User talk:Storye book/Archive 7

This is a Wikimedia Commons user page. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Storye_book/Archive_7.

Wikimedia Commons

Bazzanti

Hi, thank you for trying a better categorization, however please notice that there is no evidence that the sculptor Bazzanti is Niccolò Bazzanti: there are a lot of Bazzanti in his family who are sculptors, that one is still unidentified. Niccolo' Bazzanti has a different age of Diego Sarti, the collaboration between the two artists for this tomb seems unlikely (see this discussion). I undo your edit, thank you for your comprehension. 37.103.1.98 09:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your information, for putting it right, and for letting me know. Storye book (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Hotel Vancouver built 1887 (1).jpg

Copyright status: File:Hotel Vancouver built 1887 (1).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Hotel Vancouver built 1887 (1).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:Hotel Vancouver built 1887 (2).jpg

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The fault in both files was just a typo (2 braces missing). Now corrected. Storye book (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Actress driving vintage car.jpg

File:Actress driving vintage car.jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: This image has been identified as being post-1963, on account of a post-1963 Worboys Committee traffic sign being in the picture, therefore it is still in copyright. If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Túrelio (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I uploaded that speedy template. Please delete. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't mix subject and source in categories

You shouldn't be creating categories like Category:Lambeth Magistrates Court, images from Geograph and Category:Wardown Park Museum, images from Geograph. These make it harder to find image and don't comply with our category best practices. Please have a look at Commons:Categories. Multichill (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Flickr images by location

Flickr images by location 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!

--Multichill (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Replied on discussion page. Storye book (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Category comma

Hi Storye book, I noticed you created quite a few categories like for example Category:Mercer Art Gallery, paintings and Category:Mercer Art Gallery, seascape paintings with a none standard naming convention. Why did you do that? If you look around in Category:Paintings in the United Kingdom by museum and Category:Paintings of seascapes you see that Category:Paintings in the Mercer Art GalleryCategory:Seascape paintings in the Mercer Art Gallery would be a much better names. The documentation calls this the Universality principle. Multichill (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You ask why I do that.

(1) I make subcategories because most of the thousands of images which I've created or sourced, and uploaded, are part of my researches, and I need to be able to find them among the thousands. Nothing unusual in that.

(2) The reason why I phrase them in the way you apparently don't like (with parent category first, then comma, then subcategeory, all in the same name) is that it is helpful to me and to others when we are categorising an image. I take hundreds of photos in a photoshoot, and need to categorise them all, to avoid a useless category page of hundreds of random pictures.

For example: suppose I am researching a museum for an article. Top category is Foobar Museum. Next tier will be e.g. Foobar Museum, interior (for the rooms and collections) and Foobar Museum, exterior (for the exterior architecture, and grounds). Below Foobar Museum, interior, will be the collections, e.g. Foobar Museum, porcelain collection, Foobar Museum, ancient Egyptian artefacts or whatever.

So far, the meaning and intention of my categorisation will be logical to you. But I can see that what you don't like, is the way that I phrase the category names. I have made so many categories that I cannot remember the exact wording of most of them. Also, others wanting to categorise their own pictures of Foobar Museum will need to know what category to put each of the pictures in. If you put the name of the museum first, then when you type "Foobar Museum" into the category box, you get a dropdown list of possible alternative subcategories, which new incoming photographers may not know about. So they can easily put their photo of the ancient Egyptian artefact into Foobar Museum, ancient Egyptian artefacts, because it has appeared in the dropdown box.

If I had created Ancient Egyptian artefacts in Foobar Museum, they would not easily find that category, because they may be typing in all sorts of other phrases describing their object, such as "Egyptian mummy" or whatever. But there is a good chance that they would be typing in the name of the museum in one of their efforts at categorising. So I do that to give a good chance of netting their photo in one of the museum categories, instead of getting that random page of hundreds of images.

You may not like it, but at least I have answered your question. There is a reason for it. I have gone along with your requests so far, basically to keep the peace, and because you have said that my phrasing has prevented the search facility from working. Actually, I very much doubt that my system has upset the search facility. If they just type in Foobar Museum, they will get the list of subcategories, and find what they are looking for. Obviously the Foobar Museum, ancient Egyptian artefacts category will be under other categories besides Foobar Museum, e.g. categories pertaining to Egyptian archaeology, and each image in that category will also be categorised individually, according to the individual artefact, so that can also be found by the search bot, which should still be able to put together Foobar Museum and Ancient Egyptian whatever.

I hope that helps. I don't create categories without reason, or without careful thought and consideration for others. Storye book (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Black and white

Why are you moving images that are black and white out of the black and white categories? Sahaib (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I have explained on some of the image pages. Sepia is a process, not just the appearