschijnlijk zelf ook wel weer genoeg trapgeveltjes. Kan daar een bot voor geschreven worden, of vind jij dit niet zo nodig, of wordt dit veel handwerk? --IIVeaa (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ik vind het wel nuttig, maar te tijdrovend om met de hand te doen. Rudolphous (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments!

	WLM super uploader
	Thanks for uploading already more than 100 photos to Wiki Loves Monuments! Keep going, like this mill at Kinderdijk :) -- Effeietsanders (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Bedankt

Bedankt Rudolphous voor http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kampen_Boven_Nieuwstraat_76.JPG&action=history , ik kwam er zelf even niet uit. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

graag gedaan. Rudolphous (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Haarlem - Molen de Adriaan.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A bit dark, but good.--Jebulon 09:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Fix

Dank je wel voor de fix op de Frankendaelfoto's, knippen en plakken;-) Ilonamay (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished

Dear Rudolphous, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help. You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 00:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Attend the award ceremony of the Dutch Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

Dear Rudolphous, We've already thanked you for your contribution to the Wiki Loves monuments photo contest. But with a contest, there are prizes to win! The award ceremony will be held in Utrecht on Saturday the 5th of November, at the end of the Dutch Wikimedia Conference at Media Plaza, held the same day. Media Plaza is located next to the Central Station in Utrecht, in the middle of the shopping mall. Admittance is free from 3pm onwards, just in time to catch the last few presentations at the WCN. Off course you can join us for the full day conference as well and enjoy a day full of information on wiki's and cultural heritage. After the ceremony, our location sponsor generously offers a free drink to everyone! Remember: in order to make a chance to win, you need a confirmed e-mail address added to your Commons settings. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team and the Dutch Wikimedia Conference team

Sent by Lucia Bot^talk in 23:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Foto van Keizersgracht 453

foto met die naam is eigenlijk van Kgr 143. Zou je het onder de naam Kgr 453 willen verwijderen en re-uploaden als Kgr 143? Ik heb beide artikelen (Kgr 453, Kgr 143) aangemaakt (op 143 woonde ik, op 453 een vriend van mij) dus ik zie hoe de verwarring er kwam. 170.35.208.22 15:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments NL

Beste Rudolphous,

Alle winnende foto's van Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 zijn ondertussen gedrukt als kalenders.

Wikimedia Nederland stelt er hier 100 van beschikbaar voor alle uploaders van de afbeeldingen. Geef op de bijgevoegde link je naam en adres en we sturen je kosteloos een exemplaar toe, als dank voor je deelname! Let op: op = op!! Bestel hier één kalender per adres.

Ook dit jaar zal er in september weer een Nederlandse Wiki Loves Monuments plaatsvinden, als onderdeel van de internationale wedstrijd. Meer informatie vind je tegen die tijd op http://www.wikilovesmonuments.nl/.
Ook zoeken wij nog vrijwilligers die het leuk vinden om mee te helpen met het organiseren van de landelijke wedstrijd of van locale evenementen (een "Wiki takes..." in je eigen woonplaats dus!). Meer informatie daarover vind je op de wiki van Wikimedia Nederland.

Sent by Lucia Bot^talk in 15:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Uitzoeken monumenten

Hoi, ik zie af en toe wat onnodig fout gaan bij het uitzoeken van de mogelijke rijksmonumenten. Je hebt er een aantal als 'geen rijksmonument' geklassificeerd, terwijl ik zeker weet of sterk vermoed dat het wel rijksmonumenten zijn. Misschien is het een idee om ze in ieder geval niet als 'geen rijksmonument' in te delen als je het gebouw niet met enige zekerheid geidentificeerd hebt? Dan kan er later altijd nog iemand langskomen die het gebouw wél herkent. Soms zijn de adressen die de RCE erbij gezet heeft, ook onbetrouwbaar, dus als je ze niet meteen onder dat adres vindt, betekent dat niet automatisch dat het geen rijksmonumenten zijn. Groet, Pbech (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoi Pbech, ik controleer de foto's a.d.h.v. de adressen op de Nederlandse Wikipedia. Hierbij doorzoek ik de lijst meerdere malen. Bij molens raadpleeg ik ook de molendatabase. Bij kerken de reliwiki. Van een aantal foto's heb ik geconstateerd dat het geen rijksmonumenten maar gemeentelijke monumenten waren. Ook zijn sommige foto's ex-rijksmonumenten. Heb je een concreet voorbeeld waarbij ik deze foto onterecht als geen rijksmonument heb geklassificeerd? Rudolphous Rudolphous (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ik zie dat je hier een terechte correctie van geen naar wel rijksmonument hebt doorgevoerd [1]. Dit object heb ik tevergeefs gezocht in de lijst van Amstelveen. Dit object is van wel naar geen [2] rijksmonument gegaan. Verder is er wat onduidelijkheid over een serie foto's waarvan onduidelijk is of dit nu wel of geen molen "Westuit nr. 7" is. Bedankt voor je correcties. Rudolphous (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm delighted to see you are breaking up the large monuments categories, but please use English in the category names, and also add categories for the particular things in the sub-category. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You can change it easily yourself, this is a wiki. Rudolphous (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually there doesn't seem to be a process on Commons for renaming categories that I have ever found. And that isn't really the point is it? I have added further categories, but I don't propose to follow you around correcting your edits to adhere to basic Commons principles. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Is there a reason you changed this [3] back to the wrong ID number? I corrected it again. Please, compare the image with those in the category. --VanBuren (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting it back. Shouldn't we update the address of this photograph? Rudolphous (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Address Oude Delft 118 for Hippolytus Kapel is correct. I changed that earlier. --VanBuren (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Different issue: this [4] on the address Phoenixstraat 42. You marked this as not being a monument. That is not correct. It is part of this monument (number 12029 ): [5]. It is just the back of the property. It was the first one of your recent changes I checked. Could you possibly slow down your bot action and make sure you don't make anymore mistakes? Thank you. (See also: [6].) --VanBuren (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi VanBuren, this edit was done by myself. I couldn't find this building on [7] or other Delft lists. There are more buildings of Phoenixstraat, and I will recheck them all. Rudolphous (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it. Die Lijst_van_rijksmonumenten_in_Delft is niet perfect :(. --VanBuren (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Zou je hier eens naar kunnen kijken: [8]. Multichill komt er ook niet uit. Misschien ken jij die kerken van de binnenkant? Het is leuk puzzelen, maar kost wel veel tijd :). --VanBuren (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Het gaat om deze foto [9] van Dukker, G.J. uit 1969. Het blijkt een serie te zijn: [10], [11], [12]. Deze foto is uit 1974 en hoort niet meer bij de serie: [13] maar is wel van dezelfde fotograaf waarbij wordt gesproken over een kerk aan de voorstraat die gesloopt zou worden. Ik vermoed dat Gerard Drukker het beschikbaar stellen van deze "bijna sloopfoto" nog een aantal oudere foto's uit zijn voorraad heeft beschikbaar heeft gesteld aan het RCE. Dit lijkt te kloppen met [14] en [15]. Het betreft dus de "St. Hippolytus" aan de "Voorstraat Oostzijde" en niet deze [16] ("Sint-Hippolytuskapel" aan de "Oude Delft 118") ik zal dit aanpassen. Rudolphous (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Hoi Rudolphous, een vraag n.a.v. deze bewerking: ik zou zeggen dat het toevoegen van de cat Rijksmonumenten weinig meerwaarde heeft als - zoals hier - het object al is geplaatst in een eigen cat die (ook) al onder de lokale rm'n hangt, maar wellicht heb je er een bedoeling mee? Groet, Wutsje 02:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Laat maar, gefixt. Ik heb inmiddels nav je bewerkingen in de cat Der Aa-kerk geconcludeerd dat je je waarschijnlijk gewoon vergist had. Groet, Wutsje 03:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hoi Wutsje, deze bewerking was geen vergissing. Integenstelling tot de categorieën plaats ik rijksmonumentnummers niet alleen ophoog categorie maar ook op de foto's binnen de categorie. De foto verdwijnt dan uit deze lijst: [17]. Deze aanpak wordt ook gevuld door Basvb, Multichill, Akoopal en andere personen die zich veel met rijksmonumenten bezighouden. Het voordeel is dat elke foto een link bevat naar het rce meer meer informatie hetgeen handig is voor degene die de foto bekijkt. Met vriendelijke groeten, Rudolphous (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dus ik heb het allemaal fout gedaan, tot nu toe? Want ik zie nu al mijn werk ongedaan gemaakt worden, bijvoorbeeld met bewerkingen als deze. Ik probeer al heel lang alle Groningen city-cats overzichtelijk te houden en dat de hoofdcat onlangs is volgegooid met al die RCE-foto's was ik dus al niet zo blij mij - en nu is komt er wéér zo'n nodeloos overvolle cat bij: die van de rijksmonumenten in Groningen city, die ik nou net omwille van de overzichtelijkheid met zoveel mogelijk subcats trachtte te ordenen. De foto verdwijnt ook uit de possible lijst door die op te nemen in een van de subcats die onder de rijksmonumenten in Gn-city hangen. Mijn idee was: ik probeer ze zo goed mogelijk onder te brengen in subcats, zodat de bots dan later alleen nog het rce-nummer hoeven toe te voegen. Nu worden ze doodleuk allemaal toch ook weer bij elkaar geflikkerd, waardoor de rm in gn-city-cat gewoon onbruikbaar dreigt te worden. Als jullie liever hebben dat ik me niet meer met het uitzoeken van de afbeeldingen van Groningen bezighoud, dan hoor ik dat graag. Ik heb nu het idee dat ik de hele afgelopen week voor niets bezig ben geweest. Groet, Wutsje 22:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(na BWC) Hallo Wutsje, Het rijksmonument sjabloon toont een nummertje met link. Mijn uitleg hierboven ging met name over het gebruik van dit sjabloon op de categorie pagina en op de foto's binnen deze categorie. Je bewerking de je nu laat zien gaat over een categorie bewerking en niet over een het sjabloon Rijksmonument. Qua categorieën en het minimaliseren van het aantal foto's hierbinnen zijn we het eens. Ik vind de botbewerking die je laat zien niet helemaal juist. De bot heeft de categorie nu iets preciezer gemaakt (van rijksmonument naar rijksmonument in Groningen (City), maar ik hoop dat deze uiteindelijk tot de conclusie komt dat de categorie gewoon weg zou kunnen. Met vriendelijke groeten, Rudolphous (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Als toevoeging op je tweede deel van je reactie. Ik ben blij met je nauwkeurige werk. Ik heb gezien dat je veel tijd aan het structureren van Groningen hebt besteed. Ik weet niet precies hoe de bot werkt die nu aan de slag is. Ik denk dat we dit even moeten afwachten. Misschien kan Multichill een reactie geven als hij dit leest. Volgens mij berust dit allemaal op een misverstand. Het gaat dus het plaatsen van een foto in een cat en een subcat. Rudolphous (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Gelukkig, begrijpen we elkaar toch, dit was inderdaad een misverstand, mijn verontschuldigingen dat ik wellicht wat te pinnig reageerde, maar ik schrok echt even. Hoe dan ook, ik zal er voor zorgen dat uiteindelijk iedere RCE-foto van de stad Groningen in de juiste cat(s) terecht komt, ook wat betreft de straten en voor zover bekend de architecten (met nl:wiki ben ik voorlopig toch wel even klaar, ik kan er de tijd voor nemen), zodat waar dat nog niet is gebeurd zo nodig alleen nog het rm-nummer hoeft te worden toegevoegd. Ik heb al wel gezien dat er nog een paar flinke puzzels tussen zitten, maar daar zijn wel liefhebbers voor, die ik zo nodig zal inschakelen. Groet, Wutsje 02:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oke, geen probleem. Bedankt voor je al je hulp. Ik snap je irritatie wel, ook gezien de recente ontwikkelingen. Over de puzzels: sommige puzzels zijn makkelijker op te lossen door goed naar de foto id's te kijken en door te klikken naar het RCE. Als je bij het foto id 1 optelt of 1 aftrekt krijg je soms een foto van precies dezelfde fotograaf + precies dezelfde datum datum en dus zeer waarschijnlijk hetzelfde gebouw waarop e.a. makkelijker te herkennen is. Rudolphous (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Wutsje, daar ben ik weer. Ik heb even met multichill gesproken. Zijn bot schuift foto's van de hoofcategorie (rijksmonumenten) door naar subcategorien (rijksmonumenten per plaats). Zijn bot kan de foto niet gelijk in de goede subcategorie indelen. Ik denk dat ik wel iets kan scripten dat er voor zorgt dat een foto niet in zowel een categorie als subcategorie zit, misschien later meer nieuws. Rudolphous (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

St. Bavo Haarlem

Beste Rudolphous, op 5 januari heb jij met je bot foto's van de Grote Kerk van Haarlem geplaatst in de categorie die bestemd is voor foto's van de katholieke St. Bavokathedraal in dezelfde stad. Ik heb een paar foto's handmatig weer in de goede categorie geplaatst, maar er is eigenlijk geen beginnen aan. Wil jij dit verder oplossen? Met vriendelijke groet, Archimon (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Het gaat om deze cat van de catedraal [18] en deze cat van de grote kerk [19]. Ik zal er naar kijken. Rudolphous (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ik zie de volgende series van foto's: 20098584 t/m 20098698 -> grote kerk. 20098413 t/m 20098427 -> catehedraal. Rudolphous (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Klaar. Kan je controleren of het zo goed is? Rudolphous (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Bedankt! Alleen de twee stereofoto's staan nog verkeerd. Archimon (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Oke, deze zijn nu ook verplaatst. Met vriendelijke groeten, Rudolphous (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Woonplaats versus buurschap

Dag Rudolphous, ik ben eerlijk gezegd niet heel blij als je mijn zorgvuldige uitsplitsing naar buurschappen voor Hof van Twente weer ongedaan maakt, i.c. foto's uit de categorie Rijksmonumenten in Hof van Twente overhevelt naar Rijksmonumenten in Markelo. Dat het RCE van de woonplaats wenst uit te gaan is hun zaak, maar niet erg handig voor diegenen die een pand willen terugvinden, zeker nu Markelo geen gemeente meer is. Met vriendelijke groet, Notum-sit (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Novum-sit, Ik snap je punt niet helemaal. Veel gemeentecats zijn erg vol en ik schuif de foto's dan door naar woonplaats categorieën. Ik zie dat je bij Markelo een aantal foto's weer terug in de gemeente cat hebt geplaatst. Kennelijk liggen deze objecten niet in Markelo zelf maar in een kleiner nabij gelegen buurtschap. Begrijp ik dat goed? Rudolphous (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dat klopt dus, zoals je ook in de nl:Lijst van rijksmonumenten in Hof van Twente kunt zien. Overigens was de Hof van Twente-cat alleen gevuld met een paar foto's uit Stokkum, Wiene en Woolde waarvan een groot deel ook nog eens abusievelijk in de categorie rijksmonumenten in Delden werd geplaatst. Ik hoop niet dat je afgaat op bestandsnamen, want daar klopt geregeld niets van. Groet, Notum-sit (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Valkenburg

De Category:Rijksmonumenten in Valkenburg heb ik juist met alle moeite proberen leeg te houden, er is immers ook een Valkenburg in Zuid-Holland en Gelderland. Basvb (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Zie bijvoorbeeld File:Dorpsgezicht - Valkenburg - 20379815 - RCE.jpg File:KoestalVENTILATIE L 7619 - Valkenburg - 20489018 - RCE.jpg File:Zijgevel nr. PQ 2 - Valkenburg - 20483222 - RCE.jpg en File:KOESTELinterieur L 7620 - Valkenburg - 20489019 - RCE.jpg

Zal ik hem hernoemen naar Valkenburg, Limburg?

Oke, prima. Ik wil het ook wel doen als je wilt. Rudolphous (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is het niet beter om sommige pagina's aan te maken met een ambigu of see also sjabloon? Zodat meteen duidelijk is dat in deze categorie geen foto's geplaatst moeten worden. Rudolphous (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Dat kan ja. Zie bijvoorbeeld nu de categorie Category:Valkenburg. Voor de rijksmonumenten categories lijkt me dat een beetje overdreven. Een aantal categorieën die in rijksmonumenten categories to be classified staan zijn dergelijke disambigue plaatsen, daarnaast kijk ik altijd op nl-wiki of de lijst een deel tussen haakjes heeft, als dat zo is is het even oppassen. Daarnaast zijn er ook categorieën die gewoon structureel gek zijn. Zo is Category:Bergen gekaapt door de Noren terwijl er ook 2 plaatsen bergen in Nederland zijn (en nog redelijk groot ook) Basvb (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

De Olifant

Ik had juist eerst gekeken naar de data van de foto's en ook naar de nummering van foto's. Daaraan kan je zien dat ze uit twee verschillende perioden zijn. Op de foto's van de laatste periode kan je op de achtergrond de molen aan de Kromme Zandweg nog zien. Maar die ontbreekt echt nog op de plaatjes rond 1960. Toe fietste ik nog langs De Olifant in Nieuwesluis. Kan je de verplaatsing weer terugdraaien? --Stunteltje (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Kan jij naar de monumentid's kijken? Want nu hebben we twee cats met hetzelfde id. Rudolphous (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Met mijn dank voor de snelle reactie. Maar daarna treed ik even terug en laat het aan een deskundige over. Het is hetzelfde pand, maar afgebroken en elders weer opgebouwd. Hoe je daar mee omgaat zou ik dus niet weten. Het zou daarmee goed kunnen dat het monumentid alleen geldt voor de jongste lokatie. Dan moet die er gewoon af bij de oude. Houd je niet in als dat zo is. Er stonden nog twee bestanden verkeerd, als je naar de data en nummering kijkt. Ik hab dat maar aangepast. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Adventkerk, Aerdenhout

Hoi Rudolphous, beetje slordige hernoeming zo. Het is de bedoeling dat je er {{Move}} op plakt en dan wacht. Niet alles verplaatsen en dan als mosterd na de maaltijd er nog {{Move}} op plakken ;-) Plak er dan gewoon meteen {{Category redirect}} op. Ik zie de naam met en zonder S in omloop. Mij is het om het even, maar als je hernoemd dan moet je denk ik ook de beschrijving aanpassen en het artikel op nlwp hernoemen zodat het consistent blijft. Multichill (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Multichill, dat van die Category redirect wist ik niet. Zo leer je elke dag weer wat. Ik zal het voortaan zo oplossen. Ik heb de artikelen teruggeschoven naar de versie zonder s, conform nlwiki. Inmiddels heb ik alle kerken in Bloemendaal en Haarlem onder handen genomen. Ook de nodige rijksmonumenten eigen mappen geplaatst. Mocht je nog andere opmerkingen of tips hebben dan hoor ik het graag. Met vriendelijke groeten, Rudolphous (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Zojuist ook de omschrijvingen van de foto's zonder s aangepast en nog een id geplaatst. Rudolphous (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, goed bezig! Ik herkende er nog een paar dus die heb ik ook gedaan. Tijd niet mee bezig geweest. Keek net in Category:Rijksmonumenten en daar stonden meer dan 3600 foto's in! Bot heeft blijkbaar al een hele tijd niet gedraaid. Vreemd.... Multichill (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Waterveen, Hervormde kerk

Rudolphus,

Er zit een spelfout in de category Hervormde kerk Waterveen, het dorp heet Waverveen

Groeten

Rob K. aka pa3ems - erfgoedfotografie 05:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Rob, de spelfout is hersteld. Met vriendelijke groeten, Rudolphous (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Anjelierstraat, Amsterdam of Anjeliersstraat

Hallo Rudolphous, ik zie dat je een aantal files hebt verplaatst van cat. Anjeliersstraat naar cat. Anjelierstraat, Amsterdam. Volgens Google Maps echter en volgens de straatnaambordjes ter plekke heet de straat "Anjeliersstraat", met dubbele"s" dus. Zie je hierover je licht nog eens willen laten schijnen?

groetjes, Mark Ahsmann (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ik heb even in de BAG gekeken en daar staat het gespeld met dubbel s, oftewel Anjeliersstraat. Pompidom (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Inmiddels gecorrigeerd. Rudolphous (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hoi Rudolphous, ik zie dat je de categorie "Anjelierstraat, Amsterdam" weer in ere hebt hersteld. Mij persoonlijk is het om het even maar het blijft een incorrecte categorienaam. Zou je hierover je licht nog eens willen laten schijnen? Groetjes, Mark Ahsmann (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Het zou nu weer goed moeten zijn. Rudolphous (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Waarvoor dank! Maar nog iets anders: Amstelzijde en de bestanden in die categorie liggen toch echt in de gemeente Amstelveen, meer bepaald in Ouderkerk a/d Amstel. Zou je hier ook nog even je licht willen laten schijnen? Groet, Mark Ahsmann (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hoi Mark, als je zeker van je zaak bent mag je het van mij ook aanpassen. Ik kwam tegenstrijdige informatie tegen van het RCE. Sommige foto's hadden als categorie Amsterdam en andere foto's Amstelveen. Rudolphous (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha Rudolphous, ja ik ben zeker, heb er een tijdje op zitten puzzelen. De files die Amstelveen heten en gecat zijn zijn door mij gevraagd te moven. Ik zal er vannacht even naar kijken. Mark Ahsmann (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Amsterdam

Beste Rudolphous, natuurlijk is er een Jordaan in Amsterdam, maar daar werd Jezus echt niet gedoopt ;-), Dus deze wijziging heb ik teruggedraaid. De kadeschool staat in Gouda, weliswaar gebouwd in de stijl van de Amsterdamse school, maar hoort nmm niet in de categorie Amsterdam. Hetzelfde geldt hier en hier voor. Bij deze laatste draaide ik de wijzging al eerder terug maar jij plaatste dit Gouds schoolgebouw toch weer opnieuw in de categorie Amsterdam. Het lijkt mij niet de bedoeling om alle gebouwen buiten Amsterdam, die in de stijl van de Amsterdamse school zijn gebouwd, tot Amsterdam te gaan rekenen. Vandaar dat ik nu maar even hier reageer. Met vr. groet, Gouwenaar (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Eens met je correcties. Bedankt voor je bericht. Rudolphous (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Nog eentje : File:Baptized in the Jordan River.JPG was ingedeeld bij <2012 in Amsterdam> ... --Paulbe (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Stramproy

Rudolphus,

De naam van deze door u aangemaakte categorie is fout Category:Molen van Nijs, Stamproy, het moet zijn Stramproy met een r. Rob K. aka pa3ems - erfgoedfotografie 19:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Kerk in Wanneperveen

Rudolphus,

Wij maakten tegelijkertijd een category aan voor de kerk in Wanneperveen. Nu staan er 2 cats. Eigenlijk is die kerk geen Nederlands Hervormde kerk maar een Protestantse kerk. Maar ik stel voor de lege category (i.c. Protestantse kerk (Wanneperveen) gewoon dmv speedy delete te verwijderen, er hoeft voor mij geen discussie over te worden gevoerd. Groeten vanuit Emmeloord Rob K. aka pa3ems - erfgoedfotografie 17:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Rob, bedankt voor je vriendelijke bericht. Ik heb de category gemarkeerd als speedydelete. Er is aardig wat werk verzet qua kerken foto's de laatste tijd, waarvoor dank. Gelukkig is er ook nog wat werk over om te doen. :-). Met vriendelijke groeten, Rudolphous (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Heilig Hartkerk (De Zilk) 007.jpg

Beste Rudolphous. Bij alle afbeeldingen van deze kerk (die ik voorzien had van de categorie) had je de categorie 'Gemeentelijke monumenten in Noordwijkerhout' verwijderd. Nu lijkt mij dat dit gewoon goed is. Bij bovenstaand bestand heb ik het teruggedraaid. Mocht je een duidelijke (lees: goede) reden hebben, dan hoor ik het graag. Mocht dat niet zo zijn, dan graag de categorie weer terugzetten bij de andere afbeeldingen. Met vriendelijke groet. - Richardkw (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Richardkw, ik heb deze categorie verwijderd, omdat de ouder category reeds voorzien is van deze categorie. Nog bedankt voor het aanvragen van diverse gemeente lijsten in de bollenstreek. Met vriendelijke groet, Rudolphous (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Rudolphous. Ik snap het niet helemaal, bedoel je soms een verborgen categorie? p.s. Ok, ja is wel leuk om die lijsten te doen. Kan helaas niet alle foto's maken, misschien wel van gemeente Katwijk, of dat weet ik haast wel zeker dat ik die af ga maken (m.u.v. Vliegkamp), ik hoop dat het nog in september lukt, maar anders komt het nog wel in okt/nov :). M.v.g. - Richardkw (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wat ik bedoel is de Category:Heilig_Hartkerk_(De_Zilk) tot de categorie "Gemeentelijke monumenten in Noordwijkerhout" behoort. Hiermee zijn alle foto's in deze categorie impliciet ook gemeentelijk monument. Om bovenstaande foto dan ook in deze categorie te plaatsen is mijn inziens overbodig. Met vriendelijke groet,

Rudolphous (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Augustijnenkerk en hof Dordrecht

Hallo Rudolphous,

Bij deze had je wat foutgedaan bij de botrun. Je hebt verscheidene afbeeldingen van het hof bij de kerk laten belanden (kwam doordat ze n.h. augustijnenkerk: hadden staan). Maar daarnaast heb je afbeeldingen van de kerk het verkeerde nummer gegeven. Zou je in Category:Augustijnenkerk, Dordrecht kunnen kijken welke afbeeldingen nog het foutieve nummer 13433 hebben. En of die afbeeldingen dan onderdeel zijn van het hof (met 10 verschillende nummers dus dat blijft ingewikkeld) of van de kerk, waarbij nummer 13885 correct is.

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Bijna alles heeft het verkeerde nummer, sommige zijn wel correct maar die heb ik als het goed is verplaatst (1 uitzondering die in beide cats zit). Volgens mij moet

python replace.py -lang:commons -family:commons -namespace:6 -cat:Augustijnenkerk,_Dordrecht -summary:"Fix Rijksmonument identifier for Augustijnenkerk, Dordrecht" -regex -dotall "\{\{Rijksmonument\|13433\}\}" "{{Rijksmonument|13885}}"

even gerund worden. Maar mijn pywikipedia werkt om de een of andere reden niet (geeft errors). Basvb (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hoi Bas, bij mij werkte pywikipedia ook niet (receive incomplex xml), maar deze heb ik weer werkend gemaakt door onder debug te draaien. Dus het plaatsen van optie -debug na de replace.py. Het commando loopt nu. Rudolphous (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ander foutje

Heey Rudolphous,

Zie deze, ging iets fout met de templates, heb al het vergelijkbare gefixt (voornamelijk van anderen), maar weet niet of dit er eentje toevallig met de hand (dan is er verder niets aan de hand) was of iets automatisch.

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hoi bas, deze bewerking heb ik handmatig gedaan door de knop in te drukken en het rijksmonumentnummer in te vullen. Rudolphous (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Saint John the Baptist Church (Gassel)

Hello, in Category:Saint John the Baptist Church (Gassel) several items have the wrong RM number 424830. Can you correct these? Havang(nl) (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hoi Havang, ik zal er morgen even naar kijken. Rudolphous (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ik kom af en toe andere verkeerde nummers tegen, zijn dat verouderde nummers? --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Havang, het object hierboven is aangepast. Dat was inderdaad een oud nummer dat later is overgegaan in meerdere nieuwe rijksmonumentnummers. Rudolphous (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Opstandingskerk (Arnhem)

Beste Rudolphous,

Ik zie dat je de Opstandingskerk in Arnhem in de categorie voor rijksmonumenten hebt gezet. Echter, in het monumentenregister kan ik deze kerk niet zo 123 terug vinden. Weet jij het monumentennummer? --Vera (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Vera, dat het een rijksmonument is heb ik van reliwiki.nl overgenomen zie ook hier. Het monumentnummer kan ik ook niet zo snel vinden. Rudolphous (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

De kerk maakt deel uit van een serie van naoorlogse monumenten die aangewezen zijn als rijksmonumenten. (zie hier Of het ook al daadwerkelijk doorgevoerd is, weet ik ook niet, aangezien ik bij het RCE ook geen nummer kan vinden. Pompidom (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ja ik zag het net ook, zie hier overzicht. Rudolphous (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Noorderwijk

Hé Rudolphous, ik zag dat je Category:Noorderwijk (Assen) hebt aangemaakt. Ik ben benieuwd waar je die naam aan ontleend hebt. Bij mijn weten is het altijd 'Noorderbegraafplaats' geweest. Gr. Ronn (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Fantail wheels in the Netherlands

Hi Rudolphous.

before I will fill this category with hundreds of images (therefore I split it in provinces from the very beginning) I ask you if this is the correct translation of Kruirad hartelijk groeten --anro (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anro, Rudolphous asked me to look at this. And unfortunately no, this is not the correct translation. A fantail is the term for automatic winding as is common in the UK, but certainly is the incorrect term for a 'kruirad'. I unfortunately doesn't know a better english term, I then have to make something up which is not wanted either. I would just go for the dutch term.

Another remark is that the splitting into provinces is over the top here. There are not really regional differences that warrant splitting, and size really shouldn't be a motivation. There is no harm in having a category with for example 1000 pictures. Splitting it makes you click around to much if you want anything. Feel free to just reply here, I have this talkpage on my watchlist. Akoopal (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Akoopal & Rudolphous. The category is now renamed in Kruirad in the Netherlands --anro (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Beursstraat 37, Vlissingen

Hey Rudolphous,

Ik kwam deze cat van jouw hand tegen, maar dit is geen rm volgens de RCE website. Het rm nummer verwijst naar Beursstraat 49 in Vlissingen. Voordat ik echter alle afbeeldingen ga corrigeren even de vraag of dit een foutje was, of dat er ter plaatse misschien een reden is dat je dit gebouw toch als rm bestempeld.

Vriendelijke groet, Ciell (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hoi Ciel, ik heb de rijksmonumentnummers verwijderd van de foto's in deze categorie. Deze nummers waren trouwens niet door mij maar door het RCE toegevoegd. Rudolphous (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Ik zag dat jij de categorie met het rm nummer had aangemaakt, vandaar. Bedankt! Ciell (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Pentruskerk

Dear Rudolphous, Great photographs & good categorization. Small mistake: Category:Sint-Pentruskerk, Leiden should be: Category:Sint-Petruskerk, Leiden . I don't know how to change things like this. Do you? best, Vysotsky (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, problem fixed. Rudolphous (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Vreewijk

Beste Rudolphous, Is Category:Huize Vreewijk, Leiden dezelfde als Category:Huis Vreewijk (Leiden) ? Vysotsky (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Faris al sultan ironman hawaii 2005.jpg

File:Faris al sultan ironman hawaii 2005.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!

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hofje van Nieuwkerk -> Hofje van Nieuwkoop

Beste Rudolphous, op 12 jan 2013, 17:52u‎ creëerde jij een nieuwe categorie, Category:Hofje van Nieuwkerk. (←Created page with 'Rijksmonument|18080 Category:Courtyards (hofjes) in The Hague Category:Rijksmonumenten in The Hague') De categorie Hofje van Nieuwkerk bevat inmiddels 68 bestanden. Echter, de naam: Hofje van Nieuwkerk is incorrect, de juiste naam is: Hofje van Nieuwkoop. Ik kan nu wel voorstellen de categorie te hernoemen naar de juiste naam, maar dan verhuizen die 68 bestanden niet mee. Deze allemaal overzetten is een klus die aardig wat tijd in beslag neemt. Maar anderzijds lijkt mij het niet hernoemen van de categorie ook geen optie. Ik ben wat minder lang actief op Commons Wikimedia en hoop dat jij misschien een beter oplossing hebt. Is er misschien een (script) dat kan helpen om de 68 bestanden automatisch te hernoemen ? Met vr. groet, --OSeveno (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Opgelost, bedankt voor het melden. Voor mij was dit 2 minuten werk. 15:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Woelwijk

Beste Rudophous, Huizennamen behoren niet tot mijn expertise, maar bij File:Woelwijk", voorgevel - Voorschoten - 20246394 - RCE.jpg is toch echt boven de voordeur op de dakrand het woord "Woelwijk" te lezen. Huisnummer lijkt ook met een 4 te beginnen. Is dit een ander Woelwijk? Vysotsky (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Vysotsky, ik heb deze naam verwijderd omdat de foto fout gecategoriseerd was. Het was gecategoriseerd in [20] hetgeen aan de Woelwijklaan 11 en niet aan de Veurseweg 42. Ik zal de naam terugplaatsen. Rudolphous (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:20090818 Olympisch Stadion Berlijn.JPG

Yours sincerely, LGA _talk^edits 22:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Katholieke kerk in Loenen

Hallo Rudolphous, ik heb bij Category:Roman Catholic Church (Loenen) de rijksmonumentencategorie verwijderd, omdat alleen de toren van die kerk de rm-status heeft; de kerk als geheel is een gemeentelijk monument. Toch rees er naderhand enige twijfel. Het komt wel vaker voor dat bij een kerk de toren van de rest wordt onderscheiden (met een monumentenstatus); kan het zijn dat daar op Commons een bepaald beleid voor is? Mocht mijn ingreep daarvan afwijken, pas de categorisatie dan gerust aan naar wat jij denkt dat juist is. Groet, Apdency (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Apdency, Ik kan me vinden in je wijziging, voorzover ik weet is hier geen beleid over. Rudolphous (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Dank voor je antwoord. Dan houden we het maar zo. Apdency (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Waalbandijk 68, Druten

Hello Rudolphous, it looks that we are currently working on the same category :O) Sometimes this must happen. Do you want to complete it? Or should I do it? I saw that I created another category " Waaldijk 68, Afferden" by mistake. The files have to be moved to " Waalbandijk 68, Druten" or " Waalbandijk 68, Afferden" too. Kind regards Bardenoki (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bardenoki, I fixed this problem. We are doing great work. Rudolphous (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rudolphus, thanks for fixing the problem and the compliments. But there is a lot of work to do. These old pictures are such a great treasure. Bardenoki (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Grafheuvels Bennekom

Hallo Rudolphous,

Superwerk met het het aanmaken van de vele monumentcategoriëen! Ik zag dat je Category:1e grafheuvel Bennekom en Category:2e grafheuvel Bennekom had aangemaakt. Die namen lijken me niet zo heel handig. De benoeming 1e en 2e in mijn foto's heeft volgens mij geen grondslag anders dan dat ik de 1e grafheuvel bezocht voordat ik de 2e bezocht. Misschien dat we een andere naam moeten overwegen, of grafheuvels gewoon per gemeente/plaats bij elkaar in een cat moeten stoppen?

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha Basvb, Long time no speak ;-) Bedankt voor het compliment. Ik heb de cat een iets betere naam gegeven. Een cat per gemeente is handig als er veel grafheuvels in een gemeente liggen, of dat het geval ergens is weet ik nog niet. groeten, Rudolphous (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Er zijn aardig wat gemeentes met enkele tientallen grafheuvels, punt is dat deze nooit allemaal gefotografeerd zullen worden (want niet te vinden). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Geertruidkerk

Rudolphus,

U heeft het jaartal van de Geertruidkerk gewijzigd in een jaartal tot 1944. Er staan echter twee kerken door elkaar zie ik nu. Ik stel voor dat ik de categorie aanmaak voormalige Geertruidkerk en de foto's splits. Er staan trouwens mooie foto's van de oude kerk die in 1944 verloren ging :-) die had ik nog niet ontdekt.

Groeten, Rob --Rob K. aka pa3ems - erfgoedfotografie 07:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Lutherse_Kerk,_'s_Hertogenbosch

Lutherse Kerk, 's Hertogenbosch 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!

Rosemoon (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Kerk Ten Boer

Rudolphus,

U heeft deze afbeelding Overzicht noordwestgevel met dakruiter - Ten Boer - 20364889 - RCE.jpg verplaatst naar de gereformeerde kerk in Thesinge. Het betreft echter toch wel degelijk de gereformeerde kerk in Ten Boer. Dat is geen rijksmonument en dateert uit 1896 en staat aan de Wigboldstraat 3, de gegevens die ik vermeld had zijn die van de kerk van Ten Boer. Dus ik stel voor verwijderingsverzoek weer te verwijderen dan zal ik de gegevens corrigeren.

Groeten, en alvast de beste wensen voor 2015 Rob

• --Rob K. aka pa3ems - erfgoedfotografie 07:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Rob, bedankt voor uw bericht. Beide foto's waren voorzien van hetzelfde rijksmonumentnummer en de kerken lijken op elkaar vandaar de verwarring. De categorie was inmiddels verwijderd, maar door mij weer aangemaakt. Ook de groeten en de beste wensen voor 2015, Rudolphous (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

GM template

Hey Rudolphous,

Ik zie dat je al heel wat foto's van Amsterdamse GM's hebt opgespoort. Als je er een vind, wil je ze dan ook markeren met het {{Gemeentelijk monument}} template? Ik heb een scriptje gemaakt wat dit deels automatiseerd door je een input veld te geven voor het monumentennummer. --Vera ^(talk) 12:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Stained glass windows in Gouda

Hallo Rudolphous, ben jij het die de goudse st janskerk ramen elk apart heeft gezet in de Category:Stained glass windows in Gouda? Alle ramen staan al in de Category:Stained glass windows in the Grote of Sint - Janskerk (Gouda)}. Deze hoofdcategory staat al in de category stained glass windows in Gouda. Ik hoop dat je begrijpt dat ik daarom de aparte categorisering aan het verwijderen ben. Mvg --Agaath (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Dat is prima. Rudolphous (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Beste Agaath, Jane023 heeft deze ramen per raam gecategoriseerd. Het lijkt me het beste dat te laten staan, we kunnen de ramen dan uit de overkoepelende categorie halen zodat ze alleen nog maar per raam in de categorie staan. Op mijn overlegpagina (op de Nederlandse wiki) heb ik uitgelegd hoe dat verwijderen uit de categorie werkt. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

De ramen dienen per raam gecategorizeerd te worden. Verwijdering van die categorisering zou zeker ongewenst zijn! Jane023 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ik heb gekeken naar de bewerkingen van Agaath bv [21] en kreeg ook de indruk dat hij/zij hiermee bezig was. Rudolphous (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Overleg:Lijst van gemeentelijke monumenten in Alblasserdam

Hallo Rudolphous, ik heb die lijst toen aangemaakt en had contact met iemand van de Historische Vereniging van Alblasserdam. Die zei dat er een update kwam medio 2014 en die heb ik nooit gehad, ook niet na navraag. Dus wat mij betreft gaat de nummering gewoon door, ondanks dat de volgorde dan niet meer op straatnaam is. (p.s. ik kan momenteel niet bewerken daar, dus vandaar hier mijn reactie, maar dat had je waarschijnlijk al begrepen). En of ze echt honderden monumenten daar gaan benoemen dat betwijfel ik, of het wordt een jarenplan... :-) Groeten, - --Richardkw (talk) (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Richardkw, bedankt voor je reactie, ik zal binnenkort de pagina bijwerken. Ik wist trouwens niet dat je geblokkeerd was en heb kennelijk een aantal bedankjes gemist (reeds bijgewerkt). 20:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok dan. Ik reageerde wat bot in die teruggedraaide versie, dat kwam doordat ik dacht dat mijn gebruikersnaam zomaar gewijzigd zou worden, dus heeft niets met jou persoonlijk te maken dat ik zo reageerde. Gelukkig kraakte ik mijn wachtwoord van dit account, maar dan op Wikipedia, maar had dan zo en zo dit account op Commons gehouden en dat was mij niet duidelijk, wat mij even wat stress gaf :).

Jammer dat ik die contactpersoon niet meer spreek, was een soort vriendschap bijna, maar ik hoorde niets meer van degene en bij navraag ook niet. Die weet alles van Alblasserdam bij wijze van spreken. - Richardkw (talk) (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Rijksmonument 25349: File:Leiden - Oude Singel 70 of 70A.JPG

Hi Rudolphous, can you please help me with one of your pictures of Leiden: The picture File:Leiden - Oude Singel 70 of 70A.JPG is marked as rijksmonument 25349 at "Oude Singel 70". I guess that is not correct. For me the description of the monument "Pand met gevel met rechte kroonlijst met consoles. Tentdak door schoorsteen bekroond" describes the house on the other side of the canal, right beside "Oude Singel 68". It is the right house on this picture File:Voorgevel - Leiden - 20136821 - RCE.jpg. Even on Google Earth you can see house number 70. What do you think?

BTW: Thanks for helping to categorize the rijksmonumenten of Leiden. Kind regards Bardenoki (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your great help in categorization of the monuments too. I renamed the photo and placed a different id. Rudolphous (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Bardenoki (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Rijksmonumenten in Maastricht

Hi Rudolpheus, I noticed that you removed "category" Category:Rijksmonument 27363 of Mastricht. That is currently no good idea, because all these "categories" are used in the list of monuments in the Dutch Wikipedia. My idea, also discussed here is to work with them in parallel, then replace the CC links in the monument lists and finally use redirects from the "number categories" (they may be used at other places than the lists). Maybe there is a better approach, but I do not know it. If you like to help: Great idea. Bardenoki (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Oke, good approach. Rudolphous (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Admin worden

Beste Rudolphous,

Ik zag dat je nog geen admin bent op Commons terwijl je toch een van de meest actieve gebruikers hier bent. Ik denk dat je de knopjes wel kan gebruiken en als je wilt kan ik je nomineren. Wat zeg je ervan? Natuur12 (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hoi Natuur12, is goed. Met vriendelijke groeten, Rudolphous (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Fijn :). Ik zal van de week even een nominatietekst voorbereiden. Ik zal hem je eerst laten lezen voordat ik hem plaats. Natuur12 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Is goed. Rudolphous (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ik heb hier een opzetje gemaakt: User:Natuur12/Rudolphous. Als je akkoord bent plaats ik de nominatie. Je kan dan onder mijn motivatie nog een korte eigen motivatie zetten. Het is in ieder geval handig wanneer je eronder zet dat je akkoord gaat met mijn nominatie :). Natuur12 (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Bedankt, ik voeg vanavond een tekst toe. Rudolphous (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Rudolphous (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Na een kleine aanvaring met de hernoemknop staat de pagina nu hier: Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rudolphous. Succes met de verkiezing! Natuur12 (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oke, ben benieuwd. Rudolphous (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

---

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Rudolphous, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin ^webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

odder (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

hey, gefeliciteerd. /neemt een stukje taart 🎂 - Vera ^(talk) 22:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Willkommen im Club! Frohes putzen! :-) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everybody! Rudolphous (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Your Edits

Hi. I was wondering how you manage to make so many edits on commons. Is there a certain tool that you use or category that you look at? Eurodyne (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eurodyne, I use sometimes cat a lot and work most of the time at the Rijksmonumenten categorie. Rudolphous (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Kerk Wijhe

Met deze bewerkingen corrigeerde je terecht het onjuiste rijksmonumentennummer. Het oude nummer verwees naar de kerk van Olst ipv naar de kerk van Wijhe. Het probleem doet zich echter ook voor in 80 van de onderliggende 82 bestanden, waarin ten onrechte het rijksmonumentennummer van de kerk (en kerktoren) van Olst wordt vermeld. Kan dit botmatig gecorrigeerd worden? Met vr. groet, Gouwenaar (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Gouwenaar, ja dat kan zeker botmatig gecorrigeerd worden. Ik heb de scripts niet meer kan en klaar liggen maar een goede rede om hier eens verandering in te brengen. Wordt binnenkort vervolgd. Rudolphous (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Huis Groen van Prinsteren

Beste, In 2013 heb je de Category:Huis Groen van Prinsteren aangemaakt. Echter de naam is niet correct gespeld, het zou moeten zijn: Category:Huis Groen van Prinsterer, dus met een r aan het eind. Het huis werd vernoemd naar haar bewoner wikipedia:Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer.
M. vr. groet, --OSeveno (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Bedankt voor het melden. Het is gewijzigd. Rudolphous (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sarphatipark

Hallo, ik ben in een serie bezig de gemeentemonumenten van de Amsterdam Pijp te beschrijven. Daarin kwam ik tot het gebouw Sarphatipark 1-3/Eerste van der Helststraat 65-67. Daarin wordt op commons gevraagd of dat een rijksmonument is. Nou, geen van de gebouwen aan het Sarphatipark is een rijksmonument. De noordkant is wel bezaaid met gemeentemonumenten. Het enige rijksmonument aldaar is het beeld van Sarphati zelf. Het gemaalhuisje in het park is dan weer gemeentemonument. Alles om het zo simpel mogelijk te houden.Ceescamel (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Voorgevel - Amsterdam - 20020789 - RCE.jpg (Sarphatistraat 5). Dit gebouw bestaat niet meer. Het is gesloopt voor nieuwbouw in 1972. Het o zo mooie kantoor (pff) van de Westland Utrecht Hypotheekbank]] kwam er voor in de plaats. Dat was het gebouw dat doelwit was van de krakersrellen.Ceescamel (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion request on Wikipedia / commons

Sorry. I pretty much picked you at random. My request is that Wikipedia:Arbuthnot baronets be restored so that the coat of arms which used to be there is there again. I think it was called File:Arbuthnot of Kittybrewster baronets (entire).svg. Many thanks. Kittybrewster (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Kittybrewster (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Image:Amsterdam_-_Herengracht_428.jpg

Hallo Rudolphous. We kregen een mail: De foto van Herengracht 426-428 is niet van Herengracht 426 (mogelijk alleen 428). Streetview lijkt dat ook aan te tonen. Indien eens, graag bestandsnaam aanpassen. Dank! Groeten, Monumenten.nl — Preceding unsigned comment added by NationaalRestauratiefonds (talk • contribs) 10:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Rudolphous (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Renaming of File:WLM2011 - Amsterdam - Herengracht 70.JPG

Hi Rudolphous, can you please take a look to your own picture in the headline? I'm sure that this is Herengracht 68. This building file:Amsterdam - Herengracht 72 en 70.JPG is number 70/72. I requested to rename the file but that was rejected by ‎Davey2010, for what reason ever ... Can you please check. Thanks and regards Norbert Bardenoki (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Done [22]. Rudolphous (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bardenoki (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hang on what's the 68 meant to be ? ... I assumed it was just the picture number no ? .... Is the building number 68 then ?. –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It's the house number. Rudolphous (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah right well I wasn't aware because they never stated it on the request, Unfortunately I'm not a mind reader (I wish I was tho :P), Anyway thanks Rudolphous for renaming it,

Bardenoki - Infuture please provide additional reasons when requesting as not everyone lives in France and not everyone is aware of why you want an image changed from 70 to 68, Also If I decline any of your renames please come to my talkpage ... if I'm wrong I'd be more than happy to revert myself and rename it accordingly,

Anyway thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 20:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: No problem. Of course, you are right. I will try to be more precisely ;O) Regards Bardenoki (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Bardenoki Thanks :), I mean if you put "wrong door number" or something when renaming I would've renamed it without any hesitation but anyway new day and all that :), Anyway thanks and happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Lijnbaansgracht_887-917,_Amsterdam

Category:Lijnbaansgracht_887-917,_Amsterdam 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!

Ceescamel (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons Conference project

Hello Rudolphous,

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--MB-one (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Purmerplantsoen,_Amsterdam

Category:Purmerplantsoen,_Amsterdam 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!

Ceescamel (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Snel GM/RM taggen

Hey, deze uitbreiding op een gadget gebruik ik zelf om snel GM/RM id's toe te voegen. Ken je ook de VisualFileChange? --Vera ^(talk) 19:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hallo 1Veertje, De VisualFileChange ken ik, maar vond dit wat minder handig. Misschien moet ik hem opnieuw proberen. Ik heb de commons.js toegevoegd, maar kan de nieuwe optie niet vinden. Waar zou deze moeten staan? Rudolphous (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Gevonden, helemaal links. Rudolphous (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Met VisualFileChange kan je ook tekst prependen en appenden. Zo kan je bijvoorbeeld eerst {{Rename|1=%PAGENAME%|2=2}} voor een groep afbeeldingen voorvoegen en vervolgens een custom replace van "{{Rename|1=Leiden 2015-03-21" naar iets anders doen. Zelfs als je admin privileges hebt kan je zodoende iets sneller bestanden hernoemen omdat je vervolgens alleen nog een keer op een knop moet drukken per afbeelding. "Advanced Select" bovenaan is ook wel handig: Dan kan je bijvoorbeeld eerst "Photographs by User:1Veertje" includen en dan "Media with location" excluden als je er later achterkomt dat de Android Commons app GPS info niet overzet als je een groep afbeeldingen overzet (ik heb de bug gerapporteerd). --Vera ^(talk) 20:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Je kan ook categorieën recht zetten met visualFileChanger: als een afbeelding al in "karakteristieke panden in Leiden" zitten, hoeven ze niet in "buildings in Leiden" zitten. Met custom replace kan je dit snel voor elkaar krijgen door [[Category:Buildings in Leiden]] voor niets te vervangen. Vera ^(talk) 08:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Contact gezocht

Beste Rudolphous,

Zou je contact met me willen opnemen in verband met je deelname aan Wiki Loves Monuments?. Groetjes DDJJ (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hallo DDJJ, zojuist heb ik je een mail gestuurd. Groeten, Rudolphous (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Mail = ontvangen, als het goed is heb je mail van mij terug. Ik hoor graag van je :-) --DDJJ (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Cataloguing

Thank you for uploading so many images to Wikimedia and Thank you too for using your time to be an admin but you should know that uploading random images with no more than the very roughest cataloguing can give others a great deal of trouble. I am, yours sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know, last 24h I catted a lot. Rudolphous (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

This category

Some of your images were not correctly uploaded and so they are in the top category. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I see, will fix those later today. Rudolphous (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I deleted some pictures that were already here and reuploaded the others. Problem should be fixed now. Rudolphous (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Miniature spider (fp) (19945884260).jpg

File:Miniature spider (fp) (19945884260).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!

Mhohner (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Spider (fp) (5635001574).jpg

File:Spider (fp) (5635001574).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!

Mhohner (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Failed uploads

Special:Log/spamblacklist/Rudolphous should be reviewed. Whichever tool you are using for upload needs to have the urls updated to not be shortcuts/url shorteners.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Billinghurst, I use flickr2commons to upload pictures. The pictures of ships contain sometimes links to youtube movies of those ships made by the same other. It is strange those uploads trigger the spamblacklist. Rudolphous (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Youtu.be is one of our problem domains as a url shortener and redirect, problem here and elsewhere. It has been that way for a long time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Help please

Hei sir please delete this logo i saw this file in deletion list. i also work on a project wich have somthing to do With this logo, but it is not my reuest....

File:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-ps.svg

Nadim Gul (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Anguis fragilis (Slow worm) rejected tail (26434427563).jpg

File:Anguis fragilis (Slow worm) rejected tail (26434427563).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!

Elisfkc (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you are admin too, otherwise I would just have notified you. There are more images in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wall art, Southwark, 2008 (15848329378).jpg now. I fear File:Memorial to Alfredo Cilento and his smoking cat (27387160963).jpg also has to go (which I regret as a cat-lover), as Italy has no FOP exception at all. --Túrelio (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem, deleted this too. Rudolphous (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Insects unlocked

Hi,

If you upload pictures from Insects Unlocked, as you did with File:Moth mimics wasp. Trinidad (38272294721).jpg, please use:

{{Insects Unlocked}}

and add them to:

Category:Photographs by Insects Unlocked

Or you can just leave them to me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

hello Andy, I added 75 categories, and RudolphousBot is adding the {{Insects Unlocked}} to all images which are missing one in the description field. See also [23] Rudolphous (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Cf.

Hi Rudolphous; "cf." in a scientific name (like for example here) means that the identification is uncertain, so the picture should not be placed in a species-level category, but in a higher-level "Unidentified..." category. Thanks --LamBoet (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Oke, didn't know that. Thanks! Rudolphous (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Response for File:Indonesian Railways Local Thermal Ticket.png

Response from the owner = This is, literally, the remake version of Indonesian Railways version. It is acceptable for using it since the ticket is : 1. Only for local trip 2. Only obtainable from locket 3. Its design is not an exact version since the design is fluctuating and so much part that the creator (the owner) making it not exactly same. You can compare it with the real-life ticket 4. This is only a specimen. The number in the barcode is for identifiable boarding number. The algorithm is still an Indonesian Railway Secret. 5. The design is copyrighted ONLY in the logo.

--FarhanSyafiqF (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

categories

i see that you are edit warring with yourself about categories, i.e. [24], maybe wikidata could use your bot skills. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Many files missed Rock Creek Park as category. Now it should be correctly and deeply categorized, see for example here [25]. Rudolphous (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Lepidoptera

Hi Rudolphous, please note that the category for images of unidentified Lepidoptera like File:Twmoth002238 (16423707597).jpg is Category:Unidentified Lepidoptera. Don't use the main Category:Lepidoptera for unidentified stuff! Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. One can make a similar remark for the family-level categories: for instance, the pictures that you added to Category:Noctuidae actually belong in Category:Unidentified Noctuidae.--LamBoet (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ies and LamBoet, I thought it was easier like this to recognize the new unidentified files, but are happy to push them further Rudolphous (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Pushed most families now to unidentified, when possible. Rudolphous (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --LamBoet (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Hiding Kea (31532065342).jpg

Hi Rudolphous, thank you for uploading this file. Are you planning to categorise it? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC) I see there's maybe quite a lot more: File:Keas (31472122421).jpg Eddaido (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, will do. Rudolphous (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you find more pictures. Rudolphous (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Unidentified Lepidoptera

Hi Rudolphous,

I see that you are moving most files of "Category:Unidentified Lepidoptera" to "Category:Unidentified Lepidoptera of [country]". Could you perhaps just *copy* them instead of *moving* them, so that they don't go out of sight from people who try to sort them into "Category:Unidentified [family]"? This will give them twice as much chance to get identified. Thanks. --LamBoet (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I was cleaning up the "Category:Unidentified Lepidoptera" category because there were almost 5000 photo's in it. Identification might be difficult when the country is not known. I'm not sure putting everything back is a good idea to be honest. Rudolphous (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me be explain better. The way I usually improve identification of these pictures is, starting from "Unidentified Lepidoptera", I pre-sort pictures into "Unidentified [family]". Then I can focus on one "Unidentified [family]" and put some of its pictures into "Unidentified [genus]", and so on. So, although it is of course interesting to also have these pictures sorted by country, if you "hide" the pictures in "Unidentified Lepidoptera of [country]" by moving them instead of copying them, this disrupts the identification workflow. I cannot easily do the same thing starting from each "Unidentified Lepidoptera of [country]", because when pictures are in there, there is no quick way of knowing which picture already has a family-level identification and which one does not. --LamBoet (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

All pictures here should not have family identifications, so starting from there should be the same as starting in the "Unidentified Lepidoptera". I would like to finish the splitting by country job, so maybe we can decide in a few days how to proceed. Rudolphous (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

About "all pictures here should not have family identifications": no, by definition, part of them have or will have a family identification ("unidentified" is generally understood as "not identified to species level"). It would be really useful to find a workaround; if you really don't like to keep these pictures in "Unidentified Lepidoptera", how about creating something like "Unidentified Lepidoptera to be classified by family"? --LamBoet (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm done with Category:Unidentified Lepidoptera. At least this exercise brought a lot of specific categories to butterflies. I think we have 3 options to proceed:
A: Current situation but also categorize to unidentified lepidoptera.
B: Current situation but also categorize Unidentified Lepidoptera to be classified by family.
C: Delete unidentified countries, use unidentified lepidoptera and cat to "lepidoptera in xxx".
I'm not sure what is the best option. I have a slight preference for B. So I leave it up to you. If you let me know what you prefer the most I try to make it like this. I think we need also to discuss when we use "unidentified xxx". And what is your opinion about these categories: [26] ? Rudolphous (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this work! I agree that B sounds like the best option. This would explicitly preserve 2 parallel identification workflows (by country and by taxon) without breaking the anti-overcategorization rules (which A does). Is it easy for your bot to put the appropriate pictures in "Unidentified Lepidoptera to be classified by family"? (I am not familiar with bots.)

About Category:Moths_by_country: this set of categories brings more confusion than help, and I am the one who put the cautionary message there. I am taking care of progressively recategorizing these pictures from "Moths of [country]" into either "[Family] of [country]" or "Lepidoptera of [country]". --LamBoet (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lamboet, tomorrow I shall try to handle this. Rudolphous (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't manage this on time. Am a few days away and will do this as first thing when I am back. Rudolphous (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries, merry Christmas! --LamBoet (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The category is there [27]. Happy new year! Rudolphous (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like the new category was added to a few more files than needed, I am trying to fix these. --LamBoet (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I see that some photo's have still id's in the flickrtags, for example [28]. Maybe I can make a script to use this information on commons. Rudolphous (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Wisconsin is nowhere near Vienna

Hi Rudolphous, why does your bot think that File:Dairy Farm with Two Silos - panoramio (4).jpg was taken anywhere near Vienna? The description and geotag suggest that it was taken on an entirely different continent, somewhere near Westport, Wisconsin. darkweasel94 20:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The reasons is Google maps says:

{"types":["street_number"],"short_name":"5464","long_name":"5464"}
{"types":["route"],"short_name":"Easy St","long_name":"Easy Street"}
{"types":["locality","political"],"short_name":"Waunakee","long_name":"Waunakee"}
{"types":["administrative_area_level_3","political"],"short_name":"Vienna","long_name":"Vienna"}
{"types":["administrative_area_level_2","political"],"short_name":"Dane County","long_name":"Dane County"}
{"types":["administrative_area_level_1","political"],"short_name":"WI","long_name":"Wisconsin"}
{"types":["country","political"],"short_name":"US","long_name":"United States"}
{"types":["postal_code"],"short_name":"53597","long_name":"53597"}
{"types":["postal_code_suffix"],"short_name":"9659","long_name":"9659"}

administrative_area_level_3 = Vienna.

I see we have a Category:Waunakee, Wisconsin here. So I shall fix this with checking for locality, administrative_area_level_1.

Kind regards,

21:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)~

Ah, I see. Thank you for the explanation; I had missed that there is a Vienna near there, which certainly explains this mistake. darkweasel94 22:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

‎RudolphousBot

Hello Rudolphous .. Why your bot remove and add the files to Category:Morocco ? . Thank You --Omar Ghrida (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

My bot moves them from Category:Media needing categories to Morocco if the gps says they are in this country and moves them deeper if deeper cats are available. Rudolphous (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rudolphous, and to Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, etc etc ? btw: what about "Unidentified locations in xxx" ! Season greetings, Roland zh (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)  Comment: and, among others, I suppose, Bangalore, btw a South Indian capital city, as well as the above mentioned locations are states of India, Roland zh (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, what is exactly your question or point? The locations you mention don't have an unidentified locations category. Maybe you can give a link to an image to clarify it. Rudolphous (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, Rudolphous, obviously wondering exactly like Omar Ghrida that ‎RudolphousBot is overwhelming main categories which are tagged by {categorise} ... and second: my 'question' included a solution to avoid that mess :) Merry Christmas, bye, Roland zh (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Roland zh and Rudolphous: OK.. Thank You and Happy New Year --Omar Ghrida (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

thanky you very much, @Omar Ghrida: my best wishes for you for 2018 Roland zh (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Currently Morocco has 635 photo's. Most of the time the problem is that deeper cats don't exist. I shall have a look into this. RudolphousBot (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rudolphous: can you add 635 Image of Moroccco to Uncategorized images of Morocco by your bot ? --Omar Ghrida (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ofcourse, but first I shall try to find deeper cats for them. Wait a few hours. Rudolphous (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rudolphous: OK thank you very much and good morning --Omar Ghrida (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I could recategorize 520 pictures and the rest is placed in Category:Unidentified locations in Morocco. I also categorized all the provinces of Morocco. Rudolphous (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rudolphous: very good,thank you --Omar Ghrida (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Mappings and a question

{moved 3 revision by Rudolphousbot/Rudolphous as of 22:07, 2 January 2018 from my talk, as started here, quotation start:}

Hello Roland zh, to improve the gps location mapping of RudolphousBot I check the reverts. Most of the reverts are of your hand and are correct. I will fix those errors. Of each error I make a test and those tests should run fine before the bot can run again. Hopefully you see improvement over time in the mappings. Mappings to places instead of regio's should not happen anymore. A difficulty is that not all commons categories are mapped to Wikidata yet and therefore I cannot always map to villages yet. To check if a mapping is correct I need the gps location of the category. If the gps location is not known it's to risky to map to it.

Question: The English Wikipedia had the following articles: [29] + [30]. On Wikipedia we have a redirect for this category, see [31]. Do you know if this is correct? Chirakkara has a seperate article on wikidata but is missing a commons category, maybe because of the redirect. Further, do you know if Chirakkarathazham is also a village? The English Wikipedia mentions this. Some photo's are taken in this place and officially not in Chirakkara. Rudolphous (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

{quotation end}

Hi Rudolphous, thx for notifying: on 1/2 January's night I recategorized about 1000 files related to South India, as above indirectly mentioned, mainly (panoramio) uploads on Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka (KN, and Goa, a handful which Rudolphousbot categorized within Uttara Kannada KN-district) and Kerala, latter on districts and towns (mainly district-related, btw, see also User talk:Rudolphous#Categorization by district). Including five additional 2 January Rudolphousbot-edits on Karnataka, about 25 files were undone, {categorise}-related as above mentioned. There's a more practical reason to do so, since these files are mostly part of serial-uploads (panoramio and flickr), and so it's much easier to categorise files (which otherwise remained uncatogorized) geographically in more adequate subcategories.

Related to your question: both villages are in Kerala's Kollam district; Category:Polachira bases on EN and ML Wikipedias, Chirakkara (just EN), one of assumably (ten)housands villages in Kerala, I redirected since latter also links to Polachira; from my side a more adequate/practicable procedure than to establish categories for every village, regardless if there are GPS coordinates.

As the last time I was very hurried, my best wishes for 2018 and happy editing, Roland zh (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roland zh, best wishes for 2018! Oke, I now understand why Chirakkara is like it is now. To be honest, I'm not sure what if I get your Karnataka point fully. We want these images in deeper cats right? Maybe you can give an example link to illustrate your point. Rudolphous (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

High Street, Birmingham

Please stop your bot from repeating this edit, which is incorrect. I have already reverted it twice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Oke, will have a look into this. RudolphousBot (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The following data comes back from google maps:

{"types":["street_number"],"short_name":"148-150","long_name":"148-150"}
{"types":["route"],"short_name":"High St","long_name":"High Street"}
{"types":["political","sublocality","sublocality_level_1"],"short_name":"Aston","long_name":"Aston"}
{"types":["locality","political"],"short_name":"Birmingham","long_name":"Birmingham"}
{"types":["postal_town"],"short_name":"Birmingham","long_name":"Birmingham"}
{"types":["administrative_area_level_2","political"],"short_name":"West Midlands","long_name":"West Midlands"}
{"types":["administrative_area_level_1","political"],"short_name":"England","long_name":"England"}
{"types":["country","political"],"short_name":"GB","long_name":"United Kingdom"}
{"types":["postal_code"],"short_name":"B6 4US","long_name":"B6 4US"}

Both Birmingham and Aston seems to have both a High Street. I did not see your reverts. However I fixed the problem. Let me know if you see more problems :-). RudolphousBot (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Park Avenue

Hi, like several users above, I undo the edits of your bot and would like not to do it anymore. From what I understand, because some uncategorized images are located on the "Park Avenue" of ramdom locations around the globe, your bot categorizes them on the category Park Avenue, New York. Worst, some images that were categorized in the right category (by actual human users) are decategorized and miscategorized by your bot (examples: [32] [33]). Not sure if you improved your bot since the comments above but hope not to do the work again. Best and happy holidays. --Deansfa (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I shall have a look into this. Rudolphous (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I could fix this by converting the commons category to the wikidata entry. Looking up the gps coordinate and calculate the distance. If the distance is too far the category is not used anymore. Rudolphous (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinaceae

Hi Rudolphous - your bot has also added several files to Category:Pinaceae, which have nothing to do with that! If you could check that too please. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I shall have a look into this.

This is fixed now. Rudolphous (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Karlsruhe

• In this case, Category:Karlsruhe is completely wrong. The location is in Waldprechtsweier (a district of Malsch (Landkreis Karlsruhe)) within the county Landkreis Karlsruhe. Karlsruhe (a city) is not an umbrella term for Landkreis Karlsruhe. Karlsruhe isn't even part of the county of Karlsruhe. (And the location isn't really relevant in this picture). Also, if your bot adds the first cat to a formerly uncategorized file, please remove Category:Photos from Panoramio needing categories as of XXXX-XX-XX. Keep Category:Photos from Panoramio ID XXXXXXX needing categories though, as this one replaces a "Check category" tag. --Sitacuisses (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your report, will look into this. Rudolphous (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

So you just ignored my request to keep Category:Photos from Panoramio ID XXXXXXX needing categories. --Sitacuisses (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I misread this one. I will put that category back. Rudolphous (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

They are back now, right? Rudolphous (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.

These [34] [35] are strange. What made the bot decide to add them to a random district of Karlsruhe (city), when the coordinates point to a different city (Baden-Baden)? Is it the name "Weststadt", that exists in Baden-Baden as well? The correct category can be easily guessed from the coordinates and the files' names: Category:Michaelsberg (Baden-Baden). --Sitacuisses (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Here [36] [37] the reading of the coordinates lacks just a little precision. As you can see on the map, all were taken on the Baden-Baden side of the municipal border, while the bot added some files to Category:Baden-Baden and others to Category:Gernsbach. --Sitacuisses (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

For the mountain I get back the following result: {administrative_area_level_1=Baden-Württemberg, administrative_area_level_2=Karlsruhe, administrative_area_level_3=Rastatt, country=Germany, country_code=de, county=Baden-Baden, hamlet=Eckhöfe, locality=Baden-Baden, pitch=Gleitschirm-Startplatz West, postal_code=76530, postcode=76530, premise=Merkurturm, road=Merkurstraße, route=Merkuriusberg, state=Baden-Württemberg, state_district=Regierungsbezirk Karlsruhe, street_address=Merkuriusberg 2, 76530 Baden-Baden, Germany, street_number=2, suburb=Oberbeuern}. This is indeed a sligh error. To be honest: these two photo's give currently Category:Baden-Baden as result. I don't know why earlier today Category:Gernsbach was processed..... Maybe Open Street Map has been changed..... Rudolphous (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

"Administrative_area_level" seems to stand for a border which is part of two entities. Maybe this field contains one of these two entities alternatively, but not necessarily the one that corresponds to the actual location? This would be one more reason to use "county", "locality" and maybe even "suburb" instead. --Sitacuisses (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I combine data from google and open street map. The overall results is:

• administrative_area_level_1=Baden-Württemberg,
• administrative_area_level_2=Karlsruhe,
• administrative_area_level_3=Rastatt,
• country=Germany,
• country_code=de,
• county=Baden-Baden,
• locality=Baden-Baden,
• postal_code=76530,
• postcode=76530,
• road=Solmsstraße,
• route=Solmsstraße,
• state=Baden-Württemberg,
• state_district=Regierungsbezirk Karlsruhe,
• suburb=Weststadt,
• town=Baden-Baden

Normally when a suburb is given also a 'city' is also given. In this case there is no city en then I used administrative_area_level_2. For Baden-Baden this apparently doesn't work. Thanks a lot for your report! I fixed the problem and all other tests run oke. Rudolphous (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrative_area_level_2=Karlsruhe could be en:Karlsruhe (region) then, not to be confused with en:Karlsruhe (district) or en:Karlsruhe. But what does "administrative_area_level_3=Rastatt" mean? Baden-Baden is not part of en:Landkreis Rastatt. Maybe this is just an error in OSM, or an incompatible method of classification? On the other hand, "county=Baden-Baden" and "locality=Baden-Baden" is correct and could be utilized.

When I categorize files from Panoramio, I sometimes look at the Commons on OSM layer to find similar files and the way they are categorized. Would it be possible to make the bot do the same, i.e. look for files, categories or wikipedia objects with coordinates nearby, then check the file's title and description for matches? --Sitacuisses (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Rastatt is indeed an error. This information comes from Google Maps and not from Open Street Map by the way. Your OSM Layer link is really helpful. Your mapping approach is very interesting, but a little too complicated to automate at the moment I'm affraidRudolphous (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

categories

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Boathouse_of_the_Toronto_Police_Marine_Unit,_2016_07_03_(3).JPG_-_panoramio.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=274064423 this looks off... just thought you'd want to know. Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree, this is already fixed. The bot now checks if categories already exist before adding them. I think this problem will be fixed soon by other bots that remove duplicate categories right? Rudolphous (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that bot should be around in a bit. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Categorization by district

Hi Rudolphous. Thank you for your categorization work. When you localize images BY DISTRICT using coordinates (an example), please add the category of the district, not the category of the main town of the district. --ŠJů (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC) (The second problem is that coordinates of this Panoramio uploader are completely wrong.) Btw., to localize images directly by municipality can be a bit better. --ŠJů (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear message. The current version of the bot gives Category:Moravský Krumlov as result. Do you think this is correct? If the gps coordinates are wrong it will be difficult to handle..... Rudolphous (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing, this is another example. --Novarupta (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The bot returns Category:Zermatt now for this image. I rechecked all images in Category:Visp and a few other districts. Rudolphous (talk)

Even better, try to find out the exact location and to identify the subject of an image, because some district categories are already rather full, and the files would be better placed in the category appropriate to the town, village, or even the category for the subject itself if it exists. --Schlosser67 (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This will be done from now on. Do you know some categories which are quiet full? Then I can try to recategorize them further. Rudolphous (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Categorization of the locations in Varanasi by ghat name

I've noticed several cases of the photos categorised by the bot on basis geo-coordinates in Varanasi, India. It seems this is too precise. There are nearly 100 ghats along the river bank (over 5 km long) which are of the size middle-size railway platform whilst the pictures uploaded from websites as Flickr frequently have only approximate location (eg. File:Varanasi (8748090088).jpg - obviously taken not at the marked location of Digpatya Ghat, as it is indicated on the map). It would be better to categorise the pictures to the level of the city. There were several cases of inaccurate category or pictures of objects without any indication in file name or description that were photographed at the particular ghat (eg. ). --Oo91 (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello oo91, what picture do you mean? this picture has no RudolphousBot in de edit history. Rudolphous (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Up till now I can see 2 cases when the bot went to the level of a ghat in categorisationː Ganges, Varanasi (8748085710).jpg (Category:Prayag_Ghat) and File:Ganges_flower_ceremony_(5105390746).jpg (Category:Sankatha_Ghat). Is is hard to say how many files have been categorised this way. Regarding this picture - it is an example of inaccurate localisation of the original file from Flickr by the author that can result with wrong category based on geocoridnates only. --Oo91 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I checked last 25.000 edits of RudophousBot and don't see any images going to ghats anymore. Let me know if you see more problems. Rudolphous (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

the checking algorithm was not well calibrated, apparently - I've noticed yet another example of ghat-level categorisationː File:Ganges, Varanasi (8748086774).jpg - RudolphousBot (replaced category on name from Category:Varanasi to Category:Bhonsale Ghat).

Hi Oo91, this one is from 1 januari and before the last 25k that I checked manually. OSM gives the ghat as attraction, see also [38]. Are you sure this is wrong? Then I will skip mappings to ghats from now on all together. Rudolphous (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Inept Category Replacements

Hello, it seems this bot recently recategorized a significant number of pictures by the place they were taken from, and at the same time took these pictures out of categories matching the location of the photographed object. Please revert these changes as soon as possible. --Abderitestatos (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It were only a few pictures. Some of the changes were right and others (especially panarama photo's of mountains) I did revert. Let me know if you see something that is not right. Rudolphous (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding inappropriate (but similarly spelled) Category tags

A possibly related problem. Spotting two inappropriate inclusions to Hue, I attributed them to some shortage in description of the category and did my best to indicate it is not about any kind of location. Apparently the bot doesn’t care. Please, double-check your category-related software. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Will have a look into this. Rudolphous (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I get the following keys for this gps locations: {administrative_area_level_1=Thua Thien Hue, administrative_area_level_2=Hương Thủy, administrative_area_level_3=Thủy Bằng, city=Hue, country=Vietnam, country_code=vn, county=Hue City, locality=Hương Thủy, political=Hương Thọ, postcode=54000, route=Minh Mạng, state=Thừa Thiên-Huế Province}. This image is mapped to Hue based on city, but yesterday I already changed that mapping to cities can only be done when the gps is known and within close region. Currently this images is mapped to Vietnam (because provincial categories are missing yet). Thanks for your report. Let me know if your see something else that is wrong. I will splitup Vietnam soon. Rudolphous (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Vietnam is now recategorized. Rudolphous (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 

Do you understand what am I speaking about? To which category do these files pertain rightfully, can you write down himself? Ok, a hint: which location category does Perfume River belong to? Stop saying polite fluff (“will have a look”, “let me know”…) and fix your algorithms now. Yet one obviously wrong category added by your bot and I file a request for de-flagging. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not understand your point. I see now we have [39] and [40]. Rudolphous (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: please be civil, Rudolphous isn't writing "polite fluff", but is just being polite. Be clear in your reports, give clear examples where things went wrong and I'm sure Rudolphous will fix it. Multichill (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Thank you. for cleanup. Have a good day. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Thank you. for your patience. Rudolphous (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

---

One more one-month-old diff: Revision of File:A_band_playing_in_Eastwood_Square_-_panoramio.jpg. It’s silly not to built some sanity checks into the bot. Has the category {{Disambig}}? Has it interwiki? If it’s Wikidata, then which properties has the element? I don’t expect this to be very complex. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is indeed already fixed a few weeks. The bot does not place images in {{Disambig}}. Also it checks in wikidata for gps information. Rudolphous (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Seriously does it check? Why does it choose Commons categories via text-matching and ignores Commons category then? We wouldn’t have troubles with the Vietnamese city. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes seriously but differently then you propose :-) I map commons categories to gps information via P301 and P625. Then I calculate the distance from the picture location and the gps location in wikidata. The found gps location must be close, how close depends if it is a village, city, suburb, country, etc which is found in via google maps and open street map. The P373 is probably a good one as cross check (thanks for this) and will look tomorrow into it. Rudolphous (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

To come back on this one. The current process is:

• 1 commons picture -> gps
• 2 query gps on google maps and open street map to get category proposals
• 3 generate variants of category proposals, for example beside Hue als Hue, Vietnam is checked.
• 4 check category proposals on category existance from most specific (neighbourhood) to widest (country).
• 5 if step 4 finds something, convert the commons category to gps via wikidata
• 6 calculate the distance between gps from step 1 and step 5, if to far away reject this category and proceed with a wider category.

I don't see (yet) in which step I can use P373. Will think more about how to improve the bot and prevent (obvious) errors. Rudolphous (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Republika Srpska vs Republic of Serbia

Can you please check this edit. Your bot categorize this image in Category:Republika Srpska, which is entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina, although this photo is georeferenced in Užice, Republic of Serbia, which is different country. Please see difference between Republika Srpska and Republic of Serbia --Smooth O (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

More examples: example and example. --Smooth O (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Smooth O, Thanks for your message for File:Zaovine, Serbia - panoramio (2).jpg (with geo location 43.836389, 19.382222) google maps returns. In shortadministrative_area_level_1=Republika Srpska, administrative_area_level_2=Zlatibor District, administrative_area_level_3=Municipality of Bajina Basta, country=Serbia, locality=Zaovine, route=Unnamed Road

That's reason why =Republika Srpsk used. The current version of the bot returns for the above examples currently "Užice", "Zlatibor District" and "Zlatibor District". I will recheck that category and make subcategories when needed. Rudolphous (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Smooth O: not an unexpected thing. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Smooth O: I see that category is already empty. Thanks for this! Rudolphous (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Gazi Mustafa Kemal Bulvarı

Hey, bot, please don't add unrelated files to Category:Gazi Mustafa Kemal Bulvarı. :) --E4024 (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure. 40.915685, 38.500793 is also Gazi Mustafa Kemal Bulvarı but is mapped to Keşap currently. Rudolphous (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

STOP adding inappropriate categories to Aircraft photos!

During the recent weeks you have added geographical names as the only categories to hundreds, maybe thousands of aircraft files.

Instead of adding the proper type name, you have categorized them all in useless village names like "Le Grand-Saconnex" or "Meyrin" as their only cats.

Furthermore, you have removed their previous cat "Uncategorized", thus preventing the files being examined by experts and being put in their proper categories, namely aircraft type, operator, airport etc. - effectively hiding them away under tiny village names and preventing proper handling.

Please revert ALL those edits in order to make them available for expert handling.

You are causing a huge amount of totally unnecessary work to editors. Please stop this practice immediately !! --Uli Elch (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You may have hidden many more aircraft files (hundreds, thousands?) somewhere else - nobody except you knows. I just stumbled about a mere 2 (two) cats by pure coincidence, to which you had removed those files from general access. Nobody searching for a particular Boeing 747 or Dassault Falcon would ever search for them in completely inappropriate categories like "Le Grand-Saconnex" or "Meyrin". I'm sorry, but as an admin you should have known better how to program and use a bot. Simply deleting this request within less than 15 minutes certainly was not a fair way to handle the problem. --Uli Elch (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry I will recategorize them as you may have noticed in my contributions. More edits will follow soon. I will go through all the edits of RudolphousBot. Please ask a bit more polite next time because this annoys me. Rudolphous (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I recategorized all pictures with aircraft related terms in the filename. I checked the categories for other aircraft related pictures. Many pictures are now categorized to aircraft related cats. Let me know if I missed something then I can scan all edits on similiar related terms. Rudolphous (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for performing so much work very quickly. --Uli Elch (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Most probably Liris niger (31773344033).jpg

File:Most probably Liris niger (31773344033).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!

Poecilotheria36 (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk page interface

Please, learn some basic functionality of wiki talk pages. Note: I don’t know why is this documentation missing from WP in your native language.

A red-faced user making edit summaries like this is socially acceptable. But a sysop is not. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Oke will do. I think you can also improve on this. Rudolphous (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

North Pole

What is this edit about? What bot task could this possibly be? kennethaw88 • talk 07:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, the gps was simple totally wrong. Corrected this image now. Rudolphous (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Lepidoptera of France

Hi Rudolphous; copying pictures from Category:Lepidoptera of French Guiana directly into Category:Nymphalidae of France (and similars) is not a great idea, because French mainland and Guiana are on different continents and thus have completely different species. Could you make your bot use categories such as Category:Nymphalidae of French Guiana instead? Thanks --LamBoet (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

yes, good idea. Rudolphous (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This is done Category:Lepidoptera of French Guiana. I think we need this for Category:Lepidoptera of Réunion too? Rudolphous (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reaction :-)

Yes, the same trick would be useful for other overseas territories: currently there are categories for Réunion, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and New Caledonia. --LamBoet (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

done for these territories now too. Rudolphous (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Papilio sennoma

Hi, I just noticed that you had created Category:Papilio sennoma, and I was surprised that this species doesn't seem to exist at all. Well, it turns out that the filename "Papilio sennoma" is not a scientific name, but just means "unnamed butterfly" in esperanto ;-D --LamBoet (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

:-) Oke, that cat is removed now. Rudolphous (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Lepidoptera of the United States

Hi Rudolphous, thanks for putting some order into these categories :-) Could you perhaps also make your bot add "Unidentified Lepidoptera of the United States" in situations such as --> this one? Thanks --LamBoet (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I can have a look later next week. Do we have already a clear definition when a lepidoptera is unidentified? Rudolphous (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say, anything that isn't identified all the way to species level, i.e. any picture that is recursively in a subcategory of Category:Unidentified Lepidoptera. --LamBoet (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

2 images

Dear Rudolphous, Do you have time to review these 2 images. Sadly, Commons does not have any images of this Tubaria confragosa mushroom species.

• File:Tubaria confragosa 336892.jpg
• File:Tubaria confragosa 633453.jpg

Thank for all your help and Have a Good Day. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Its OK. MB298 has marked them. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Good that it is done! Rudolphous (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Lepidoptera in zoos

Hi Rudolphous, please keep in mind that pictures categorized in Category:Lepidoptera in zoos (and its subcategories) should not be put in any subcategory of Category:Lepidoptera by country, because they are not wild animals, and the location of their butterfly house/zoo is often completely different from their origin. See for example File:Papilio demoleus (Wroclaw zoo)-2.jpg. Thanks --LamBoet (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree, shall take care. Rudolphous (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rudolphous, again, your bot is sending tens of unwanted pictures from zoos into per-country categories, for example in Category:Nymphalidae of the United Kingdom. Please correct this, this is a real problem... --LamBoet (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I shall correct them. Question:Do we have to consider this as a zoo [41] ? - Rudolphous (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Yes we do: you can see that Category:Lepidoptera in the Botanischer Garten München-Nymphenburg is contained in Category:Lepidoptera in zoos in Germany.

To be complete, any picture that is in a category downstream from Category:Lepidoptera in zoos should be removed from all categories downstream from Category:Lepidoptera by country. --LamBoet (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. I corrected some by hand. Will soon make a script to check and correct the rest. Rudolphous (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Odd location edit

[42] Yes, panoramio geo tag was some 100 meters off mark ... but it was just as far from Nikolskaya street. I wonder how many similarly tagged files ended up in wrong streets? is it possible to extract logs, say, related to category:Moscow? Retired electrician (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The following files are changed by RudolphousBot and related to Moscow User:Rudolphous/Moscow. 20:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Pefect! thank you, Retired electrician (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Caprona_ransonetti

Caprona ransonetti 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!

LigaDue (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Rudolphoustemp1

....please pay attention to the many duplicates of the orchids. Orchi (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Oke, good to know. Will delete them. Rudolphous (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

....dank u wel. Orchi (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Nieuwedijk --> Nieuwendijk

Hallo Rudolphous, er zijn nogal wat files waar de spelling kan gecorrigeerd worden (zowel de filenames als de beschrijving ervan). Kan jij dit in one go doen? Lotje (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ik heb de meeste inmiddels gedaan. Rudolphous (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Bedankt, wanneer ik er nog tegenkom pas ik ze ook nog aan. :) Lotje (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Caution with uncertain species names

Hi Rudolphous, when the species name in the description has a question mark, could you please not put the picture in this species category, but in the higher-level "Unidentified..." one? This will avoid mistakes such as this and this. Thanks. --LamBoet (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, shall do this. Rudolphous (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Artis Stekelvarken (36498126676).jpg

Hallo Rudolphous is dit misschien een afbeelding die ook kan worden ondergebracht in de Category:Hystrix cristata. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it can be also an Category:Hystrix indica or Category:Hystrix africaeaustralis. Rudolphous (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC). Since the photo is from 2017 and this link I think Hystrix Indica. Rudolphous (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Insects of Sawtooth National Forest

Hi Rudolphous, be careful, a lot of these are from Idaho, not Utah. Can you correct the ones that you put in Category:Lepidoptera of Utah? Thanks. --LamBoet (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Will do this. Rudolphous (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Corrected. Rudolphous (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Nationaal Archief en Spaarnestad Photo join Wikipedia

Hallo Rudolphous, is het de bedoeling dat files zoals deze worden ook ondergebracht in de Nationaal Archief en Spaarnestad Photo join Wikipedia? :) Lotje (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry lotje, ik weet het antwoord niet. Rudolphous (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Bot categorisation

Please note that your bot categorises images according to the detailed names of the locations - not in line with the geo-coordinates. I've found 3 images (eg File:Drummer accompanies Rajasthani dancing (4571283613).jpg ) taken in Udaipur city, in area called 'Lal Ghat' street - in category 'Lal Ghat' in Varanasi city. As the street names are repeating in many cities - the categories should be checked by bot against consistence of coordinates with higher territorial level. --Oo91 (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. This edit is actually an old one and the bot improved a lot after this, see also my archive. I made a OSM mapping Ghats in Varanasi. I found two pictures not edited by RudolphousBot which are weird: [43] and [44]. Do you know if these are correct categorized? Rudolphous (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reply. Regarding the picturesː the building is definitely located in Varanasi. The coordinates are not listed in Exif so I guess that the author located the picture manually, with Flickr tools. Probably by mistake - by editing them along with the batch of Khajuraho images. The same situation occurs in caseː File:India-5522 - Flickr - archer10 (Dennis).jpg - the hotel is obviously not in Khajuraho, what I have corrected. BTW. I'm not sure whether it is useful to keep the old coordinates in 'Summary' section as I did? Now I see that there are few other images with the same issueː File:India-5415 - Flickr - archer10 (Dennis).jpg or File:India-5435 - Flickr - archer10 (Dennis).jpg. It's hard to check all of Varanasi pictures one by one especially that another issue is that some of the pictures of this author are duplicated (uploaded by two different bots/uploaders) and should be deleted. I would leave it as it is for the moment. --Oo91 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I just came across File:2013-365-282 Mmmmm Muktuk (10184839444).jpg, to which the bot added Category:Fairbanks, Alaska in December 2017. In my opinion, there is no point whatsoever in having extensive categories for specific cities and census-designated places if were not going to pay any heed to the actual boundaries of those localities, instead appearing to define them by other means. Specifically, the coords resolve to a location that is within a ZIP Code area shared by parts of Fairbanks. As we don't categorize according to ZIP Code areas, but rather according to cities and CDPs, it would be helpful to know that the location is in College CDP, not Fairbanks city limits This exact same sort of thing occurs fairly often.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Directly following that file on the category page is File:2013-365-283 HooDoo Right! (10226014686).jpg. The coords resolve to the Wood Center Pub at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, which is also in College CDP and not in the city of Fairbanks.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have come across several images of Port de Ziama (e.g. this one in the category of Bejaia Province, while it belongs to Ziama Mansouriah in Jijel Province. I don't know how it happened, as there is no mention of Bejaia in the description. I have fixed them.
There is also a lot of images in Medea category of the _city of Medea_ which are from various other places in _Medea Province_. This was not done by your bot, but I wanted to mention it.
I don't know any details of your bot's logic, neither the 'success ratio' in other fields, but considering that fixing wrong categories takes more time than entering new ones from scratch, the above may help in assessing whether automated categorization is better than human one (or improving it). JiriMatejicek (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly why I stopped geocoding photo's beginning this year. Rudolphous (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Working too much

Hi, admin. I guess you work too much and sit until late at night. (Note: Please don't block me. This has been written relying on your sense of humour, something that any admin must have. :) --E4024 (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi E4024, :-) Rudolphous (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sampling location vs. camera location.

Hi Rudolphous, I noticed such edits where your bot categorizes a picture according to the camera GPS location (in this case Occitanie), while this is actually not where the butterfly comes from (in this case Spain) because it is a picture of a museum specimen. So, I suppose, either your bot should avoid this, or we should recommend not to specify the camera location in such cases? Let me ping @Archaeodontosaurus in case he wants to comment. Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point, I can exclude museums like zoos. I fixed in the meantime a couple of other images. Rudolphous (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed for the specimens of public collection it is the place of the collection which is given. I had seen that Rudolphous had made modifications on the files, but as for me it is someone of confidence, I had not checked. Perfect now. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata Infobox

La inserción de "wikidata infobox" que està realizando tu bot, por ejemplo en Category:Sant Serni (Torà), me parece excesivamente intrusiva. Te ruego tomes ejemplo de Pi bot en Category:Casa Gassó Vidal. Corrige las ediciones que hayas hecho. Gracias.--Isidre blanc (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have no idea what the above-complained-about IB looked like before but I want to thank you for the insertion of the WD IB of 2018-06-04 in village categories (example) since it offers basic information about the place including the administrative units it belongs to and a zoomable map. Good job! --Czeva (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Te ruego compares Category:Cap de Vaquèira con Category:Tuc de Molières. No te parece mejor la segunda? Pues programa tu bot para que situe "wikidata infobox" después de la cabecera y antes de las categorias. Me obligarás a corregir manualmente todas tus ediciones?--Isidre blanc (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Czeva: : thank you. @Isidre blanc: : fixed a couple of them will do more checks later this week. Rudolphous (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Gracias, Rudolphous.--Isidre blanc (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Por cierto, Rudolphous: en algunos (bastantes) "infobox" observo que no son correctas las coordenadas, por ejemplo: Category:Refugi de Coma de Vaca, Category:Tuc des Crabes, Category:Tuc des Hemnes, Category:Tuc des Neres, Category:Tuc deth Pòrt de Vielha, etc. Son distintas de las que figuran en WD. Puedes averiguar por qué?--Isidre blanc (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Isidre blanc, if you think Wikidata is wrong you can up date it with the button left onder. You can paste this format: 42.385371, 2.219055 in the field. I did it for the first instance. Best regards, Rudolphous (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Problema resuelto: deben ponerse las coordenadas en WD con mayor precisión. Gracias.--Isidre blanc (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata infobox

Good morning. When you remove the "People by name" model, family names are no longer used for sorting the main category in the different categories (for example : "Category:Jules Poignand" is now sorted with "Jules" instead of "Poignand"). Can you fix it for your recent modifications ? Jospe (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Oke, placed them back again. Rudolphous (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your RudolphousBot

Hi,

Thanks for your RudolphousBot. It is usefull to have those infoboxes added to categories like this one [45].

Regards.

Lionel Allorge (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome! :-). Rudolphous (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata infobox for people

Hi, can you point me to the conversation around the adding of the Wikidata Infobox to people categories? I have a question that has likely been raised by someone, somewhere :) -- Deadstar (msg) 08:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi deadstar, I try to help Pi bot, which filed its request here Commons:Bots/Requests/Pi_bot_1. If you have questions about the Infobox then probably this is a better place to ask. Rudolphous (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you :) -- Deadstar (msg) 18:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata infobox for Demen

Hi Rudolphous, I don't know exactly how the Wikidata infobox mechanism works (how the data object is identified) but it looks like that it sometimes doesn't work. If you take a look to Category:Demen. The box shows a village in Germany, not Demen in North Brabant. Can you please check this? Regards Bardenoki (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bardenoki, I could fix the problem. There are two items on wikidata: german place dutch place. The property "other sites" of the first one was connected to the commons instead of the second one. So I removed the property of the first one and added it to the second one. Thanks for all your work here. And if you have more questions then you are welcome. Cheers, Rudolphous (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Bardenoki (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Interwiki from wikidata

At [46], it's best if {{Interwiki from wikidata}} is also removed, since that's auto-included in the infobox if needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I recently added this to the script too. Rudolphous (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, at Category:Aachen Cathedral, I've been avoiding categories that use the institution template (amongst others - see the python code). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Oke, will avoid them too. Rudolphous (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Cat?

This categorization seems to be an error. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree and improved. Rudolphous (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of {{Mainw}}?

Is this template now deprecated and to be deleted? I see a 'bot run that's auto-removing it. [47]

I'm a bit concerned about this, as it's removing a useful descriptive link and leaving nothing in its place. I won't miss {{Mainw}}, but it ought to be replaced by a simple link, not just removed. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andy, the template is not deprecated, but it the bot removes it when the Wikidata Infobox is already there. @Mike Peel: : your bot does this too, is this not desired? Rudolphous (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

My bot also does this as the Wikipedia link is displayed in the infobox (and in a multilingual way rather than "here's the link to enwp"), plus it's also in the sidebar (now we have widely-working interwiki links here!). I'd suggest making the edit description clearer, I normally use 'Trim information provided through the Wikidata infobox". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• There are so many issues with the wikidata infobox roll out. 8-( Bad data quality on wikidata is one, the poor ergonomics of the infobox (the title of the article isn't linked, but "Wikipedia" is - when are we going to remember that readers are hopelessly puzzled by that?) Also the infobox content is usually very skimpy and broadly not useful (telling us that Isaac Newton was a bipedal primate, rather than anything relevant).

I've never liked {{MainW}}: it's ugly, it's over-simplified, it's culturally biased to imply that en:WP is the "main" Wikipedia. But it does have the advantage of giving a link with a clear name, at the top left corner of the page, where the readers look for it. Readers do not look at Wikidata infoboxes full of meaningless and cryptic links to obscure projects they've never heard of.

We also have many articles where hand-edited text has been put at the top of the page, often with several secondary links, such as the surrounding geographical area. I would be most unhappy to see 'bots starting to damage these.

There's also the issue that the template isn't deprecated (and if it's to be bulk-removed by 'bots, it ought to have been first). As always, Commons is making some vast rollout with no communication to the plebians. Why is there no visible discussion of this change? Why is there no link from {{MainW}} to where the announcement was made? What about the (still continuing) efforts to place MainW onto more Commons pages? For the sort of total mess that's possible when these overlap, look at the history of Category:Shore Road Pumping Station, Birkenhead (and others). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andy, Thanks for your message. Since removing mainw from articles seems controversial I will remove this instruction from the bot. The edit you gave as example has also side effects. I will recheck my last edits for similiar cases. Luckily this templates occurres not too often and the summary states where it was removed. If the Infobox is useful or not is maybe better to discuss here Template talk:Wikidata Infobox. I will start also overthere a thread about Mainw. Regards, Rudolphous (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I checked half of the edits and restored around 300 mainw's and will check soon if the removal of the others did not break something. Rudolphous (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Template relocation

What, please, was the purpose of this edit? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andy, on mobile view there is not difference, on desktop this version is much more compact as this version. Rudolphous (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes sense, but I think {{Object location dec}} can be removed completely, if {{Wikidata Infobox}} is present. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is already consensus about this. Rudolphous (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Brug 14, Haarlemmersluis

Je hebt onlangs in deze categorie een infobox gehangen met waarschijnlijk de coordinaten uit wikidata. Deze verwijst naar het nl-artikel. Echter daar staan andere coordinaten. Als ik daar klik kom ik op de juiste plaats uit, daaw waar wiki commons en -data verkeerd uitkomen (in de Brouwersgracht). Kan je dat verbeteren?Ceescamel (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Ja, ik zal even kijken. Rudolphous (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Aangepast! Rudolphous (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Bot mistakes

Hi. Please see Category:Yatagans. Your bot has added this cat to many pictures of nature from Turkey. I don't know where the confusion comes from. Probably Yatağan? in Muğla but I am not sure. I tried to re-categorize several images without any idea on where they really belong to. (The word Nazilli may be in reference to a district of Turkey or surname of the photographer.) --E4024 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Oke, I will take care of them. Rudolphous (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

While you're at it, could you stop your bot from adding the Wikidata Infobox for the Birdland (Hamburg jazz club) to the commons category for the Birdland (New York jazz club)? The club in Hamburg doesn't have a commons category, and as far as I know, only has one photograph, while the one in Manhattan has scores of photos, and will continue to grow. ----DanTD (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There was a wrong connection to wikidata. I corrected this and added the correct infobox. Cheers, Rudolphous (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. This resolves a lot. ----DanTD (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Desorganisation of some categories

You have added this template {{Wikidata Infobox}} which desorganised these categories Category:Populated places in Navarre. It was like that before [48]. Could you take this template off or change completely the aspect. Can you explain me a little bit more. For instance we used to have 3 colomns and now we have 2 colomns. But I have others remarks --Berdea (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Berdea, better like this? If yes I will fix the other Spanish pages. Rudolphous (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's better. But the localisation prevent to have 3 columns and we have only 2. So I suggested, or to take off the template, or to collapse it and use the model Clr. Other point : populated places are not the same than municipalities. In fact I have tested, if it is collapsed by default, this adding could be quite interesting. --Berdea (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: What do you think about the collapse idea? Rudolphous (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

In the french WP you use the term "collapsed" (word which is not french) to say that the box is hided/closed by default. If the reader want to see it, he has to open it. --Berdea (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of collapsing it by default as that removes 99% of its usefulness to readers (who might then not even know the info is there!). There's an open discussion at Template_talk:Wikidata_Infobox#Default_hide? about how to let individual users collapse it by default, but I haven't figured out how to implement that yet. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox on monuments for WLM-fr

Hallo Rudolphous,

Could your bot add an infobox on all historical monuments of France ? Either all categories under Category:Monuments historiques in France and/or all categories having the {{Mérimée}} template (in theory, it should be the same but there is some inconsistencies, the volunteers of WLM-fr are trying to fix that). All monuments are supposed to be in Wikidata already but there is some mistakes and errors that we are checking right now (with the help of Category:Mérimée maintenance) and the infoboxes could help us.

Thanks, VIGNERON (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure. :-) Rudolphous (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like many monuments don't have a wikidata connection yet, for example [49]. Rudolphous (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@VIGNERON and Rudolphous: I'll run pi bot through uses of {{Mérimée}} to do ID matching to add the sitelinks. I can also copy over the IDs to Wikidata where they aren't there already and a sitelink exists, if that's needed. Cases with multiple IDs will need manual sorting, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Now running, example edit. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we are aware of the absence of link; that's what we track with Category:Mérimée ID without linked Wikidata‎, we're solving that right now but there is a lot (matching them would be very helpful!). Your example is good.

For the multiple-ID-cases, it supposed to be rare but not so rare, in theory all ID are present both in Wikidata and Commons. We are down to only 151 categories in Category:Mérimée ID different from Wikidata‎. It can a be tricky to solve, so are checking these cases manually as there can be multiple ID for different reasons, legitimate one when a monument is located between to cities or wrong one when it's just a plain mistake - but obviously this checks for categories only linked to Wikidata. I think the linking to Wikidata by matching ID is the more important right now.

Anyway, anything you can do would help us, thank you.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mike Peel for helping with this. Rudolphous (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: It looks like pi bot is on track to add around 600 category links through the ID matching (currently 390 out of 7000 checked), which is a bit lower than I was expecting - will have to investigate the remaining ones some more. Would it also be helpful if I ran the bot through Category:Mérimée ID not in Wikidata to import the Mérimée IDs into the Wikidata entries? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to say that my estimate was a bit off, as it's running through all uses of the template rather than the tracking category. 760 changes after 9700 checked now, from circa 40,000, which is closer to what I was expecting. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Final count: 4247 matches/new commons category links on Wikidata, after checking 39,299 categories. Hope that helps! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Placed all infoboxes in the meanwhile. Rudolphous (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both! Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for your bot

My email is flooded with adding infoboxes to MANY categories. Would you please mark the edits as minor so that I don't get a large number of emails? I don't know of any preference that I could change to stop it (short of not receiving emails any time that a change is made). Thanks! Royalbroil 21:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Oke, will do. Rudolphous (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

wikidata infobox

Hallo Rudolphous, is het mogelijk dat de wikidata info boxen op commons categorieën bij het openen van een pagina gesloten zijn? Zoals het nu is, zie je eerst links een groot wit vlak en zijn de afbeeldingen daar pas een stuk onder te zien. De pagina is daardoor een stuk minder mooi geworden. zie de Category:Museum De Moriaan. Mvg --Agaath (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Agaath, Er gaat iets mis, maar ik zie niet 1,2,3 wat. Ik zal het voorleggen op [50]. Rudolphous (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Rudolphous, dank je wel. Ik verander dit op deze wijze ook bij veel andere categorieën waar dit niet goed is gegaan.--Agaath (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Ik ben begonnen bij Category:Rijksmonumenten in Gouda. Daar zie ik dit foutje bij alle infoboxen. Is er een snellere oplossing dan de handmatige aanpassing?--Agaath (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Eigenlijk zijn dan toch de aparte objectlocatie en rijksmonumenten vermeldingen overbodig geworden?--Agaath (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Agaath, Aparte locatie en rijksmonumenten vermeldingen zijn inderdaad overbodig. Op deze pagina heb ik een oplossingsvoorstel gedaan, maar ontvang er nog weinig op terug: [51]. 19:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Voorstel heb doorgevoerd. Gouda ziet er nu beter uit. Het template wordt wel op veel plekken in allerlei situaties gebruikt, bij een terugdraaiing mag iemand anders verder puzzelen. Ben zelf een korte tijd afwezig. Rudolphous (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Bedankt voor je bewerking --Agaath (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Albinism

In December, 2017, the bot added a category "albinism" to several images, see here or here. There is no "albinism" shown in any of these images. Please revert. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Corrección hecha.--Isidre blanc (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the two changes, but this concerns about 20 images in C:Category:Albinism. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hecho.--Isidre blanc (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Oud-Crailo

Hallo Rudolphous, ik zag dat ja aan de category werkte. Op deze afbeelding staat Oud (links van het hek) en Crailoo (rechts van het hek), dus andere spelling. Lotje (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:RCE suggested: Zerkenvloer

@Rudolphous: , er gebeurde hier sinds februari 2013 niets meer mee. Ik voegde een bestand toe maar weet niet zo goed hoe het nu verder moet. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hoi Lotje, deze categorie is gemaakt door Jarekt. Misschien deze even vragen? Rudolphous (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, doe ik. Lotje (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Object location templates i.c.m. Wikidata Infobox

Hallo Rudolphous (en je bot), is het mogelijk om geen object location templates toe te voegen (zie bijvoorbeeld Category:Appelmarktbrug (Schiedam)) als er al een Wikidata Infobox aanwezig is? De Wikidata Infobox bevat al de locatie (inclusief een kaartje) en is ook juist bedoeld voor dit soort additionele infornmatie over de categorie. Nu staat de locatie dubbel vermeld. --ErickAgain 05:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hoi ErickAgain, dat is zeker mogelijk. Ik heb ze echter niet toegevoegd, maar verplaatst wegens layout redenen. Groet, Rudolphous (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Ik zag [52] deze edit en daar blijft de bron achter onderaan de pagina. Wellicht handig om die ook mee te nemen? Multichill (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Klopt, ik kan dit wel even aanpassen. Rudolphous (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

templatetop distinguish

Hi, please see [53]. It's good to move {{Distinguish}} above other textual parts, but as it is not a 100%-width template, I think it's better to put it only after {{Wikidata Infobox}} (=at second top position). If distinguish is put at the absolute top, the infobox is moved one line down without obvious need. --Te750iv (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Good point, will fix this. Rudolphous (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

your bot reverts you[54]. --Te750iv (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Carte tronquée dans l'infobox de la catégorie d'une commune

Bonjour, la ville est tronquée sur la carte de l'infobox de la Category:Cannes. Il est bien sûr possible d'appuyer sur le signe - mais il serait plus judicieux que la ville apparaisse d'emblée en entier (comme ici : Category:Nice, Category:Marseille, etc.). Je suis incapable de faire cette modification et je ne sais pas où la demander. Pouvez-vous vous en occuper avant de réinsérer l'infobox ? Merci d'avance. --T Cannes I You (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: The map of Cannes is cut off, do you know how to fix this? Rudolphous (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@T Cannes I You: It should look better now. I tweaked the thresholds for the map zoom at {{AutoMapZoom}}. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rudolphous: and @Mike Peel: That's perfect: Category:Cannes. Thank you very much. --T Cannes I You (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Aboriginal Australains

Hi.

I notice that you have set up a script that "removes category Category:Australia because it contains Category:Aboriginal Australians". eg https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kata_Tjuta_in_Australia.jpg&action=history.

Can I ask that you stop this? The first reason is that it is logically untrue. An Aboriginal Australian is a member of a sociological race. It is perfectly analogous to "Caucasian" or "African American". It is no more correct to assume that all Aboriginal Australians must have been photographed in Australia than it is to assume that all Negroes must have been photographed Africa or that all American Indians can be removed from category "USA". A great many Aboriginal Australians live abroad, and indeed a significant proportion have never seen Australia, just as a significant proportion of Negroes have never seen Africa.

The second, related reason is that it's culturally insensitive. It seems to assume that Aboriginal Australians are not capable of obtaining a passport or boarding an aircraft and therefore any image of an Aboriginal Australian must have been taken in Australia.

I'm not suggesting that you intended to cause any offense. The category name is a little misleading since it uses "Aboriginal Australians" rather than "Australian Aboriginals". That's a hang up from a time when the preferred term was the adjectival "Australian Aborigines" which is now considered mildly offensive and avoided at all costs. There is certainly a case to be made to to change the name to "Australian Aborigines", however the current usage is consistent with the analogous "African American", and I am assuming that you wouldn't set up a script to remove, for example, Marcia Hines from the category "America" just because she is also in the category "African Americans".

Thanks. Mark Marathon (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here and maybe poorly worded edit summary that has two different meanings, depending on the person's interpretation. I think what they meant (Rudolphous) is that Category:Aboriginal Australians is a subcategory that is in the parent Category:Australia, the parent category is removed (Category:Australia) per COM:OVERCAT and not reflecting on Aboriginal peoples in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Bidgee explains the reason why I removed it. Rudolphous (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

My thanks to both you. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Illogical categorization

About such edits:

You can not put photos from diffrent places of the world to fulfill category of the specific park in Bangkok. This is illogical and harmful for Commons repository. Kenraiz (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This was indeed wrong, I think because I forgot to use quotes while searching. I checked now all the other photo's in this cat via OSM and they are right. Rudolphous (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you do this with your bot?

Category talk:Interwiki from wikidata? --Arnd (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, infact this is already done automatically. See for example [55] Rudolphous (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Arnd (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Pages connected to Wikidata notification

Your work connecting categories and pages to Wikidata is very good work, but I don't need a notification every time you do it to a category I've created. Do you happen to know how I can disable this notification? Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: (from talk page stalker) Preferences -> Notifications -> "Connection with Wikidata", untick the box in the 'Web' and/or 'Email' column. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

wikidata infoboxes, why???

Hi, I have noticed these irritating wikidata infoboxes popping up on category pages recently. Why is this? You seem to be responsible for some of these. Is there some new policy? They are extremely annoying, space-consuming and usually entirely unnecessary. Wikipedia seems to be encroaching on Commons. Categories should just be a group of images, and explanatory text is only required where clarification is needed. How does one edit the lead image if one wants to? Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The majority of people like the infoboxes. If you like to discus the infobox on a categories you can best use this page: Template talk:Wikidata Infobox. Rudolphous (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata infoboxes and category redirects

Hi there. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but your bot is adding Wikidata infoboxes to category redirects. See Category:Church and Category:Skyscraper for examples. If it's not intentional, you may want to adjust your bot. - Eureka Lott 14:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not intentional. Thanks for your message. Rudolphous (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Categorizing

Wil je eens zien of dit correct is? Anders hoor ik het graag. Lotje (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Rudolphous, wrong user talk page. Lotje (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Geen probleem. Rudolphous (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Foto's met dezelfde cameralocaties

Dag Rudolphous, ik zag dat je bot recentelijk een paar foto's aan de categorie Mathieu de Layensplein (Leuven) heeft toegevoegd. Bij in ieder geval 4 foto's zijn de cameralocaties exact hetzelfde. Twee foto's zijn in februari 2013 genomen en twee in april 2018. Ze zijn of niet relevant voor het plein zoals bijvoorbeeld deze foto of ze zijn niet op het plein genomen bijvoorbeeld deze foto die eerder het station laat zien. De bot heeft zijn werk wel goed gedaan, maar de coördinaten bij de foto's zijn fout. Kan ik dit het beste beschouwen als problemen die kunnen voorkomen en handmatig in de goede categorie gezet moeten worden? Zoja, "weet" de bot dat hij deze foto's al heeft gehad en niet na de correctie alsnog weer in de verkeerde categorie stopt? Groeten, Wouter (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hoi Wouter, De gps locaties op de foto's zijn inderdaad incorrect. Deze heb ik verwijderd en de foto's heb ik gecorrigeerd. Hierdoor kan het sowieso niet meer fout gaan. Verder "onthoud" de bot dit doordat ik hem alleen laat draaien op bepaalde (zeer volle) categorien. Mvg, Rudolphous (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Bad categorization

Stop the bot! It does not correctly categorize files! --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain? The following was the correct place. [56]. Rudolphous (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Замок (руїни) (мур.), Чорнокозинці.jpg - this and others — not Ternopil Oblast!!! This is — Khmelnytsky Oblast! And also not categorization in topic categories. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Oke, the bot is stopped and I will dive into this issue. Rudolphous (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

According to Open Street Maps the bot categorized this to Zbruchanske because of this result [57]. Rudolphous (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Categorized all the pictures of the castle now in Category:Chornokozintsi castle. Rudolphous (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I checked also my reverts, nobody reverted except you for this castle and two other pictures with the correct place. Rudolphous (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Feel free to make the changes. Rudolphous (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Diergaarde Blijdorp en de wijk Blijdorp

Hoi Rudolphous, ik zag dat je een aantal afbeeldingen uit de wijk Blijdorp in de categorie van de Diergaarde Blijdorp heb ondergebracht, maar beide zijn niet hetzelfde, en kunnen wellicht beter gescheiden blijven. Groet, Mdd (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Dit is inderdaad niet de bedoeling. Ik heb drie foto's gecorrigeerd. Rudolphous (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Mayes County

Hi Rudolphous, some of your bot's edits like this one and that one deleted the county information. Can you please correct this? --LamBoet (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

This is corrected now. Thanks for your message. Rudolphous (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

RudolphousBot

Hi! In this edit, the bot inserted a space in between the {s of a template, breaking it. I have fixed it there, but maybe it happened in other places as well during that bot run? It would be a good idea to check I think. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed the problem. Searched also for similar cases and fixed them as well. Rudolphous (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rudolphous: , Meneerke bloem was so kind as to go through some files, you might wish to take them off the category now. Lotje (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Rudolphous (talk)

What are you talking about Ccconstruct13 (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Can I get help from you? Josh Eson (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

non-Lepidoptera of Worcestershire‎

Hi Rudolphous, it seems like your bot mis-categorized a few like this one yesterday, can you please check? Thanks! --LamBoet (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the problem. Thanks for your message and categorization help! Rudolphous (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Aix-en-Provence?

Hi Rudolphous, your bot categorized File:Gunfight Spot (220373993).jpeg as Aix-en-Provence, but there is no indication in the source that this photo might be from there. Have you more information? --Bjs (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

uups. I found now the link to the map, according to which it is Cabriès near Aix-en-Provence. --Bjs (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Rudolphous (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

wdbox

Hi Rudolphous. I created and used the template:wdbox redirect, for template:wikidata infobox. Could you inform your bot about that?

• either not to add the [[template:wikidata infobox] ..or..
• to replace template:wdbox with template:wikidata infobox

Thank you in advance. --FocalPoint (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, will add this, Regards Rudolphous (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Devonshire Parish, Bermuda?

Are you sure the pictures of the caves are in Devonshire Parish. The may be in Hamilton Parish, and the Dockyards are in Sandys Parish as is Cambridge Beaches Resort & Spa. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Traveler100, according to google maps this is right. But to make it easy: I moved one picture to Crystal Cave and the others to Caves of Bermuda. Changes also the Dockyards. Thanks, Rudolphous (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Birds in zoos (in the UK)

Hi Rudolphous - captive birds in zoos are in a country, but not native, so are not of a country (just the same as e.g. File:Barack Obama Westminster Hall (2) May 2011.png does not mean that Barack Obama can be added to Category:People of the United Kingdom - he is in, but not of, the UK). Therefore, categories like "Category:Marmaronetta of the United Kingdom" which cover species only found in captivity in the UK, should not be created. Instead, please ensure that such photos are placed in categories of the form "Category:Genus species (captive)" or "Category:Genus species in zoos". Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted around 8 categories. Thanks! Kind Regards, Rudolphous (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata Infobox

Hello.

Please, could You correct the year of birth: 1949, not 1946. Here is the source, the artist's website and his biography:
http://stanislawszwechowicz.pl/biografia
Thank You.

Artur Andrzej (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Changed, thanks! Rudolphous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

deltemplate peoplebyname

Please only apply this if both the given name AND the surname are available from Wikidata. This is not always the case. See Category:Joakim_Lindengren for a recent example.

Best Wishes S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The category Birds should be empty.

Every bird image should rather be categorized into its own species category.

F (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, will do that after uploading. Rudolphous (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Need a couple of days to categorize everything. Rudolphous (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Most of it is done now. Rudolphous (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Falsche Kategorien vom Bot bei Pfrondorf (Tübingen)

Hallo Rudolphous, ich weiss nicht warum dein Bot so viele panoramio-bilder von 500px unter der Category:Pfrondorf (Tübingen) falsch einsortiert hat. Pfrondorf ist nur ein kleines Dorf, nur ein Ortsteil von Tübingen. Ich habe nun zumindest die Fehler in Bezug auf das Fliessgewässer Steinlach und die Ortschaft Bebenhausen repariert. Bitte nochmal die Botaufträge überprüfen. --Vux (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Oke, danke für deine Nachricht. Rudolphous (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

False coordinates

Hi Rudolphous, many photos from external projects (as 500px) have false, fictional coordinates. Automatical detailed categorization be street is a bit problematic in such cases. Possibly, the bot should detect some symptoms of implausible coordinates, e.g. identical coordinates of a set of photos etc. In case of 500px, i noticed even sets with quite identical latitude (e.g. 50.086005267836) but various longitudes – all nonsense and random numbers. Many uploaders at external projects (500px, Flickr, Panoramio) use coordinates only very roughly, as a global definition point of the city, not to identify the exact location of the camera. --ŠJů (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I saw you corrected two pictures categorized to a street in Prague by RudolphousBot. And removed a couple of wrong gps coordinates of pictures that where categorized to Prague by someone else. Thanks for this. Automatic geocoding of pictures in general is a bit problematic. Since 99,9% of the categories are right, at least most of the pictures can be found now. I will think about a way to skip too precise coordinates the next time I do geocoding. Rudolphous (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

IMO 9126900

• Hi, I can't see det:

IMO number : 9126900
Name of ship : WILSON BREST (since 01/05/2002)
Call Sign : 9HSV4
MMSI : 249377000
Gross tonnage : 2446 (during 1995)
DWT : 3712
Type of ship : General Cargo Ship (during 1995)
Builder : Slovenske Lodenice
Year of build : 1995
Flag : Malta (during 1995)
Port of registry : Valletta
Status of ship : In Service/Commission (during 09/1995)
Registered owner : WILSON SHIPOWNING AS Care of Wilson EuroCarriers AS , Bradbenken 1, 5003 Bergen, Norway (during 02/2004)

Please correct det and write wikidata template always below the categories, thanks,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The Wikidata Infobox we always write above the categories. Not sure what you mean. Rudolphous (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• There was a computer or website error on the page Category:Wilson Brest (s....). This page is ok (in Ordnung) today and now, thank you for fast response,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Wish

Hello. Help improvements for en:Maureen Wroblewitz. 125.214.50.238 07:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Example: JK Labajo into Juan Karlos Labajo

You can make the edits yourself. Regards, Rudolphous (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Charadriiformes of France

Hello, Rudolphous. Why did you do this? This category seems adequate to contain that one, as well as the others that are currently inside it. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Correct, reverted it. Rudolphous (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Birthdate missing for Zlil Sela

Hi! Can you help me with your source for the birthdate of mathematician W:Zlil Sela? Your infobox - added by bot - quotes an ID of Q207244, but I don't know how to use that to find the source of the wikidata included in the infobox. And the English Wikipedia doesn't have his birthdate at all. Thanks! Yahya Abdal-Aziz (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Yahya Abdal-Aziz. The entry can be found here. The birthday overthere was added in 2014 by this edit. Maybe because on that date multple wikipedia's existed with his brithdate. Seems it started with the German Wikipedia in 2009 with this edit by Claude J who is still active. Kind regards, Rudolphous (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Krankentäger suchen die Umgebung des forts Thiaumont nach Verwundeten ab.jpg

Please assist in renaming this file. Eingangskontrolle (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Lemur catta

Hi there. I was wondering why you uploaded so many similar images of lemur catta? It makes it very difficult for users to find the best images. Charles (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought these pictures where a win for this project. BTW: many others did upload files from the same source, for example here or here. I probably uploaded a minority of the pictures in this category. I'm happy to delete some if you nominate them tough. Or maybe you have a proposal how to categorize them further Rudolphous (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but I cannot see how this is a 'win'. A dump of dozens of images onto Commons without selection and editing is not at all helpful. Responsible editors select and upload only the most valuable, most interesting or highest quality images. There are, as you point out, other people who also spam too many images! Charles (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Boerderij De Bonte Koe Sassenheim

Hoi Rudolphous, Ik zie naast de foto van de boerderij ook een kleurenfoto. Die hoort niet bij De Bonte Koe, maar bij huize Wiltrijk, Hoofdstraat 55 te Sassenheim. De Bonte Koe was destijds van mijn grootvader. Vriendelijke groet, A. van Went — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.121.223.32 (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hartelijk dank voor uw bericht, ik heb e.a. aangepast. Rudolphous (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Peter Trimmin photos

Hi Rudolphous! Thanks for recategorizing these files into the "Category:Photographs of *** by Peter Trimmin". But not all of them are photographs: File:Forest How Squirrels (8042953618) - video.webm, File:Feeding 'Belinda' (15263809674).webm (enjoy the cuteness ;) -- Meisam (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Cute indeed :-) Corrected it. Thanks! Rudolphous (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Two Westchester County, New York sites

The coordinates for the White Plains TransCenter is wrong. I tried to correct them (41°02'02.0"N 73°46'25.0"W), but instead I ended up eliminating the coordinates feature from the Wikidata infobox, and I don't know how to get it back. Can you restore it with the correct coordinates? Also can you add a Wikidata infobox for Hawthorne (Metro-North station)? ----DanTD (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Corrected the gps and added the infobox + some other infooxes of NYC metro's. Rudolphous (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for those too. ----DanTD (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Rijksmonument categorie zonder link met Wikidata

Hi Rudolphous, alles goed? Ik heb op https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=8101332 een lijstje gemaakt van categorieën van Rijksmonumenten die nog niet aan Wikidata hangen. Daarbij kom ik Category:Oudebrugsteeg 7, Amsterdam tegen, is dat niet hetzelfde gebouw als Category:Accijnshuis (Amsterdam)? Als je het Rijksmonument nummer weet dan kan je gemakkelijk zoeken op Wikidata. Multichill (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Multichill, alles prima hoor. Met jou? Handig tooltje zeg! Volgens mij heb je gelijk en is dit hetzelfde gebouw. groeten, Rudolphous (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Jan van Goyenkade

Hello.To illustrate use {{Disambig}}.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Rudolphous (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Category:Apelstein Nr. 02 und 47

Hallo Rudolphus, der Apelstein Nr. 2 hat zwei verschiedene Standorte und auch IDs vom Landesamt für Denkmalpflege: in Leipzig - Liebertwolkwitz 09259764 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kulturdenkmale_in_Liebertwolkwitz#Liste_der_Kulturdenkmale_in_Liebertwolkwitz)

und in Landkreis Leipzig - Güldengossa 09299392 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kulturdenkmale_in_Gro%C3%9Fp%C3%B6sna).

Es stehen nämlich an beiden Orten ein Apelstein Nr.2 (der in Liebertwolkwitz ist scheinbar der alte).

Die Bilder in der Kategorie Apelstein Nr.2 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Apelstein_Nr._02) sind alle von dem in Güldengossa. Es müsste meiner Meinung nach also auch die Infobox auf den Stein in Güldengossa hinweisen, oder?

Beim Apelstein Nr. 47 stimmt in der Infobox die Ortsangabe nicht - es ist nicht der Landkreis Bautzen, sondern Landkreis Leipzig.

Canon55D (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Nature of Sandridge

Hi, I just noticed that you moved a lot of the photos from this category into its subcategories, relating to Heartwood Forest, however, a lot of the photos were not from Heartwood Forest but from other areas in the parish of Sandridge. I'm slowly checking through the photos I took and changing the categories where necessary, so it's up to you if you want to let me fix this or do it yourself (I'm happy to but it could take some time!). Thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which photo's you have checked and the next 2-3 weeks I'm very busy. If you would like to do it then be my guest. Rudolphous (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem! :-) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit

With this edit you reverted a comment I made in a discussion with User:Multichill. It was, I think, a polite and relevant note on a slightly arcane issue that Multichill can ignore or respond to as he feels fit. I am totally confused. Why? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a button triggered this revert by accident. Sorry for that. Regards Rudolphous (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

O.k., thanks. I was mystified. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Euptychia westwoodii

Hi. I think you created or moved this category. It should be Category:Euptychia westwoodi. Are you OK is if move it and revert your edits on the images in the category? Thanks, Charles (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Rudolphous (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata Infobox deployment

Quarry is currently very slow, so I haven't been able to get the list of new categories for Pi bot to add the Wikidata Infobox to for the last fortnight. If there's anything you can do to add them using your bot, please do so. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Oke, will try to add some. Rudolphous (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

frogs are amphibians

Hi - you added one of my frog images to a reptile category! Can you check it was only the one image please. Charles (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this should be the only one. Rudolphous (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Categorization mistakes from your bot

Hi Rudolphous, your bot seems to mistakenly think that Plumbago flowers are Hesperiidae butterflies. It also tends to over-categorize in the "family in location" categories. I have seen several instances of each of these two errors. Can you look into this? Thanks --LamBoet (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Lamboet, thanks for your message. I check this. Rudolphous (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Not caterpillars

Hi Rudolphous, this and the other ~10 similar photos don't look like caterpillars, can you please not put them in Category:Lepidoptera of Haryana again? I guess we should rename the files. --LamBoet (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lamboet, the name was indeed confusing. I renamed them and recategorized them back. Rudolphous (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --LamBoet (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Ciconiiformes categorization

The only family in Ciconiiformes is Ciconiidae (storks), but this bot is categorizing everything from cormorants, darters, and frigatebirds (Suliformes) to herons (Pelecaniformes) to penguins (Sphenisciformes) to New World vultures (sometimes Cathartiformes, currently Accipitriformes on Wikimedia Commons) to flamingos (Phoenicopteriformes) and grebes (Podicipediformes) in that order, some as recently as a couple weeks ago. At least Suliformes, Pelecaniformes, and (more distantly) Sphenisciformes are relatively closely related to storks, but the other birds being miscategorized aren't remotely closely related. If you could stop the bot from doing this in the future (so it doesn't lead to more categories like e.g. Ciconiiformes of Colombia, which until a few minutes ago contained 20 photos, none of which were Ciconiiformes), that would be great - thanks! Spizaetus (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spizaetus, my bot takes the information from wikipedia, but apparently there are errors, see there ordo (Han-ay) of [58]. I'll shall check your recatorizations and fix wikipedia for this. Rudolphous (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I fixed around 300 errors on ceb wiki. Kind regards, Rudolphous (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems it comes from this source. Rudolphous (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those! The bird taxonomy of that 2011 Catalogue of Life checklist is extremely outdated and inaccurate - the families it lists in Ciconiiformes are currently scattered across 13 different orders, many of which aren't at all closely related to each other. (There are many other issues with that checklist, but the outsized Ciconiiformes is probably the most egregious.) For a modern classification of bird orders and families, see the IOC checklist.

Relatedly, I just noticed the bot has begun categorizing photos of Phalacrocoracidae, Fregatidae, etc. in various subcategories of the category "Pelecaniformes by country". Phalacrocoracidae, Anhingidae, Sulidae, Fregatidae, and Phaethontidae were all formerly included in Pelecaniformes, but they were removed from Pelecaniformes several years ago (at the same time that Ardeidae, Threskiornithidae, etc. were transferred from Ciconiiformes into Pelecaniformes). Phalacrocoracidae, Anhingidae, Sulidae, and Fregatidae are now in the order Suliformes, while Phaethontidae is now in its own order Phaethontiformes.

For reference, in case the bot starts categorizing these based on other outdated sources, other families that have moved between orders in the past several decades (with their current order in parentheses) include: Mesitornithidae (Mesitornithiformes), Otididae (Otidiformes), Turnicidae (Charadriiformes), Eurypygidae (Eurypygiformes), Rhynochetidae (Eurypygiformes), Cariamidae (Cariamiformes), Musophagidae (Musophagiformes), Opisthocomidae (Opisthocomiformes), Pteroclidae (Pterocliformes), Leptosomidae (Leptosomiformes), Bucorvidae (Bucerotiformes), Bucerotidae (Bucerotiformes), Upupidae (Bucerotiformes), Phoeniculidae (Bucerotiformes), Sagittariidae (Accipitriformes), Pandionidae (Accipitriformes), Accipitridae (Accipitriformes), Galbulidae (Piciformes), Bucconidae (Piciformes).

Best, Spizaetus (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Allan tram model

About this very interesting photo you uploaded, any idea about the copyright staus of the two inset photos? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Good question, sorry I don't know the answer. I can understand if you nominate it for deletion. Rudolphous (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Overcat on dating photos?

Your 'bot is adding "1961 in Amsterdam" et al to a load of Dutch photographs by some commercial photographers

[59] [60] [61] I've noted this on Wim van Rossem, also Willem van de Poll, both of whom already have a fairly good "photographer by location by year" structure.

Yet for some photographers (who don't yet have such a structure) you seem to be 'bot adding them, then manually removing them? [62]

Shouldn't this (if anything) be the other way round? We don't need the first, because they're already in a clearly-implied subcat of "Amsterdam by year". Yet for the photographers who aren't structured like that, we could actually benefit (it's easier to identify the intersections by querying the categories than by parsing the free-text metadata).

I'm never normally too fussed about OVERCAT, but this is one where we do have a robust structure and the assumed cats are (for once) reliably implicit. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Good point, I already for some overcats but apparently this is missed. Rudolphous (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

2007 in Gouda

Dag Rudolphous, ik zag dat je bot de categorie "2007 in Gouda" had toegevoegd aan Postzegel 1931 goudse glazen.jpg. Omdat naar mijn mening die categorie totaal niet relevant is heb ik hem verwijderd, maar je bot heeft die weer toegevoegd. Eerder zou "1931 in Gouda" relevant zijn. Groeten, Wouter (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Oke, bedankt voor je bericht - ik heb 1931 toegevoegd. Rudolphous (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

De bot blijft ijverig doorgaan en heeft de "2007 in Gouda" weer toegevoegd. Wouter (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Oke, de bot is nu met een lange run bezig. Dan zal ik het definitief oplossen. Rudolphous (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Rudolphous, ook ik loop tegen dit probleem aan met "2018 in Amsterdam" toegevoegd aan een serie foto's in Laarbeek (Brabant) . Zie https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Laarbeek_Vensters_in_het_landschap_Handle_with_Care_6of10.jpg&curid=75364552&diff=368468618&oldid=332475657. Kun je ook hiernaar kijken ?? Btw Is dit de juiste manier om te reageren ?? Bedankt . WoodenSpoon (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Woodenspoon, Dit is de juiste manier om te reageren. Gezien deze foto dacht ik de deze hele categorie in Amsterdam was. Ik zal de foto's nalopen. Mvg Rudolphous (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Bird taxonomy and categorization

Just a quick reminder, since I just stumbled across a photo of a saltator you put in Category:Cardinalidae of Panama (despite saltators being thraupids) and a photo of a euphonia you put in Category:Thraupidae of Panama (despite euphonias being fringillids) - please follow up-to-date taxonomic references (like the IOC checklist) when classifying bird photos. Thanks! Spizaetus (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spizaetus, For these two I consulated the commons wikimedia pages, see [63] and [64]. Thanks for the references. Rudolphous (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rudolphous - thanks for mentioning the source! I'll go through and update families on the commons wikimedia pages to follow the current IOC classification. Best, Spizaetus (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Relatedly, I just noticed that your bot incorrectly categorized hundreds of photos of passeroid oscines about a month ago. The contents of various 9-primaried oscine families (especially Thraupidae, Emberizidae, and Cardinalidae, but also Fringillidae, Parulidae, etc. to a lesser extent) have been extensively shaken up, switched around, moved to newly-created families, etc. over the past couple decades, but the bot's using the old taxonomy. (This includes creating multiple "Category:Emberizidae in country" categories for countries in which no members of Emberizidae occur, among many other things.) Spizaetus (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Currently I am traveling, but can probably correct this later today. Rudolphous (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems that the taxonomy of a lot of Wikipedia's are incorrect/outdated (even the English one), for example: Category:Gubernatrix cristata:

• commons + de + es + fr + vi + sv + species + br: Thraupidae (correct)
• eu + nl + ceb + war + pt + ca + wikidata (!!): Emberizidae (incorrect)
• en: Cardinalidae (incorrect)

Do you know how I can search a bird in the https://www.worldbirdnames.org ? Or where I can find a list of all birds with their correct orders and families according to the latest insights? If I have a good list I can make a list of outdated taxonomies on commons and update them. Rudolphous (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I found the answer in the excel sheets on that website. Rudolphous (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is the list of names [65]. Later this week I will scan categories for outdated family names Rudolphous (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Scanned a few categories and made some updates, for example [66]. Will do more later. I see also that some name of categories are not up to date with www.worldbirdnames.org. Is this of any interest? For example Category:Luscinia phoenicuroides, Category:Cyornis pallipes, Category:Anthus rufulus. Is this correct [67] ? Rudolphous (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

'bot overcatting and edit-warring

File:Een man (Farrar) en een vrouw (Yvonne) met een hond op het balkon van een hote, Bestanddeelnr 189-0729.jpg

• [68]
• [69]
• [70]

They're already in Photographs by Willem van de Poll in Scheveningen (1933); adding 1933 in The Hague is already implicit, and "The Hague" is both too blunt geographically and it's already overful as a category. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Andy, The problem is Scheveningen vs The Hague. Since there are only a few pictures in the above cat my plan was to fix it after the botrun. Thanks for pointing out. I stopped the bot, removed the overcats and will add a more complete overcat check. Rudolphous (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't understand how it was even choosing them for "The Hague"? If it understands that Scheveningen is in The Hague, then it must have looked at the Scheveningen cats? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

... per year

Dear Rudolphous, Could you tell me the advantages of having 21 times a category like [[Category:Hans Ree in 19XX]]? Formerly, when looking for a suitable picture of Hans Ree from the 140 images of this person in Commons, I could just take a brief glance at 1 page showing all images. As from today I need to open 21 categories, seven of them containing 1 (one) image. If a timeline is needed, just address it like Category:Hans Ree|1982, so the images will be sorted by year. If we really need categories like [[Category:Hans Ree in 1978]] (containing one image) can't we just have it both ways (Category:Hans Ree and Category:Hans Ree in 1978? (I know you didn't start this series, but you are quite active in this kind of categorisation.) Vysotsky (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This is quiet a common pattern, see for example Category:Garry Kasparov, Category:Viktor Korchnoi, Category:Anatoly Karpov by year, Category:Jan Timman and Category:Max Euwe, Category:J. H. Donner. Since there where already year categories for Hans van Ree, see [71] I categorized the remaining pictures. Rudolphous (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Understand. But clever people shouldn't extend a foolish "common pattern". Splitting up a category with less than 200 files needs a better argument. Vysotsky (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Oke, agree :-) Rudolphous (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Amsterdam library - children's section (2660735777).jpg

Hi Rudolphous, due to the location, this is hardly covered by FoP of The Netherlands. One might discuss whether it's to be considered as a copyrighted work. Also, File:Cloud Gate Chicago (Explore) (4865734246).jpg will surely has to go with the next DR for images of this installation, as not covered by FoP-US. --Túrelio (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello talk:Túrelio, The first pictures is made in a public library. There are more similar pictures on commons for example [72], [73] and [74]. Of the 2nd one as well [75]. Not 100% sure if these two pictures are a problem. If you think so, then it's fine to me If you file a deletion request. Rudolphous (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The library organizes sometimes photo events, see for example [76]. Rudolphous (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Year xxxx in Rotterdam

Hi, Thank you for adding category's like Category:1970 in Rotterdam to pages. But I have a suggestion to improve this: When adding category's like Category:1970 in Rotterdam to pages, can you please run a check if the page isn't already located in a subcategory (something like performing an exclusion like -deepcategory) of the category? This would take away the need for other users to manually revert a lot of your bot edits. TIA. --ErickAgain 12:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC).

Hi ErickAgian, good idea. BTW I just removed all overcats in Rotterdam by year categories. Rudolphous (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Great! Thank you--ErickAgain 13:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC).

Mattox Georgian Homestead images

Hi Rudolphous, why did you move File:Mattox Georgian Homestead (9707104113).jpg and a number of images from the same set/Flickr-account to Cat.Unknown? (Unknown is actually a license-problem cat usually leading to speedy deletion) --Túrelio (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see. I recategorized them to a more precise tag. Rudolphous (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok. That saves them from getting speedied. :-) --Túrelio (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

A Coot is an identified bird

I just wonder why you moved my image "sothoene.jpg" from "birds" to "unidentified birds"? It's definitely a coot, so it is identified. I have several more images of the bird, and I can assure you - it is a coot! What is the problem?
999Vic999 (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Birds is very general category. Normally they go from birds - unidentified birds -> more precise categories. Rudolphous (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? Should the image be placed in a subcategory specifying what group the bird belongs to?

999Vic999 (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. If you know the precise category that would help. But if not, other people will probably categorize the image further. Rudolphous (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:September 2011 in Amsterdam additions

If you are going to add Category:September 2011 in Amsterdam, I think it makes sense to remove Category:2011 in Amsterdam as a subcategory of the same one. I'm actually categorizing Category:September 2011 in the Netherlands. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, am doing that now. Will be done in a few minutes. Rudolphous (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Done, and I categorized also the other months. Rudolphous (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That's fine but I don't think File:Johan Conrad Greive jr (1837-1891), Afb 010097011587.jpg, File:Evert Maaskamp, Afb 010097011040.jpg or File:Evert Maaskamp, Afb 010097011041.jpg are actually photographs and thus belonging in Netherlands photograph cats. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Images from Wiki takes Haarlem en Category:Netherlands photographs taken on 2010-09-25

Hoi Rudolphous, ik weet niet of ik een fan ben van categorieën zoals Category:Netherlands photographs taken on 2010-09-25, dit hoort volgens mij in gestructureerde data, maar tot die tijd: We weten dat we op die dag foto's zijn gaan maken in Haarlem. Deze zoekopdracht zou leeg moeten zijn. Ik zie daar best wel een aantal voorbeelden tussen waarbij de upload datum erin is terechtgekomen. Enig idee hoe dit op te lossen? Multichill (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hoi Multichill, Ik heb het opgelost. Alleen de foto's van Michiel1972 stonden op de 26e ipv de 25e. Ik kan me vaag herinneren dat hij dat ook in het IRC kanaal had gemeld na het uploaden. Bij de anderen foto's ontbrak simpelweg de datum categorie. Omzetten naar gestructureerde data zou inderdaad handig zijn. Rudolphous (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Dank je. Je mist er nog wel een paar van de 27e en de 28e om het zaakje compleet te krijgen. Ik vraag me wel af of dat vaak voorkomt dat we de upload datum erin hebben staan in plaats van de datum dat de foto genomen is. Is natuurlijk te vergelijken met de datum in de exif, maar we hebben ook weer regelmatig gevallen waar de klok van een camera verkeerd stond. Hou jij met dit soort dingen rekening? Ik denk dat het daardoor veel te ingewikkeld wordt. Ik had je al even genoemd. Mijn robot voegt nu de datum toe. Multichill (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ik gebruik zo'n beetje de volgende aanpak:

• Ik bepaal de exif van een foto en vergelijk de jaren. Als het jaar anders is plaats ik geen datum categorie.
• Verder sla ik foto's over met:
  • de woorden upload of publicatie bij de datum.
  • de woorden "painting", "reproduction", "gravure", "schilderij", "tekening", "prent", "ontwerp", "stamps", "doorsnede", "geïllustreerd", " studie ", "expansion plan", "uitbreidingsplan", "plattegrond", "bevolkingspiramide", "advertisement", "advertentie".
  • met de extenties, *.ogg *.svg *.wav *.avi *.webm, etc.

Ook heb ik me in het begin geconcentreerd op de recentere foto's (jaartal 2000+, daarna wat lager). En foto's van RCE + persbureau's met betrouwbare jaren. Vaak werk ik categorien door. Als ik de jaar van een categorie weet kan ik dit meegeven aan de bot, waardoor de uitkomst ook dit jaar moet hebben.

Weet jij of er een tag/categorie is om aan te geven dat de datum in de infobox en exif datum afwijkt? Misschien dat dit handig is (ook voor andere bots).

Rudolphous (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Lijkt me een goede aanpak!

In Category:Time, date and calendar templates heb ik {{Invalid Exif date}} en {{Wrong date}} gevonden. Wellicht kan je daar wat mee?

Als je toch al de datum aan het toevoegen bent, kan je dat wellicht meteen doen als gestructureerde data? Zie hier hoe het in Python te doen. Multichill (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Bedankt voor het script. Zal de datums later toevoegen, wil eerst nog meer categorieen toevoegen. Misschien kan deze query 0,5M halen. Dat betekent dan tevens dat 1 op de 100 foto's in NL is gemaakt. Ik heb de exif check trouwens aangepast, waardoor deze naar de hele datum kijkt ipv alleen het jaar. Rudolphous (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Deze werkwijze zal meestal goed gaan tot dat je in de niet-digitale tijdperk komt, waar de beelden gescand zijn. Ik vul handmatig de periode zo nauwkeurig mogelijk in, maar vaak is dat maar met een schatting van een maand of jaar. Ik pas de opname datum handmatig aan voordat ik ze upload (dit kan ik soms vergeten). Helaas eist mijn PC software dat een volledige datum wordt ingevuld. Als ik inschat dat het in de maand juni is geweest zet ik dan 1 juni neer. (De tijd kan ik op nul zetten en is de tijd van de scan) Na upload haal ik de dag en/of maand weg. Heb je een methode om te bepalen dat beeldmateriaal gescand is? Verder beaam ik dat in de begintijd het kom gebeuren dat de cameratijd/datum verkeerd afgesteld stond. Een keer was er zelf het verkeerd jaar ingesteld.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Smiley.toerist, Detecteren van scanners is denk ik lastig. Sommige photo's hebben het model van de scanner in de exif informatie. Mvg, Rudolphous (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Taken on

Hi, maybe better to improve like this: [77] --Arnd (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. For now I prefer slightly more the templates because people can change them more easily. Rudolphous (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Arnd. I prefer the use of the template instead of the additional category. — hike395 (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Rudolphous: given that there is no consensus for adding date+location categories to photographs (as opposed to modifying the {{Taken on}} template), could you kindly pause your bot? My watchlist is lighting up with bot edits I don't agree with. — hike395 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hike395: The bot is paused. I missed your earlier message. As earlier said. Templates lock the files up. It's difficult for people to categorize the files further (this is done for example for Germany). Tools like cat-a-lot don't understand the templates - which means all photo's need to be processed one by one. See also this request of Xray where he asked explicitly to use cat=no [78]. Also it's not usable for photo's that are made on country borders (I've seen many pictures in more than one country - for example for mountain views). Rudolphous (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hike395: Would like to proceed with the work. I can skip the files where you did a contribution. Does this help? Rudolphous (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pausing. I know you want to quickly start up again, but if you're going to edit thousands of files, doesn't it make sense to have a templates vs. category discussion in a centralized place, like the Commons:Village pump? I'm happy to follow the consensus after discussion. — hike395 (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hike395: done. Regards, Rudolphous (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that! (Note that you swapped your advantages, I think, you may wish to fix). — hike395 (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The most interesting idea from the Village Pump discussion (IMO) was the comment from Mike Peel. Mike is a Wikimedia developer, who was saying that dates and locations will be coming to the Structured Data for Commons effort in the next 12 months. I think his hope is that Commons editors and bots will put the metadata into the Structured Data, rather than in templates or categories. If I understand him correctly, he is recommending that you wait in running your bot for 12 months.

Between Mike's recommendation, and the call for a (further?) RfC, you may wish to hold off running your bot. After the discussion, I can now see that using the |location= parameter in the template may not be a good idea. — hike395 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. Appreciate that. There seems to be a lot of different opinions. To have date + location categories from Wikipedia takes probably also a lot of discussion before this is realized. Rudolphous (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Rudolphous. It seems that you've started having RudolphousBot categorize photographs into date+country categories. My impression from the disussion at the Village pump was that you needed to get wider input from an RfC to reach consensus around this automatic categorization. Did I miss the RfC? (I usually don't pay attention to Village pump). — hike395 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Hike395, I think you did not miss an RFC. I did not create one - also not sure on what page it is supposed to be raised and what should be the exact content. I did opt out certain users, skip certain countries (like Germany) and taken on templates. I hoped this was in line with last discussion. The last pictures I processed for Canada did not have a photograph by day category at all so at least the photo's (or group of photo's) can be found by a day category. Rudolphous (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The instructions for Commons RfCs can be found at Commons:RFC --- you edit {{Centralized discussion}} to start a new one. It looks like there are a few discussions every year, with many participants. In the Village Pump discussion, it sounded like other editors thought there should be a wider discussion about automatic categorization. — hike395 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey Hike395, thanks for the link. Until now nobody provided a deletion request for the taken-on-single-day, countries categories or small sub categories (provinces, cities, etc). So apparently the categories are desired. The categories are already used a million times before I started adding pictures to them. That automatic categorization per bot is not desired suddenly is new for me. If people see errors in my categorization - I'm always willing to make things better. If i read Village pump (which started how to handle the taken on template) then I see nobody is in favor for proposal Z. see also [79]. Sometimes I see bots adding date properties to wikidata. Making cats of them in future is probably exact the same principle but with an indirect approach. Except that at the moment I skip certain pictures like maps, paintings, drawings, etc - and check the EXIF date before adding the categories. I don't think categorization should be discussed via an RFC (policy / guideline / license change) - but feel free to raise one if you think there should be one. Kind regards, 08:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Overflowing watchlist

Hello Rudolphous, you are overflowing my watchlist with Category:Rudolphoustodo2. Can't you do without that? --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I can try to do without (not easy - and I use the category also for visually checking) or add the category with the a bot account then you can probably ignore it more easily. Rudolphous (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Last week I did most of them without the cat in between. Rudolphous (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Dubbele categorieen

In Category:Photographs taken on 2013-06-27 kom ik beelden tegen die ook in Category:Netherlands photographs taken on 2013-06-27 voor komen. Bovendien komt deze categorie vaak twee keer voor. Voorbeeld: File:13-06-27-rotterdam-by-RalfR-77.jpg. PS.Ik ben nu alle Rotterdamse tramlijnen aan het categoriseren, vandaar dat ik dit soort voorbeelden tegen komt.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

En veel lege categorieën vanweg foute templates, zie https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Special:UncategorizedCategories . --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Bedankt voor de melding. Ik zal hier naar kijken. Rudolphous (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

De dubbele categorien heb ik inmiddels allemaal verwijderd. Rudolphous (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry ...

Hello! I just reverted your edits at File:Rome (IT), Forum Romanum -- 2013 -- 3358.jpg and others. It's not an improvement and my bot is working with "cat=no". It's easier for me. And it's easier for others, categories can be moved by Cat-a-lot and other tools. --XRay ^talk 06:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Oke, with my edit there was less wiki code. But no problem. Rudolphous (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI. Rudolphous (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Duitse foto's

Hoi, ik zag dat je de Nederlandse foto's allemaal op datum hebt gecategoriseerd. Zou je dat ook voor (bijvoorbeeld) de Duitse foto's willen doen? Nederland heeft nu namelijk wel buitenproportioneel veel data-categorieën, in verhouding met andere landen. Groetjes, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Is goed. Ben nu bezig met Italie, in de loop van de dag zal ik een stuk van Duitsland doen. Het deel wat overblijft zal handmatig gedaan moeten worden. Rudolphous (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Nog een toevoeging: In Nederland zijn er ook veel datecategorien vanwege schenkingen van grote collecties foto's (denk aan Nationaal Archief). Het zou mee niet verbazen als van de 57 miljoen foto's op commons momenteel ruim 1 miljoen foto's uit Nederland komt. In Duitsland zijn er trouwens ook minder data-categorieën omdat er categorien per Duitse provincie zijn gemaakt. Rudolphous (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Vanuit Nederlandse archieven, musea en erfgoeddiensten zijn in Commons meer dan 1,2 miljoen afbeeldingen terecht gekomen: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed: > 485.000 foto's, Nationaal Archief (o.a. uit de Anefo-collectie): > 415.000 foto's, Naturalis: > 275.000 afbeeldingen, en tientallen andere GLAM-instellingen. Vysotsky (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Bedankt voor deze aanvulling. Rudolphous (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Over de Duitse foto's. Alle subcategorien maken het toch ietwat tricky. Ik wacht hier liever nog even mee. Rudolphous (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ik snap het probleem. Ik weet dat er veel foto's zijn van het Bundesarchiv, maar met al die subcategorieën wordt het inderdaad lastig. Blijf in ieder geval doorgaan met je goede werken! Groetjes,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Vatican City

Hi! It's Vatican City, not Italy. [80] ;-) --XRay ^talk 11:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Oke, corrected some other as well. Luckily these are a few. Will do a final check when Italy is "done". Rudolphous (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Overcat

Please be more careful. See this: [81] It's now overcat, there is already "Münster (Westfalen) photographs taken ...". It's a lot of unnecessary work to revert these edits. --XRay ^talk 14:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello XRay, Thanks for your message. Luckily I did not do a lot of Germany photographs yet because of exactly this problem. I see there are many cases like this (3811 hits - done by others), see [82]. I can help to clean up later today. Rudolphous (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

There are some people spending a lot of work creating categories like these. Always a lot of work ... I don't know why they do it. Your bot shouldn't set the categories if there is already one with "taken on" or if these categories set by a template. --XRay ^talk 14:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

This query works better [83]. I think I fixed all cases with overcats by categories (only a few were wrong - and most of them not done by my bot). Will check for taken on problems later this evening. Rudolphous (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 in the Netherlands category

The 2019 in the Netherlands category should not be removed unless there is another 2019 local category. Big cities such as Rotterdam and Amsterdam have 2019 in XXXX categories. I now have created 'Category:2019 in Gelderland', 'Category:2019 in South Holland' and 'Category:2011 in South Holland'. In principle everyplace should at least fall under a province category or other local year category. I had hoped the use the 2019 in the Netherlands category to look for images wich have to subcategorised. This is much more usefull than day categories. Now I would have to look at every day category in the Netherlands to look for images needing subcategorisation on Year/sublocation. Most images of for example; landscape it really doesnot matter wich specific day the picture is taken. Only for specific events is the date important.

I can repair the damage for the files I follow, but how about the other files? There is a lot of work to be done in subcategorisation. For example look at Category:North Holland by year. The big cities in North Holland (Amsterdam, Haarlem, etc) have often year categories) South Holland has to done, the same as other provinces.

In principle at least one year category should always be availabe if you are researching by year. On almost never research for a specific date and even the one trys the narrow it down to a specific location.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Smiley.toerist, I did put the files back that I moved yesterday evening. Rudolphous (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Haarlem by year

Hoi, Je kan wat met sjablonen. Waarom zijn de jaartallen 1990 t/m 1999 en 2019 verkeerd gesorteerd?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ik snap niet helemaal wat je bedoelt. Heb je een linkje waar dit op is te zien? (mogelijk is dit ook backoffice vertraging) Rudolphous (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ik snap al wat je bedoeld. Even kijken wat daar aan te doen is. Rudolphous (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

opgelost. Rudolphous (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

OK: Het waren alleen de jaren met sjabloon die anders gesorteerd waren. Nu loopt alles gelijk, met of zonder sjabloon. Verder heb jaar in Noord Holland en jaar in Nederland bij elkaar gezet. In theorie kan later kunnen later alle plaatsen onder provincie gezet worden, maar een dubbele link naar boven zowel naar Nederland en provincie is nuttig. Vreemdelingen weten niet in welke provincie ze een stad kunnen opzoeken. Amsterdam zoeken ze onder Nederland en niet Noord-Holland. Ik heb hetzelfde probleem als ik buitenland plaatsen wil opzoeken in Commons. Ik wil gewoon alle spoorstations van Duitsland zien en niet per regio.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Klinkt goed allemaal. Rudolphous (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ik ben begonnen met 'Category:2001 in South Holland' aan te maken, maar ik moet nu weg.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Oke, zal kijken of ik ook een aantal foto's of categorien kan vinden. Rudolphous (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Gelderland

Ik heb de jaar categorieën van Nijmegen toegevoegd aan die van Gelderland. Zutphen moet nog een jaar categorieën krijgen en toegevoegd worden aan Gelderland. Zie Category:2015 in Gelderland. Het is nu te mooi weer om te blijven zitten.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Mooi, weer een stap verder. Rudolphous (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Zutphen by year is gemaakt. Rudolphous (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Breda

Deze jaarcategorieën (bijvoorbeeld Category:2015 in Breda, Netherlands, nu tijdelijk aangepast) zitten nog niet in jaar in the Netherlands of North Brabant. Bij deze laaatste moeten er nog veel categorieën aangemaakt worden.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Zojuist doorgevoerd. Rudolphous (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Utrecht provincie

Ik heb de sjabloon Utrechtprovinceyear aangemaakt. Kan je die checken. Straks doe ik die voor Groningen provincie.Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ik heb alleen de vlag gewijzigd, de rest klopt volgens mij. Rudolphous (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ik ben verder gegaan met Zeist waar nog veel jaarcategorieën gemist worden. Ik zit wel even met Woerden, daar is nu maar een jaarcategorie '2018 in Woerden'. Probleem met een Woerden template is dat de gemeente vroeger bij Zuid-Holland was ingedeeld (1814 tot 1989) en daarna bij Utrecht. Kan een sjabloon hiermee rekening houden of moeten er twee varianten aangemaakt worden, of gewoon de provincie niet toevoegen aan de sjabloon?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Voor Zeist heb ik een aantal jaarcategorieën toegevoegd. Over Woerden: technisch moet dit wel kunnen denk. Denk dat we hiervoor zoiets voor nodig hebben. Morgen druk, maar later deze week kan ik hier wel naar kijken. Rudolphous (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Ik heb alvast 'Category:Woerden by year' aangemaakt en diverse jaarcategorieën aangemaakt met willekeurige geselecteerde files. Ook de vlaggen zijn verschillend maar ik denk niet dat wij historische vlaggen gebruiken in de categorieën.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Woerden is klaar. De opsplitsing van de provincie Holland is in 1840 uitgevoerd. Eerder gebruik ik geen categorie South Holland.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Alvast een aantal foto's op jaar ingedeeld. Rudolphous (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sjabloon voor jaar Overijssel is toegevoegd en ik alvast diverse year in Overijssel aangemaakt. Voorlopig alleen Deventer en Enschede.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Trafo - gashuisjes Java-eiland

In deze categorie heb je alle foto's voorzien van de category:2019 in Amstelveen. Zou je die weer willen verwijderen. Andere heb ik handmatig gecorrigeerd, maar dit is een groep van 23. Alvast bedankt,Ceescamel (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Is goed, gedaan. Rudolphous (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hoek van Holland

Ik heb een jaar sjabloon gemaakt voor Hoek van Holland en twee jaar categorieën aangemaakt. Bijzonder is dat Hoek van Holland bij de gemeente Rotterdam is. Het is daarom wel een subcategorie van Rotterdam. Dit is echter ver van het centrum van Rotterdam en er liggen veel gemeentes tussen: Schiedam Vlaardingen etc. Met het havengebied is het wel aaneensluitend. Er zijn echter veel beelden van Hoek van Holland. Daarom wil ik deze plaats toch als aparte plaats in Zuid Holland behandelen net als de Zandmotor. PS: Dank voor het werk met Marken.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Ik heb 1905 foto's kunnen koppelen. Via deze link kunnen mogelijk nog meer foto's gevonden worden: link. Rudolphous (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

A new work for a your bot

Hi (sorry for my english), may you use your bot for remove the upper category from a image, as well as File:1829 - Milano - Palazzo Litta - Decorazione facciata - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 15-Sep-2007.jpg? If you seen, this have the {{According to EXIF data}}, and if your bot could replace that template by seeing if the image is already categorized by country, as in this case it is a city of Italy, you could do a lot of dirty work. I am aware that there may be some categorization errors that could give false positives but if you could make a service category for the cases where the bot finds unusual results you could do a lot, what do you think of this idea?--Threecharlie (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you that I'm already doing a lot of categorization work in this context, look at my contributions, and as with the template, you can't move with the Cat-a-lot if you don't do over-categorizations as the case above.--Threecharlie (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice that you help to categorize the photo's of Wikimedia. I'm affraid I cannot help, see also. Rudolphous (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi , I've noticed that in the example (Variant A: Use location parameters [84]) you gave in the above mentioned discussion (see also) - the location-category assigned by the bot to the picture is "Germany" (Germany photographs taken on 2011-07-03) whilst the object has nothing in common with location in Germany but is located in the US. I'm not sure whether it was done intentionally - to illustrate disadvantages of the automated categorisation based on the wording from the titles? Shouldn't it be corrected (from Germany to US) or left as it is now - as an illustration? --Oo91 (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oo91, good one - fixed the location. Rudolphous (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Ouder-Amstel en Duivendrecht

Ik merk dat veel plaatjes van Duivendrecht (vooral het station) onder een 'jaar in Amsterdam' categorie gezet worden. Ik heb nu een paar extra 'jaar in Ouder-Amstel' aangemaakt. Voor de twee spoorongelukken in 1954 en 1956 zit ik over te denken om die uit station Duivendrecht te halen (het station bestond toen niet) en naar een spoorlijn categorie te zetten.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Prima. Rudolphous (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Germany photographs taken on .....

Hello Rudolphous, thanks for adding Category:Germany photographs taken on ... to my Files ! Regards --Olga Ernst (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

You 're welcome. Rudolphous (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrong country

No idea why, but your bot seems to have decided that Washington State is in the United Kingdom. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes that was a mistake from my side. Am correcting them now. Rudolphous (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrong cat

Hi Rudolphous, i have reverted this edit since the photo was not taken in Russia. Where does it come from? --Arnd (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That was because of the cat "Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 in Russia". I changed this now. Thanks. Rudolphous (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

X photographs taken on DD-MM-YYYY

Goedemiddag. Zou het moeglijk zijn de files die ik heb geupload van de bot task uittezetten? Ik heb alle foto's zelf in die categorieeen gezet, ik do het met alle nieuw foto's die ik upload, en wat overblijft zijn of banners (waar de datum van het maken staat, en niet van het opnemen) of de files met een fout datum (tijd verschil geeft een fout in de datum, of gewoon fout metedata). Kortom, ik zorg zelf dat de files in de goede categorieen binnenkomen, en in de foute categorieen niet. Bij voorbat dank.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Ymblanter, ik zie dat je inderdaad al veel categorien plaatst. Ik zal je foto's overslaan en de banner foto's die gecategorieerd zijn terugplaatsen. Rudolphous (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Dank je wel. Ik heb al alles teruggeplaatst die fout stond, dus is niet meer nodig.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Goed te lezen. Bedankt! Rudolphous (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Dein Bot erzeugt viel Aufwand! :-(

Hallo! Dein Bot erzeugt echt viel Aufwand. Jetzt hat er diese Änderung durchgeführt: [85]. Das ist nur ein Beispiel. Nun ist dort eine Überkategorisierung, der die Datei File:Warendorf, Freckenhorst, Umland -- 2014 -- 8645.jpg bereits in Category:Fotoflug Münsterland 2014-06-01 und damit in Category:North Rhine-Westphalia photographs taken on 2014-06-01 und so in Category:Germany photographs taken on 2014-06-01 ist. Kategorien von Ein-Tages-Events direkt zuzuordnen, ist meiner Meinung nach ein guter Weg und kommt auch relativ oft vor. Die einzelnen Bilder müssen dann nicht mehr den "Taken on"-Kategorien zugeordnet werden. Bitte achte doch mal darauf, dass dein Bot besser arbeitet und nicht so viel Arbeit erzeugt. Und wenn ich schon mal dabei bin, hier hat er auch unsauber gearbeitet: [86]. Die doppelten Kategorien durfte ich auch wieder entfernen. --XRay ^talk 06:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Danke für deine Nachricht. Ich habe einige andere Fotos in Griechenland korrigiert. Ich werde jetzt prüfen, ob es weitere Probleme mit Deutsche foto's gibt. Rudolphous (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Die Griechenland-Bilder hatte ich bereits weitgehend korrigiert, aber danke für die letzten Korrekturen. Mein Bot (für meine Bilder) entfernt automatisch doppelte Kategorien. Für die anderen Aktionen empfehle ich vor dem Setzen einer Kategorie zu prüfen, welche Bilder bereits enthalten sind. Man kann für einen Tag alle Bilder unter "Photographs taken on ..." lesen und weiß, dass diese Bilder nicht mehr zu betrachten sind. Erst dann setzt man Kategorien für den Tag bei den anderen Bildern. Es ist nicht immer einfach, aber es gibt immer wieder ganz wilde Kombinationen. --XRay ^talk 10:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop your bot for my files!

Half of the files, that I downloaded, already have a template Taken on. It adds categories X photographs taken on DD-MM-YYYY? Why add a category again? Stop your bot for my files! --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I checked all Ukraine pictures, this should be fixed now. Sorry for inconvenience. Rudolphous (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Correction for the bot: if there is a template {{Taken on}}, skip files! More than 3000 of my files have a template. Should I check your bot for 3000 files? --Микола Василечко (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Good proposal will include this. I think you used the template 1370 times and 5043 times not, see: [87] and [88]. All pictures should be fine now. If you want I can maybe include the template in all of your pictures. Rudolphous (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I check all my files. I add categories that I didn't add at the time. Some files are updated - larger images, clarify descriptions. Slowly, but already correctly. If template {{Taken on|time|location=Ukraine}} - yes: I did not take photos outside Ukraine.--Микола Василечко (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

File rename

Hallo Rudolphous, imo deze file zou best hernoemd worden vanwege #2. Thanks. Lotje (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Klopt, gedaan. Mvg, Rudolphous (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

bug report

Hi. please check Special:Diff/386227474. Hanooz 18:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Will take care of this one. Rudolphous (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

categorisation based on incorrect date in file metadata

Hi, it could be great if the bot could be able to check "bad data" report in files to avoid incorrect categorisation as hereː FileːJammu_unknown.jpg --Oo91 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, will include this. Rudolphous (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Moldava->Moldova

Hi, please be advised of the correct country name: [89]. I have fixed the typo everywhere I could find it in that category tree and related templates, but you may know more places requiring a fix. Regards, Gikü (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Oke, thanks! Rudolphous (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

wikimedia "Category:Gorakhpur"ː incorrect Wikidata Infobox

Hi, it seems that "Category:Gorakhpur" was linked to incorrect wikidata itemː village Goraghpur in Hayana instead of city Goraghpur in Uttar Pradesh. This results in links to incorrect articles in Wikipedia and incorrect Wikidata Infobox in this category. I don't know the way to correct it (in Wikidata, but where?, to change manually the links to aticles one by one?). It started probably from this editionː (Adding "Interwiki from wikidata" to get links to Wikipedia articles) ː apparently the "Gorakhpur, Haryana (Q244415)" was added instead of " Gorakhpur (Q5584396) " . It also could happen that the Q244415 item on wikidata at the time of bot's action was linked to the proper Gorakhpur (as visible in the history of edition) and later 'taken' for the "Goraghpur village" and a new one had to be created for the "proper Goraghpur". Link to the disambiguation page (BTW. there is another Goraghpurː in MP). If you can change the wrong "Interwiki from wikidata" - maybe all the necessary corrections could be done automatically? --Oo91 (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oo91: (from talk page stalker) It should be sorted out with this edit (and the reverse direction), does that look better now? (If it hasn't changed, you might need to [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Gorakhpur?action=purge purge the category). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: now it is OK. Thank you. --Oo91 (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Manual categorisation vs Template:Taken on

Hello, I have noticed that the bot manually categorises images into Category:Country photographs taken on ..., but if you actually take a look at these categories you will see a request to not add them manually, but rather use {{Taken on}}. Is it possible to change the bot to do that? I am currently using User:Gone Postal/takenon.js to do that, but it would be great if the bot would help out rather than create unnecessary work. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Very nice script - thanks for sharing. The taken on template has two problems. One is the timezone is missing - two is not all people like this template. So I think there's no consensus for this task - but if you can get I'm willing to help ofcourse. Rudolphous (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Patanga succincta (40890841064).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 20:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect date oh photograph taken added to files

The bot just added the incorrect photograph taken to two of my files File:San Diego Zoo 2003 04.jpg and File:San Diego Zoo 2003 05.jpg These were taken in 2003, uploaded in 2012. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Found some others and corrected them. Thanks! Rudolphous (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Almere

Er is nog geen jaar categorie voor Almere. Ik heb lukraak bij enkele files 'jjjj in Flevoland' toegevoegd. Tot nu toe zijn er alleen 'jjjj in Lelystad' categorieën onder FLevoland. Oostvlaarderplassen heebn ook files die erbij horen. Ik kan handwerk gaan verrichten, maar het lijkt mij handiger jouw robot het werk te laten doen.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Ik heb zo'n 2500 foto's gekoppeld en ook aantal aantal nieuwe aan Lelystad toegevoegd. Rudolphous (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

De decade 2010 van Almere heb ik afgehandeld.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Amsterdam - De Dam - Figure 1 (Darth Vader).JPG

Yours sincerely, Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

File:سد يوسف بن تاشفين الجاف.jpg

Hi Rudolphous, I was wondering why RudolphousBot made this edit? As far as I know, Morocco and South Sudan are not the same. Maybe it has something to do with the Category:Barrage Youssef Ibn Tachfin? Thank you for your time. :-) Lotje (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

According to the gps location it's South Sudan, see also [90] . Rudolphous (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

​ Thank you very much for looking into this. In order to avoid confusion, the Category:Nature of Morocco should be removed I guess. Lotje (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Het is een zoekplaatje. Bij nader inzien denk ik toch dat het Marokko moet zijn. Daarom heb ik de eerder geplaatste categorie verwijderd. De tekst heeft het over een Dam in die alleen in dit land is te vinden. Ik dacht eerst dat de x en de y van de gps omgedraaid waren. Helaas klopt dat ook niet, want dan kom ik in Algerije uit. Rudolphous (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Online dating (14591726690).jpg

Hi, Rudolphous, are you sure they are dating online? :-) Lotje (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

According to the original source they 're :-) - I did a rename to for clearity. Groeten, Rudolphous (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

File:High Angle shoot training-7.jpg

Hello Rudolphous!
I need your nl-capabilities to check High Angle shoot training-7.jpg and all the other images in Category:Truppenübungsplatz Seetaler Alpe. They are licenced under CC-0 and the source is this nl website, but I cound not find any indication that this image is actually licenced under CC-0. Could you take a look at the images and the website and see if the files might be licenced under CC-0?
--D-Kuru (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I found it on this page: https://www.defensie.nl/copyright. CC-0 looks oke to me. Rudolphous (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! With {{Mindef}} there even seems to be a licencetemplate for that --D-Kuru (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Israel-05484 - Yigal Alon Museum (34440802721).jpg

Hello Rudolphous,

Your bot made this edit. I have no idea why. Can you explain. -- Geagea (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Answered on the talk page of JuTa. Rudolphous (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

File:George H. W. Bush with Michael Jackson.png

Any copyright issues?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not a copy right expert. You can better try another admin. Rudolphous (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Macao photographs taken on ...

Hi, could you pls. change your bot to create Category:Macau photographs taken on ... instead of Category:Macao photographs taken on ... because there is a Category:Macau while Category:Macao is justa redirect. Thx --JuTa 02:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. Rudolphous (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The same applies to Category:Timor-Leste and Category:East Timor. Thx. --JuTa 19:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

... and for Category:U.S. Virgin Islands and Category:United States Virgin Islands. Thx again. --JuTa 20:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your bot is still creaton Macao things - see Category:Macao photographs taken on 2009-03-01 and Category:Macau photographs taken on 2009-03-01. Please change it. --JuTa 22:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The same applies to Myanmar - see i.e. Category:Myanmar (Burma) photographs taken on 2014-07-22 and Category:Myanmar photographs taken on 2014-07-22. Thx. --JuTa 22:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello JuTa, should be fixed now - thanks! Rudolphous (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Ireland photographs taken on...

Hello. A lot of these categories are showing up at Category:Broken category redirects. Is there a way this can be fixed? Thanks. 1989 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I will go through them. Rudolphous (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, Cheers! Rudolphous (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Time to be more selective?

Hi Rudolphous - just a thought . . . does Commons really need yet more worthless holiday snaps of street pigeons, tame ducks, and so on, particularly ones with no location information? We already have tens of thousands. Try looking for more unusual rare bird photos to upload! Personally, I don't upload anything now if it doesn't have any location data, as stuff that doesn't might just as well be deleted as useless - out of Commons scope as no educational value. Just thinking out loud ;-) MPF (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello MPF, true - I uploaded 500 marvelous ship photographs but among them where some doves. I don't mind deleting them if it does not add value. Rudolphous (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! On my contributions list, the ones I just moved from Category:Birds to Category:Feral pigeons :-) MPF (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Oke, deleted them. Thanks for all your effort you put in the bird pictures. It becomes a great collection. Rudolphous (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Cueva del Gato

Hello Rudolphous. Something strange happened here. The article in Spanish does exist but somehow commons can't find it. I think it may have something to do with a change I made in es.wiki without realising it. If you know how to solve it I'd be most grateful. Regards, tyk (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It is solved now. Have a nice day, Rudolphous (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Regards, tyk (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata Infobox Amaro Pargo

The date of his death is October 14, not October 4: Amaro Rodríguez Felipe. Spanish merchant, moneylender, and corsair (1678-1747).--87.223.191.224 08:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Approval for RudolphousBot

Could you link to where RudolphousBot was approved to add the location inside {{Taken on}}? This is a very large task - I'm getting dozens to hundreds of watchlist items a day from it - and I can't find the discussion. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't provide a link for this. Stopped the bot. You can disable bot from you watchlist if this helps. Rudolphous (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not opposed to that task, but given the scale there should be a BRFA or equivalent community discussion. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Kazachstan?

Hoe kan dit? Ik zie nergens iets wat kan wijzen op Kazachstan. --bdijkstra (overleg) 13:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

De locatie stond er op een ongebruikelijke manier in verwerkt. Ik heb gekeken naar soortgelijke bot-bewerkingen, maar zie geen andere. Ik zal het script aanpassen om dit locatie-formaat in het vervolg over te slaan. --Rudolphous (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Structured data postcards

I see that the Rudolphousbot is buzy with filling in license data from the file data. For most users this is of little search relevance. Almost by definition all files in the Commons do have to have a good license, otherwise they are deleted. I do add some 'content' structured data files. Is it an idea to let the bot scan all postcards categories and add (P31) (Q192425) to structured data?Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hoi Smiley, Ik doe niet zoveel botgewijs met WikiData - ik denk dat je beter iemand anders kan vragen. Rudolphous (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Je bent wel de beheerder van Rudolphousbot, maar goed ik zal de vraag plaatsen in the Village Pump. (Typish voorbeeld van zo een mutatie: automatically adding structured data claims based on file information: date source copyright license) Gezien de hoeveelheid van mutaties moet dit wel een gecoördineerde actie zijn, maar is dit vanuit de Wikidata gemeenschap of de Commons gemeenschap?Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Smiley, Deze wijziging wordt niet gedaan door RudolphousBot. Een andere bot voert deze wijzigingen uit, namelijk SchlurcherBot. Mvg, Rudolphous (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Deze bot voort wijzingen uit op Commons, dus vanuit de Commons gemeenschap. Rudolphous (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Twee vraagjes

• Je foto File:Binnenvaartschip vaart door open brug.jpg kon ik thuisbrengen. Het schip heeft weer een nieuwe naam, maar het ENI nummer blijft altijd hetzelfde (tegenwoordig). Maar waar was die brug, of hoe heet die brug?
• Er is een nieuwe gebruiker geweest, die nu weer is vertrokken (kennelijk), en die heeft Category:Titanic (ship, 1912) 2x naar een andere directry verplaatst, zonder enig overleg. Ik heb die nieuwe category voorgedragen voor verwijdering, in de gedachte dat de oude situatie weer zou worden hersteld. Ik denk dat ik dat niet juist heb gedaan. Kan je er eens naar kijken? --Stunteltje (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hallo Stunteltje, het was bij de Tolbrug over de Drecht. Fijn dat je het schip hebt kunnen identificeren. Ik zal naar de category kijken. Rudolphous (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ik zal ook kijken of ik van die brug nog andere plaatjes van kan vinden. Overigens: ik zag dat je een bestand naar 2011 overhevelde. Het schip is echt pas in 1912 opgeleverd. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

2011 is inderdaad niet de bedoeling, weet je nog welke bewerking dat was? Ik kan nog wel een keer langs die brug fietsen en foto's maken als je dat leuk vind. Rudolphous (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Het ging om File:Titanic made in Belfast - from the gable of the Pump House which filled and emptied the Dry Dock where Titanic was fitted out. - panoramio.jpg. En het is altijd aardig om foto's te hebben van bruggen in vaarwegen. Als schipper kan je in een twijfelgeval even kijken waar je tegenaan kan varen. Dat haal je qua tekst wel uit de bestanden van Rijkswaterstaat, maar daar staan maar zelden foto's bij. Ze kunnen dan in een eigen category. Nu de foto van het binnenschip nog niet, maar 1 foto en zonder de brug. Maar je ziet al wel het remmingwerk.--Stunteltje (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hallo Stunteltje, in het aangehaalde voorbeeld zie ik 2012 in 2011 veranderen - dat is correct toch? Ik zal nog een paar foto's maken van de brug - misschien kunnen we dan een artikel maken op de Nederlandse Wikipedia. Rudolphous (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandaag nog drie foto's gemaakt Category:Tolbrug Leimuiden. Rudolphous (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Dat is leuk en zo hebben we een beeld bij die brug. Wellicht zit er nog eens een artikeltje in, als er ergens iets over de brug opduikt in de vakbladen. Te weinig en niet E: [91] En neen, 1911 is het jaartal dat de Engelsen gebruiken, het jaar van de tewaterlating. Maar Commons is internationaal, andere taalgebieden gebruiken, net zoals de Nederlandse Wikipedia, vaak ook de datum van oplevering. Daarom gebruiken we in Commons voor alle schepen juist het jaar van oplevering, in dit geval 1912. Ik heb het beschreven in de discussiepagina. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Dank voor de link. Aangezien er discussie loopt over de categorie is het denk ik het handigste om dit even af te wachten. Rudolphous (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Feeding time (13927438256).jpg

File:Feeding time (13927438256).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!

GRDN711 (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Knuppel in het hoenderhok

Beste Rudolphous, ik denk er sterk over om ook in Wikipedia Commons maar eens een knuppel in het hoenderhok te gooien. Maar daar toch eerst maar even overleg over op te zetten, want het is goed mogelijk dat ik nogal wat fijnslijpers daarmee tegen de haren instrijk.

Naval ships often have a prefix in their name, as long as they have a militairy commander. E.G.: Hr.Ms. De Ruyter, HMS Endurance, USS Bainbridge, ARA Spiro and so on. Often is the name of the category in Wikimedia Commons followed by their pennant number. No problem at all, when the user can read the article of the ship in their Wikipedia by language. But not specialists, looking for images of the vessel, find more ships with the same name.

My suggestion is to start the name of the category with the pennant number, followed by the name and the year of first commisioning. Only if naval ships don't have a prefix: the name with "ship" and the year of first commisioning between brackets, as all other ships have the year of completion.

• Category:F806 Hr.Ms. De Ruyter (1976)
• Category:A171 HMS Endurance (1990)
• Category:246 USS Bainbridge (1920)
• Category:P-43 ARA Spiro (1988)

Advantage: It places the ship immediately in her time. What not specialist users see in publications or in a harbour is the pennant number, in large characters painted on the ship. Categorising this way can finding images of the ship make easyer.

Zou dat enige kans maken? Zo ja: wat is de beste plaats voor die discussie? --Stunteltje (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hoi Stunteltje. Lastige vraag. Kans maakt het zeker. Hoe je dit het beste er doorheen kan krijgen, kan je beter een andere admin vragen denk. Rudolphous (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ik heb al even rondgekeken. Ik meen dat het wel een vraag voor de dorpspomp kan zijn. Gevonden bij de help-pagina's voor categorieën. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Identification of mushroom in File:20171014 Noordwijk - Leeuwenhorstbos - Gewone zwavelkop (Hypholoma fasciculare).jpg

Hello. The mushroom in this photo is not a Hypholoma fasciculare, but rather an Armillaria. Please see the talk page. Is it OK if I change the category accordingly? Best wishes, Strobilomyces (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. Also the mushroom of File:20181003 Fungi in Klein Leeuwenhorst - Gewone zwavelkop (Hypholoma fasciculare) v3.jpg is not Hypholoma fasciculare, I think it is Coprinellus micaceus. Please can I change the identification in this case too? Strobilomyces (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. Thanks for your message. Rudolphous (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, great, I will update the categories and descriptions (not the file names). I have found another similar one, File:20171104 Fungi of Leeuwenhorstbos - Gewone zwavelkop (Hypholoma fasciculare) v2.jpg (please see the talk page). Unless you object, I will change the identification of that one too. Strobilomyces (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No objections. Rudolphous (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Also there are the following files which in every case you categorize as Hypholoma fasciculare, but which in my opinion don't look like that species: File:20141106 038 Lottum Het Schuitwater (15104975674).jpg, File:20141106 037 Lottum Het Schuitwater (15539749417).jpg, File:20021026 Zwart Water Paddestoel 14 (9928856385).jpg, File:20021026 Zwart Water Paddestoel 12 (9929009093).jpg. Please see the respective talk pages. The photographer in these cases was different, but I think you are responsible. Again I propose to change the categories if you don't object. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Currently I am traveling. I can handle this files later. Rudolphous (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I made the desired changes. Many thanks for your remarks. Rudolphous (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That's good. I accidentally pinged you for comments on a Volvopluteus photo which was nothing to do with you. I apologize, please ignore it. Strobilomyces (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

NP. Rudolphous (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Araba

Araba 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!

E4024 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gestructureerde data voor tijd en plaats

Hoi Rudolphous, ik heb je regelmatig in de weer gezien met categorieën zoals Category:1987 in Zeist. Heb je wel eens wat met gestructureerde data gedaan? Ik denk dat je daarmee op termijn de boel veel beter vindbaar kan maken. Zie bijvoorbeeld File:Zeist, voetballer Frank Rijkaard voor arbitragecommissie i.v.m. tekenen van cont, Bestanddeelnr 934-0248.jpg. Multichill (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hoi Multichill, ik heb wel handmatig zaken in wikidata gezet, maar nog niet per bot. Rudolphous (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Dit is niet op Wikidata, dit is hier op Commons met gebruikmaking van Wikidata. Het wordt dus hoog tijd! :-) Heb je interesse om hiermee te helpen? Multichill (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Die gestructureerde data ken ik ook. Soms voeg ik daar ook claims too. Hoe kan ik helpen? Rudolphous (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Wellicht kan je helpen met Commons_talk:Structured_data/Modeling/Date#Exif_date? Multichill (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Euacidalia sericearia (44207196351).jpg

Beste Rudolphous, Hoe zeker ben je van de determinatie van File:Euacidalia sericearia (44207196351).jpg? Ik vind het er namelijk niet als een spanner uitzien, en ook de andere foto die ik inmiddels heb geupload lijkt heel anders... Groet, Lymantria (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC).

Hallo Lymantria, ik heb kennelijk de verkeerde foto bewerkt - bij deze alsnog de goede foto gedaan en de vorige teruggezet. Rudolphous (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Vraagje

Hallo Rudolphous vanwaar deze naam? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ook dit vind ik nogal vreemd.

Dit is overgenomen van de bron. Ik heb het aangepast. Rudolphous (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Bedankt Rudolphous! Wanneer ik deze met deze vergelijk, zou dit wel Maarten van Rossum kunnen zijn dacht ik. Zo ja, kan ik 'em aan de Category:Maarten van Rossum toevoegen. Wat denk je? Lotje (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hij lijkt er idd wel op, maar ben niet 100% zeker. Rudolphous (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Dan maar liever (nog) niet toevoegen. Toch bedankt! Lotje (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Evident Maarten van Rossum. De naam staat op het schilderij. Nu toegevoegd. Vysotsky (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Scherp gezien. Fijn dat we nu zekerheid hebben. Mvg, Rudolphous (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect categorization with iNaturalist2Commons script

Hey Rudolphous! I noticed that your script tagged this spider photo with Category:Fungi in December. Not sure what went wrong there. Kaldari (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kaldari, yes this was wrong. I have a specialized script to import fungi but for other species than fungi I need to undo some categories manually. Thanks for fixing. Rudolphous (talk)

Odd edits?

Hi Rudolphous - curious, why this edit and several others like it, copying to Category:Unidentified birds, when thay are already identified and in named species categories? - MPF (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello MPF, I found some unidentified birds of Israel - but it looks like some where indentified. Sorry for that. Rudolphous (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Emmerich IGE 185 405 Internationale Gesellschaft für Eisenbahnverkehr GmbH & Co (15806599463).jpg

File:Emmerich IGE 185 405 Internationale Gesellschaft für Eisenbahnverkehr GmbH & Co (15806599463).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!

Dynamopokos (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrong categorization

Hello. I found that all files in this category were mistakenly categorized there by RudolphousBot. The correct category should be Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Oleksandria. Please correct.--Leonst (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Rudolphous (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy 2021!

--LamBoet (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot LamBoet. For you also a very happy 2021 and nice that you are back again! Rudolphous (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous description and structured data

Hello. The description, Category and Structured data of this image are completely different from the original. Perhaps you have copied this incorrectly. Should I correct it? --森津 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. Rudolphous (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinus serotina

Hi Rudolphous - just to let you know, I'm currently adding Pinus serotina pics from inaturalist, thought it would help you to know to avoid duplicating files by accident. As an aside, when naming the files, please include the location in the filename, it makes sorting them much easier in the future. Also best to use vernacular name capitalisation as at the inat source ;-) Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for renaming and the explanation. Think I leave them better for you. Rudolphous (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons!

Dear Rudolphous

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC

Hello Rudolphous,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Prunus serrula - von dir importiert

Hallo,

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E5%A4%A7%E6%89%8B%E6%AF%AC%E6%AB%BB_Cerasus_serrulata_Oh-demari_-%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%A4%A7%E9%98%AA%E9%80%A0%E5%B9%A3%E5%B1%80_Japan_Mint,_Osaka-_%2841187177524%29.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E5%A4%A7%E6%89%8B%E6%AF%AC%E6%AB%BB_Cerasus_serrulata_Oh-demari_-%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%A4%A7%E9%98%AA%E9%80%A0%E5%B9%A3%E5%B1%80_Japan_Mint,_Osaka-_%2841187177524%29.jpg

sind meiner Einschätzung nach nicht Prunus serrula ... Gruß Baummapper (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Baummapper, Ich kann es ändern, haben Sie einen Vorschlag? Rudolphous (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

De Groendijck in Driebruggen of Waarder

Beste Rudolphous, weet jij of de straat De Groendijck in Driebruggen ligt of is het in Waarder een kern van Reeuwijk? De Rijksmonumentenbeschrijving van De Groendijck 2, heeft het over woonplaats Driebruggen en Kadastrale gemeente Waarden. Volgens Wikipedia behoorde Waarder van 1964 tot 1989 tot de gemeente Driebruggen. Van 1989 tot 2011 behoorde het tot de gemeente Reeuwijk. Ik ben bezig met Category:Straten in Reeuwijk en heb Waarder als kern van Reeuwijk, een eigen category gegeven. Ik weet dat de gemeenten Bodegraven en Reeuwijk per 1 januari 2011 zijn gefuseerd tot de gemeente Bodegraven-Reeuwijk maar heb er voor gekozen om die twee te splitsen. Ik heb nu een Category:De Groendijck, Waarden en een Category:De Groendijck, Driebruggen en wil dus weten of ik één van beiden kan laten verwijderen. Ik stel deze vraag aan jou omdat jij een bewerking hebt gedaan aan Category:De Groendijck 2, Waarder. Mvg --Agaath (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Agaath, Nee sorry dit weet ik niet. Rudolphous (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hallo @Agaath: , (vraag me niet hoe ik hier kwam, ik weet het ook niet) - Heb je iets aan https://www.pdok.nl/viewer/? Kies in de zoekbalk voor de plaats, Selecteer een dataset - CBS Gebiedsindelingen, vink vervolgens naar keuze cbs_buurt_2020 (labelpoint + gegeneraliseerd) en/of cbs_wijk_2020 (idem) aan, zoom in en je kunt precies zien welke straat bij welke wijk/buurt en gemeente hoort. Het CBS krijgt de indelingen van de gemeenten. JopkeB (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Dank je wel voor het hulpmiddel. Ik heb mijn vraag kunnen oplossen--Agaath (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

For archive User talk:Rudolphous/Archive

Nea Smyrni

The bot has added the Nea Smyrni category to images that have nothing to do with it e.g. Αθηνά Τουμπίδου.jpg--Catlemur (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The pictures was taken in this city. But agree, that you have taken it out. Rudolphous (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Verkeerde categorie toegevoegd door Rudolphousbot

Dag Rudolphous, ik zag dat je bot bij File:Nothofagus antarctica D.jpg de categorie "Argentina photographs taken on 2000-07-06" heeft toegevoegd. Waarschijnlijk vanwege de categorie "Flora of Tierra del Fuego". De foto is echter genomen in België en niet in Argentinië. Ik weet dat men soms bij een plant een reeks "Flora of ..." categoriën zet. Jouw bot zou dan dezelfde reeks van landen photographs maken hetgeen mij niet juist lijkt. Wouter (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Wouter, dank voor de melding ik heb de categorie nagelopen. Rudolphous (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Overcategorization by the bot

I just reverted this edit: [92]. This is overcategorization. Category:Trifolieae in Vorarlberg is a subcategory of Category:Faboideae in Vorarlberg which is a subcategory of Category:Fabaceae in Vorarlberg. Therefore, adding Category:Fabaceae in Vorarlberg again was overcategorization. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Rudolphous, the problem is the same with some categories "{species} in Ruhland": the Bot put to pictures a Category "{family} in Brandenburg". But the same category is upper category of pictures category "{species} in Ruhland", too. I've reverted this in the case of Category:Cerastium arvense in Ruhland. But there will be some others. Best regards --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hallo again, I've just fixed the file categories for Ruhland manually by Cat-a-lot. Think you will find out and fix the problem of the bot :-). And thanks for your work ! Best regards --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages. Will take care of this. Rudolphous (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

iNaturalist2Commons

Just wondering if you saw my comments at https://github.com/kaldari/iNaturalist2Commons/issues/9. Kaldari (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ansered there. Rudolphous (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Goedemorgen

Ik begrijp uw wijzigingen op (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Netherlands_photographs_taken_on_2019-18-04&diff=next&oldid=553701772) niet. De foto is niet in 2019 gemaakt maar op 18 april 2021, 07:27:40. Groeten van --Famberhorst (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Goedemorgen Famberhorst, de categorie inhoud hoort te corresponderen met de titel. De foto zelf stond fout ingedeeld, bij deze aangepast. Mvg, Rudolphous (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Bedankt voor de correctie. Maar het kwartje is bij mij nog steeds niet gevallen wat ik verkeerd had gedaan.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Een categorie die heet "Categorie:Netherlands photographs taken on 2019-xx-yy" moet ook een template hebben van 2019 en niet 2021 zoals eerst het geval was. xx moet overigens ook de maand zijn en yy de dag. Nu staat dit (nog steeds) verkeerd om en is de categorie leeg. 05:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Wat moet ik nu nog veranderen?--Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Famberhorst, ik heb de categorie die leeg is verwijderd. Nu klopt alles weer. Als bij de volgende categorie jaar-maand-dag notatie aangehouden wordt gaat het vast een stuk beter. Rudolphous (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Van Speijkstraat (Q19624365)

Hallo Rudolphous 1831 J C Jan Speyk 1881 (of iets in die aard), daar vraag ik me af waar die datum 1881 vandaan komt. Had je daar enig idee van of zou dit te achterhalen zijn? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Lotje, misschien is 1881 het bouwjaar van de woningen? Zie ook. Mvg, Rudolphous (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Bedankt Rudolphous! Ik had aan iets met een jubileum gedacht: 50 jaar Grts. Lotje (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Misidentification

Hi Rudolphous: This picture, which you uploaded back in 2019, has been misidentified. It is a male Western Tanager, not a Wilson's Warbler! Can you please move it to an appropriate filename, with categories adjusted to match? A quick look at photos in both categories will show you the differences; they're considerable! ;) MeegsC (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello MeegsC, Thanks for your notification. Took the ID from the source. Made the proposed changes, Best regards. Rudolphous (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Hypholoma fasciculare 97555853.jpg

Hello. Did you see that I had replied to your question on File talk:Hypholoma fasciculare 97555853.jpg? I think the mushroom is a Hypholoma capnoides. Strobilomyces (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Strobilomyces, made the proposed changes. Have a nice day. Rudolphous (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Odd edit

Hi Rudolphous - any reasons for the change of Japan to Sri Lanka in this edit? The pic doesn't give any location, but the photographer's flickr photos are clearly Japanese in general; is there other evidence for suggesting the photo was taken in Sri Lanka? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello MPF, corrected this photo and a couple of others. Rudolphous (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

RudolphousBot deprecated API calls

Hey!

It seems RudolphousBot is doing action=query&prop=info&intoken API calls, which has been deprecated since 2014. In support of phab:T280806, any chance you could update it to a more modern version of token fetching?

If it helps, it seems to be using a User Agent of Unknown/Unknown JWBF/DEVEL Apache-HttpClient/4.3.4 (java 1.5)

Thanks!

Reedy (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a ping on this... Your bot has made 100K deprecated calls in the last 24H. Reedy (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I am using JWBF 3.1.x which is the latest. There is an issue since 2014, but nobody picked this up. Any clue when the deprecated api will be removed? I can try to make the changes myself. Rudolphous (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Misidentification of Fiji White-eye

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Fiji_white-eye_%2831547492280%29.jpg

The correct ID is: Zosterops lateralis flaviceps. The bird is immature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuckooroller (talk • contribs) 15:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, did make the corrections. Cheers, Rudolphous (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Protection

Hi Rudolphous

Please help me with protection of Commons:Wiki Loves Folklore 2021/Winners as it will be of high exposure once mass message is sent today. Thank you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 07:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tiven2240, think you can better ask someone who is more used in these kind of matters. Rudolphous (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Mijn naam is haas (3406690331).jpg

Grapjas Lotje (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Automatische piloot

De bot heeft rare bewerkingen uitgevoerd op File:Duivendrecht Thalys.jpg. De opname is in Antwerpen Centraal, niet in Nederland. Duivendrecht is trouwens ook niet in Amsterdam maar in de gemeente Overamstel. Enkel op de filename afgaan kan heel misleidend zijn.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: , er staat wel bij de beschrijving: Diverted and delayed Thalys run to an unusual destination on the destination board in Antwerp Central station Wat zou je voorstellen? Lotje (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

De plaats van opname is altijd (primair) bepalend. Bestemmingen spelen geen rol. Onder jouw redenering zou bij een luchthaven vertrekbord de tijdcategorieën van alle getoonde bestemmingen moeten opnemen.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoi Smiley. De bestandsnaam is idd niet betrouwbaar. Dat Duivendrecht geen Amsterdam is ben ik van op de hoogte. Dit was inderdaad op basis van "2010 in Amsterdam", dat in september 2019 om meerdere redenen foutief was toegevoegd. Mooi dat het is opgelost. Dank hiervoor. Rudolphous (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect categorization

Just letting you know your bot incorrectly categorized File:Murghab river in Mary (1) (46050578212).jpg as from Afghanistan when it is from Turkmenistan. Zoozaz1 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I checked the infobox, but saw later this rivers also flows to Turkmenistan. Rechecked now these images. Rudolphous (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Netherlands

Rudolphous wat is het nut van deze en soorgelijke wijzigingen? Ik heb deze ongedaan gemaakt en bovendien ook categorie ALkmaar verwijderd (want categorie 2010 in Alkmaar in 2010 is daar een subcategorie van). HenkvD (talk)

Hallo HenkvD, ik vond een serie foto's in Heiloo en Alkmaar die niet gecategoriseerd waren. Deze was dat wel, dus helemaal eens met je wijzigingen. Rudolphous (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding location inside Taken On template

How long do you expect this bot task to last? I'm getting several hundred watchlist items per day (I can't turn off bots on my watchlist because there are other bots I have to monitor) which is rather annoying. Also, was there a community discussion or BRFA to approve a task of this scale? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Pi.1415926535, I stopped the RudolphousBot and filed a request. With kind regards, Rudolphous (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems that {{According to Exif data}} has no parameter location. --Arnd (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Did update the documentation of this template. Rudolphous (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

More RudolphousBot issues

If and when you reactivate the bot, can you please reconfigure it to avoid overcategorizing files that already belong to subcategories of their respective "photograph by day by country" category?

For instance, those that make up Category:Rosamond Gifford Zoo, 8 May 2021, which was already a sub of Category:United States photographs taken on 2021-05-08 before the bot placed each individual image into the latter category as well.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Rudolphous (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox op straten

Hoi Rudolphous, fijn dat je ook infoboxen toevoegt aan categorieën van straten. Meestal sla ik die stap over omdat er een bot is die dat (na wat tijd) ook doet. Zelf gebruik ik trouwens Petscan om categorieën zonder Wikidata-link op te zoeken (ik kies daar Commons, vul een categorie in, plus zo nodig een diepte van 1 als geneste categorieën aanwezig zijn en categorieën om uit te sluiten, bij 'page properties' alleen de Category namespace en dan bij 'Wikidata' alleen 'pages without item').

Ik zag wel dat er bij Category:Frederik Hendriklaan, The Hague wat mis ging met de wikidata-link en daardoor de infobox de tramhalte gaf. Ik heb die link nu verplaatst naar het item voor de straat, maar soms duurt het even of is er een edit nodig voordat de infobox mee verandert.

Verder dus dank voor het meehelpen deze categorieën te linken, want het maakt Commons en Wikidata beide bruikbaarder, bijvoorbeeld met de coördinaten (soms zijn de Wikidata-items over straten wat 'kaal' zonder extra informatie, zelf doe ik er soms wat data bij uit bijvoorbeeld externe BAG-bronnen maar die komen meestal niet mee in de infobox en kunnen altijd later semi-automatisch door weer iemand anders worden toegevoegd). Wikidatist (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Wikidatist, Bedankt voor je vriendelijke bericht. Ik zie dat hij nu correct is. Geen idee waarom hij de tramhalte aangaf. Soms kan je het proces versnellen door &action=purge aan de url toe te voegen. Die wikidata links zijn inderdaad een welkome aanvulling. Ik probeer er elke dag een aantal te doen, waardoor de artikelen zonder infobox elke dag weer een stukje minder wordt. Rudolphous (talk)

Fourth and Madison Building

Not recent but: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ann_Wilson_Of_Heart_(55219416).jpeg&diff=317203176&oldid=317189179

This placed this in an absolutely wrong and irrelevant category (and it had no others). I suspect I'm the first person to find it and have a clue what it is. - Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Several other edits, same wrong category:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:500px_photo_(36558476).jpeg&diff=317547440&oldid=317296899
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Seattle_Sunrise_(184031381).jpeg&diff=316582136&oldid=316572502
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Leaves_On_The_Floor_(138542441).jpeg&diff=316894354&oldid=316760290
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pike_Street_At_Night_(235705663).jpeg&diff=317967473&oldid=317280445
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Street_Musician_(257461423).jpeg&diff=317995930&oldid=317380637
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Yellow_(216578943).jpeg&diff=317485219&oldid=317167986
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:500px_photo_(36558476).jpeg&diff=317547440&oldid=317296899

Jmabel ! talk 01:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed not very recent. If I follow the gps coordinates of the pictures I get also Fourth and Madison Building on google. Do you know if the gps coordinate is right? Else this can be updated as well Rudolphous (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Paralepistopsis amoenolens

Hello, I don't understand : why did you deleted the Category:Paralepistopsis amoenolens? Have a good day. ----Abalg (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Abalg, Strange. Did delete some empty categories earlier today but this one is obvious not empty. Sorry for the inconvenience Rudolphous (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

File:20210806 Hortus Botanicus Leiden - Camassia quamash.jpg

Hi Rudolphous, please check this plant. It's not at all Camassia quamash. Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This plant was labelled with https://photos.app.goo .gl/YMq6t556CJWnEWpN8. (url in two parts else wiki blocks it) Think it was wrongly labelled then. Do you know a better ID? Rudolphous (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Renamed it into unidentified plant for the time being. Rudolphous (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Carole Facal

Carole was in my class in elementary school. She was not born in 1980. Odds are she was born in 1976, though it is possible that I'm a year off (those born from October to December 1975 would have also been in the same grade... 1977 is a long shot possibility if she skipped kindergarten or first grade) BrianPetterson (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Brian, I was a bit wondering why you added this to my talk page. I think because RudolphousBot did add a wiki infobox to her commons category. The data itself is not maintained on Commons Wikimedia, but on WikiData. If you have a trusted source you can edit the data over here. Rudolphous (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

www.westhoekverbeeldt.be

Beste Rudolphous, ik maakte een eerste Wikipedia pagina aan in mijn kladblok. Ik maak gebruik van eigen foto's en van een paar foto's van de website. www.westhoekverbeeldt.be Ik kreeg daar enkele opmerkingen over aangaande de licentie. Ik stuurde daarvoor een mail naar Wikipedia commons om dit in orde te brengen. Ik kreeg van de eigenaars van de foto's de schriftelijke toestemming via e-mail om deze te publiceren. Ik werd al geholpen via een andere beheerder, maar hij gaf mij de tip om het nog eens te laten controleren door een Nederlandstalige beheerder. Ik zou graag mijn pagina publiceren en zeker zijn dat alles nu definitief in orde is. Alvast mijn oprechte dank. Bart Vergote — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Vergote (talk • contribs) 13:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Bart, Op www.westhoekverbeeldt.be zie ik geen statement waaruit de licentie van de foto's blijkt. Als zij de auteursrechten in handen hebben van hun foto's kunnen zij deze wel onder een vrije licentie vrijgeven. Ze kunnen deze zelf uploaden naar Commons Wikimedia of via een verklaring naar OTRS vrijgeven. Als ze deze verklaring per mail gedaan hebben dan kan je de foto's uploaden en vervolgens linken naar deze verklaring. Ze kunnen de verkaring ook naar jou emailen dan dien je de mail inclusief headers door te sturen naar OTRS. En kan je in je geuploade foto's hiernaar verwijzen. Zie meer informatie ook op Commons:OTRS (kopje Als u NIET de rechthebbende bent) . Rudolphous (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Uilebomen

Hi Rudolphous, I see you posted a number of pictures of The Hague under the category "Uilebomen" while the pictures were not taken there. I removed that category from those photos. You may wish to add other, more appropriate categories, to these pictures. Loranchet (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Prima ik heb een paar categoriën handmatig toegevoegd. Rudolphous (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Acanthisittidae_of_New_Zealand

Acanthisittidae of New Zealand 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!

Spizaetus (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Acanthisittidae_by_country

Acanthisittidae by country 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!

Spizaetus (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:New port bay (7160263124).jpg

Yours sincerely, (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Lechenaultia floribunda 57223598.jpg

File:Lechenaultia floribunda 57223598.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. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: License is CC BY-NC Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Gderrin.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Lechenaultia floribunda 118907604.jpg

File:Lechenaultia floribunda 118907604.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. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: License is CC BY-NC Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Gderrin.

And also:

• File:Lechenaultia floribunda 118907668.jpg ( Nominator : Gderrin | Reason : License is CC BY-NC )
• File:Lechenaultia floribunda 61102532.jpg ( Nominator : Gderrin | Reason : License is CC BY-NC )

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Renaming userpage

Hello do you know how to rename userpages Yahoot7 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

A name of a userpage is bound to the username. If you wan't a different username, you can find more information on this page [93]. Rudolphous (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Falcunculidae_of_Australia

Category:Falcunculidae_of_Australia 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!

Spizaetus (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Falcunculidae_by_country

Falcunculidae by country 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!

Spizaetus (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Menuridae_by_country

Category:Menuridae_by_country 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!

Spizaetus (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Menuridae_of_Australia

Category:Menuridae_of_Australia 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!

Spizaetus (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Collecting data

Dear Rudolphous,

do you know, is there any tool or procedure that would collect the data on categorical geography items including its subitems? My idea is to try something like lt:Category:Jūrė, that would show the Commons categories within the town or city. Is this possible or the only way is to use the template and add the points manually? I talk specifically about Commons. CD (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi CD, I'm not aware of such a tool. Rudolphous (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Nieuwendijk

Hello Rudolphous, my last trip to Nieuwendijk in Amsterdam was five years ago. I liked your pictures from the houses in the street. Now I wanted to ask you if the shops are open and also souvenir shops open again?

The problem is that they are no more google recensions since two years. My son will have one of this ships and one black basball cap from the picture. I don't know if they have it now. 2016 to 2022 - Maybe it's sold out. The telephone number from the linked shop was invalid.

I know that I am a stranger to you, but I was really thankful for an answer, because I don't know where I can ask any person. And I will make pictures from Amsterdam for Commons. What motives are brought? --Klearbee (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes all shops are open again. Kind regards, Rudolphous (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Fehlbestimmung von File:Grenchen - Robertskruid (Geranium robertianum).jpg

• 

Hallo Rudolphous/Archive, das obige Bild war falscb bestimmt, da das sehr wahrscheinlich Geranium robertianum ist, aber auf keinen Fall Geranium purpureum. Die Farbe der Staubgefäße und insbesondere die langen Kelchhaare passen gar nicht zu Geranium purpureum, wohl aber zu Geranium robertianum, vgl. z. B. [94]. Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Ergänzung: Offenbar war das ja teilweise schon korrigiert. Der Name stimmt. Die Kategorie war noch falsch und wurde von mir berichtigt. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree, this is 100% certainly Geranium robertianum. Rudolphous (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

File:The London Bridge in Lake Havasu City (27698161465).jpg

File:The London Bridge in Lake Havasu City (27698161465).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!

209.2.20.17 17:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Sound Logo

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Kloksteeg Leiden

Beste Rudolphous, Je foto van het pand Kloksteeg 14 in Leiden (en wel deze) staat netjes met bronvermelding op pag 37 van het tijdschrift De Boekenwereld (jrg. 38 nr 1, 2022), in een artikel over Willem Bilderdijk. Vysotsky (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Leuk te lezen, bedankt voor het bericht! Rudolphous (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Wrong edit by the bot

Hello! I'm reporting to you this edit of your bot, which is wrong (the photo was taken in Latvia, not in Poland). Bye, Syrio posso aiutare? 10:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I had missed this one edit, that was the problem. Thanks, -- Syrio posso aiutare? 19:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Category:Boskoopse hefbrug

Je hebt indertijd deze category aangemaakt. Nu vaar ik daar af en toe en wij kennen hem als "Hefbrug Boskoop", zoal ook het bord aangeeft. Nog eens gekeken en ook nu is dat nog het geval. Bezwaar als ik de category hernoem? (Of wil je dat liever zelf doen?) Trouwens, ook Hefbrug Waddixveen zou hernoemd moeten worden, ook daar komt de naam van de category niet overeen met het bord op de brug. Idem Alphense hefbrug, die echt Hefbrug Gouwesluis heet. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hallo Stunteltje, ik heb geen bezwaar. Rudolphous (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Wat me helaas niet lukte is de Wikidata mee te nemen. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Mooi, wat bedoel je dat wikidata niet lukt mee te nemen? Ik zie namelijk deze edit. Rudolphous (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Vermoedelijk heeft een bot het werk gedaan, achteraf.--Stunteltje (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The bot moved all the pictures in the wrong place

All pictures in Category:Baie Nettlé, Marigot do not belong there. It made the same error at Concordia were tons of unrelated pictures were added. All the pictures in Baie Nettle do not belong there, because it's a beach and should be moved to La Belle Créole, a populated place in Saint-Martin and not a neighbourhood. Your bot broke it, you can fix it.KittenKlub (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Traction Engine Rosetta (37969000636).jpg

Pretty sure this is a steam roller.Geni (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This was categorized by a ip user at 9 november 2019 see history. You can recategorize if you want. Rudolphous (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Lift waterway bridge in Befu 01.jpg

Hello. This image was not taken in Lebanon, but in Japan. Refer special:diff/672848347.--Krorokeroro (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, the gps was wrong. Rudolphous (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I corrected the location of an image.

画像の座標を訂正しました。Krorokeroroさんお手数おかけしました。--Peka (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Great! Rudolphous (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear, Rudolphous. It was a matter of coordinates, I understand. Thank you for telling me.

Pekaさん、座標を修正して頂き、ありがとうございます。--Krorokeroro (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

問題ありません 良い一日を. Rudolphous (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Jebel Ali Port

Hi Rudolphous. Way back in 2018 you created the Category:Jebel Ali Port as a redirect to Category:Jebel Ali. However today the two entities in question have specific and separate voices and contents so perhaps it would be appropriate to separate the two categories. I opened a discussion in Category talk:Jebel Ali Port. Let me know what you think. Thank you Mario1952 (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Bahamas photographs taken on 2011-05-05

Your bot is producing redirects to non-existing categories... Wieralee (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

My bot created a category two years ago that used a template. It looks like to me the template is changed by someone to something that does not work. Rudolphous (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This edit seems to improve the situation. Maybe this template does not support the bahama's. Rudolphous (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Boerderij in Drenthe?

Hoi Rudolphous, het is alweer bijna 10 jaar geleden, maar weet je misschien nog waar je deze informatie vandaan had? Ik zag namelijk dat Joostik bij deze wijziging een strijdige categorie toevoegde en jouw toevoeging niet verwijderde, waardoor er vandaag nog steeds staat dat de boerderij én in Drenthe én in een onbekende Nederlandse provincie staat. Dat kan niet de bedoeling zijn. Groet, Apdency (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hoi Apdency, Ja de file staat in de categrie "Possible Rijksmonumenten in Drenthe". Rudolphous (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Aha, ik zie het in de broncode (en 'hidden categories'), ja. Dan zal de toevoeging van Joostik dus onterecht zijn geweest, want die info was er in 2016 ook al. Apdency (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Restore category

Category:Ukraine photographs taken on 2022-02-17. --Микола Василечко (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, Rudolphous (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Plectania melastoma 62452.jpg

Hi Rudolphous. May I ask you, why have you changed the name to Plectania melastoma? Not only it is clear, that the fungi is not Plectania melastoma, but also two of three votes on Mushroom observer are against this determination. Thanks. Xth-Floor (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear Xth-Floor, I thought it was 3 pro votes but it is indeed 1 pro and 2 con. So I undid my changes. Thanks for pointing out Rudolphous (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Elfia 2013

Hallo Rudolphous, omdat je dit aanmaakte: Category:Elf Fantasy Fair --> Category:Elf Fantasy Fair 2013 bestaat reeds. Misschien wil je de afbeeldingen (in de veronderstelling dat het hier hetzelfde evenement betreft) daarin onderbrengen. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hallo Lotje. Ik denk ook dat het hetzelde evenement is. Ik heb de foto's overgezet, mvg Rudolphous (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Wrong location info added by bot

Hi! I just noticed this bot added "location: United States" in the EXIF template here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Medaille_New_York_Marathon_2017.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=758904977

There is no location info in the EXIF data, and the picture was not taken in the US. Where does the info come from?! --Tkarcher (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The information was from the category "United States photographs taken on" added in 2018 by DanTD. Rudolphous (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Trithemis hecate, female? (6993821499).jpg

Hi! You transferred this file from Flickr in 2017 under current name, but meantime the species was reidentified (by author probably) as a female of Trithemis furva. I checked IUCN entries and this picture was made a little out of range of Trithemis hecate but Trithemis furva lives there indeed and is common. I think this file should be renamed and his category (Category:Trithemis hecate) removed because it will become empty. Could you do it? Pikador (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your messege, think I can agree with the new ID and made the changes as proposed. Also removed the image in use at some articles on other wiki's to not confuse users with showing a wrong image. Rudolphous (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed the picture from all other Wikis. What about the empty category? Leave it or delete it? Pikador (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I could find some pictures so we can keep the category: [95] Rudolphous (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

ISS photographs by date

Hey! Thanks for creating these categories, they're great. When I have time I'll probably create the by-year parent categories. Out of curiosity, would RudolphousBot be able to look through ISS-related photographs and change any {{Taken on}} to add "location=ISS" to take the place of the manual categories? For that matter, perhaps even convert non-templated dates to use the template? My thought is that more visibility = more awareness that these categories and this functionality exists, which might encourage more people to use them. Just an idea. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Prikkebeen - Pricklylegs (35406713242).jpg

Hallo Rudolphous, duidelijke close-up, maar ik vroeg me af waarom de naamkeuze van de file. Thanks :-) Lotje (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hoi Lotje, deze naam is afkomstig van de bron waar de foto vandaan komt (flickr). Ik heb de foto eenn neutralere naam gegeven. Rudolphous (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for adding India photographs category

Hello Rudolphous, hope you're doing well. I wanted to ask if your bot automatically adds the India photographs taken on yyyy-mm-dd for all the India photographs that are uploaded on Commons or does one need to request it? Either way, can you please add the relevant India photographs categories to the photographs I've clicked and uploaded? That would be of great help. Regards - DesiBoy101 (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Why? This / these are taken by my self, not yours

this pic ... and some other pictures. Many questions in my brain. NobbiP 13:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

your pics are ofcourse yours. Added a cat based on a search filter which was probably too wide. Will double check later today. Sorry for the brain questions. Rudolphous (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I checked all and now it should be correct. Sorry for the inconvenience Rudolphous (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

iNaturalist request

Hi Rudolphous - I see you have an iNaturalist account, which I don't. Would you be willing to help out with giving names to a few misidentifications I have found there, when looking for pics to add to Commons? Some species seem to attract a lot more errors than others! First up, several "Pinus glabra" observations, with my identifications below:

• 1 is Pinus sylvestris
• 2 is Pinus sylvestris
• 3 is Pinus halepensis
• 4 is Pinus occidentalis seedling
• 5 is Casuarina sp.
• 6 is Casuarina sp.
• 7 is Casuarina sp.
• 8 is Casuarina sp.
• 9 is Casuarina sp.
• 10 is Casuarina sp.
• 11 is Pinus echinata
• 12 is Pinus virginiana
• 13 is Pinus echinata
• 14 is Pinus taeda

I'm sure there'll be more, if you're happy to do them :-) Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi MPF, Good news. Just did them all. However creating an account is 1 minute work. I think you don't have to supply a real username, if you don't like for privacy concerns. Then you can make selections and identifty yourself on the source database. On the other hand I don't mind to do it for you if you prefer it that way. I've already seen that you have great expertise on birds and conifers.Rudolphous (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! I used to have an account, but had some political disagreements, so left :-) I missed this one above, its location is so vague that it doesn't show on the map:

• 15, another Casuarina sp. (interesting that this genus gives so many problems!!). And this one from a while ago:
• 16 is Ulex europaeus (how do people manage to misidentify such a common plant as a rarity!!!)

Thanks again! - MPF (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

2 x done. Rudolphous (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Super, thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Another one already, please! At this location, smoothly rounded scales mean that this is Picea koraiensis. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

1 x done. Rudolphous (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! And a few more please :-)

• 17 is Juniperus chinensis, and needs a red X for 'Organism is wild'!
• 18 is Pinus contorta subsp. latifolia
• 19 is Pinus contorta subsp. latifolia
• 20 is Pinus sylvestris, and needs a red X for 'Organism is wild'
• 21 is Pinus mugo (naturalised)
• 22 is Larix decidua (ref. the cone)
• 23 is Cedrus sp. (naturalised)
• 24 is planted in a botanical garden, so needs a red X for 'Organism is wild'

Thanks again! - MPF (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Rudolphous (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Super, thanks! I see there's a come-back on the Picea koraiensis; I still maintain it is that. To respond to socogonzalez, Picea jezoensis does not have obtuse or rounded cone scales; its cones are very different, with good examples here, here, here; compare P. koraiensis here. The needle apex is not useful; if foliage from definitely the same tree can be found (difficult, as fallen cones can be carried a long way by wind, water, or animals!), a much more useful character is the stomata, hypostomatic in P. jezoensis (dense white stomatal bands below, glossy green with no stomata above, as in photo 2 here), amphistomatic in P. koraiensis (stomata ± equal on all sides of the leaves). - MPF (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Rudolphous (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks again! I see 20 has replied; if you could let them know: "Hi Stallis - granted it is a somewhat unusual Scots Pine, but it is one; the longer-than-usual needles suggest a southern (probably French) origin, supported also by its very vigorous growth compared to Scottish specimens. No other two-needled pine has needles glaucous like this though, only Scots (other pines with glaucous needles have them in clusters of 5). Jack Pine can be excluded as it has much shorter needles (just 2.5-3.5 cm) which are grass-green to yellowish green, never glaucous. Compare these three: 171175466, 113932379, 161821363. Hope this helps!" - MPF (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Rudolphous (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Super, thanks! 25 is Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris - uninodal branching, and glaucous needles, too long for Jack Pine. - MPF (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Rudolphous (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, thanks! And some more :-))

• 26 is Melaleuca sp., not a conifer at all!
• 27 is the same photo as #22 above; Picea abies in reference to the foliage (not the cone!) this time.
• 28 is Pinus mugo, and is cultivated (shrub bed at a school), so a red X for 'Organism is wild'.
• 29 is correct, Pinus banksiana, but is plantation trees with no evidence of regeneration, so red X for 'Organism is wild'.
• 30 is correct, Pinus banksiana, but is plantation trees with no evidence of regeneration, so red X for 'Organism is wild'.
• 31 is correct, Pinus banksiana, but is planted trees at a museum with no evidence of regeneration, so red X for 'Organism is wild'.
• 32 is correct, Pinus banksiana, and shows evidence of regeneration, so green ✓ for wild.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done All handled. Rudolphous (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Super, thanks! Your reward: 4 more :-))

• 33 is Pinus sylvestris; leaves too long, slender, and glaucous, for P. banksiana.
• 34 is Pinus sylvestris; leaves too long, slender, and glaucous, for P. banksiana. Cultivated.
• 35 is Pinus sylvestris; leaves too long, slender, and glaucous, for P. banksiana.
• 36 is Pinus sylvestris; leaves too long, slender, and glaucous, for P. banksiana.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Also done :-) Rudolphous (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thought I'd let you have a rest for a bit, but can't let this one pass!! How it got 'Research' status is beyond me :-)

• 37 is Picea jezoensis; the shoots are rough with pulvini, not smooth as in Abies.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC) Plus a few more...

• 38 Abies fargesii. The local native Abies in this region, and the photo fits it.
• 39 Abies fargesii. The local native Abies in this region, and the photo fits it.
• 40 Abies fargesii. The local native Abies in this region, and the photos fit it.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi MPF, 4 x  Done. Cheers, Rudolphous (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!

Another, please - 41 is (in iNat's taxonomy) Pinus douglasiana (I added them here on Commons under its earlier valid name Pinus gordoniana), in particular reference to photos 2-5 (the cones in photo 1 are old, badly weathered, and not reliably identifiable; not certain they are from the same tree) - MPF (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Rudolphous (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again! Some more, please:

• 42 is Kurile Larch
• 43 is also Kurile Larch
• 44 is a spruce Picea species (evergreen leaves, placed singly, not in clusters)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)  Done Rudolphous (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

And again, many thanks, and a few more :-)

• 45 is another Casuarina
• 46 is Juniperus sp. (probably, but not definitely, Juniperus turbinata)
• 47 is Cupressus glabra, planted by roadside (so red X in 'wild'!)
• 48 is Cupressus glabra, in forestry plantation (so red X in 'wild'!)
• 49 is Cupressus sempervirens, planted in garden (so red X in 'wild'!)
• 50 is Cupressus atlantica
• 51 is Juniperus turbinata, in agreement with Abounabat

More tomorrow :-) MPF (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Rudolphous (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! And a few more :-)

• 52 is Pinus contorta - short needles in pairs, not 3s; local native
• 53 is Pinus sabiniana - sparse, open crown, massive cones; local native
• 54 is Pinus pinea - thick cone scales, large near-wingless seeds; cultivated not wild
• 55 is Pinus ponderosa as tagged, but obvious cultivated tree, red X
• 56 ditto to 55
• 57 ditto to 55
• 58 ditto to 55
• 59 is Pinus ponderosa as tagged, a good wild specimen that needs uprating to 'Research grade'
• 60 is Pinus engelmannii - very long needles; cone with strongly thickened scales.

Thanks again! - MPF (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done sorry for the delay. Rudolphous (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks, no problems over the delay! Today's, please :-)

• 61 verifying Idesia polycarpa - MPF (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Rudolphous (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

First of some more, please!

• 62 is Pinus latteri as first listed. Note that the WWF report cited for P. merkusii dates from 1999, before P. latteri was widely distinguished from P. merkusii; thus the report discusses it in an old, broad sense that is no longer used.
• 63 ditto to 62.
• 64 ditto to 62.
• 65 ditto to 62.
• 66 ditto to 62.
• 67 ditto to 62.
• 68 ditto to 62.
• 69 is Pinus kesiya, in agreement with naufalurfi; note needles in fascicles of 3 (2 in P. merkusii).

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi MPF, all done - thanks for your efforts. Rudolphous (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! One more for today:

• 70 is Adansonia digitata (leaves too large for A. rubrostipa, and leaf margins not serrated); also cultivated, so a red X please. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Rudolphous (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Today's, please :-)

• 71 is Pinus montezumae: needles in 5s, far too long for P. nelsonii, and not remaining connate.
• 72 is correct Pinus nelsonii (to get Research Grade!)
• 73 is correct Pinus nelsonii (to get Research Grade)
• 74 is correct Pinus nelsonii (to get Research Grade)
• 75 is correct Pinus nelsonii (to get Research Grade)
• 76 is correct Pinus nelsonii (to get Research Grade) - MPF (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Today's  Done Rudolphous (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Super, thanks! And now some more (the first 5 beggar belief, how people can come up with such geographically nonsensical identifications; the rest, an important identification point):

• 77 is Pinus sylvestris; apart from that it is in northern Norway not Mexico, note the leaves in pairs not 3s.
• 78 is Pinus sylvestris; apart from that it is in Sweden not Mexico, note the leaves in pairs.
• 79 is Pinus sylvestris; apart from that it is in Sweden not Mexico, note the leaves in pairs and cones with numerous small scales.
• 80 is Pinus nigra; long needles in pairs, obvious recently planted tree.
• 81 is Pinus parviflora; needles in 5s not 3s, an obvious planted tree in the Eden Project botanical garden.
• 82 and hundreds of other observations from Arizona (all "P. cembroides" records!) & New Mexico (all "P. cembroides" records!) and northwestern Mexico (some "P. cembroides" records) are Pinus discolor, recently split by POWO (iNaturalist's preferred taxonomic source) from P. cembroides (syn. P. cembroides var. bicolor). These will need a major curatorial review; for identification, leaves of P. discolor are bicoloured dark green with white stomatal bands; P. cembroides are uniform dull green without conspicuous stomatal bands.
• 83 and many other observations from northeastern Mexico (some records) are Pinus johannis, also recently split by POWO from P. cembroides; same curatorial review needed, identification same too (P. discolor and P. johannis are very similar, but separated geographically, in the Sierra Madre Occidental and Sierra Madre Oriental, respectively).

Thanks again! - MPF (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Couple more, please!

• 84 is Pinus edulis; needles consistently in 2s (mix of 2s and 3s in P. cembroides), and out of range for P. cembroides
• 85 is Pinus edulis; needles consistently in 2s (mostly 3s and some 4s in Border Pinyon) and some stomata on outer face as well as inner (only on inner face in Border Pinyon).

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done I did them all. Number 82 + 83 only the observation linked. Rudolphous (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! Let's hope the Admin get them sorted! Just two more this evening, please:

• 86 is Pinus massoniana
• 87 is Pinus massoniana

MPF (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

A few more, please!

• 88 is Pinus sylvestris (glaucous needles in pairs, not 5s), cultivated (red X) in an old christmas tree plantation
• 89 is Pinus mugo (short green needles in pairs, not 5s), cultivated (red X) in a garden
• 90 is Pinus monophylla (single needles, and large cone for a pinyon); out of range, so cultivated (red X)
• 91 identity is correct, but obvious planted tree, red X (I do wish iNat would set it so 'Organism is wild' was not default, but has to be selected!)
• 92 is American Hard Pines (Pinus Section Trifoliae), not a Pinyon, and important, an obvious red X planted tree in a garden - mention in notes, please!
• 93 is Abies lasiocarpa (short, glaucous, typical fir needles; high altitude native)
• 94 is Pinus halepensis (smooth, unarmed cones; invasive in California)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done handled all Rudolphous (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! I fear you didn't add the ID for #94 :-)) MPF (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again! A few more, the Himalaya this time, please:

• 95 Pinus roxburghii: large cones with thick, hooked scales; local native
• 96 Pinus roxburghii: large cones with thick, hooked scales; local native
• 97 Pinus roxburghii: large clusters of pollen cones; local native
• 98 Pinus patula: slender shoots with pendulous leaves, small cones; from satellite view, in a forestry plantation, so red X cultivated
• 99 Pinus halepensis: short needles in pairs, small cones; from satellite view, in a guest house garden, so red X cultivated

Thanks! MPF (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)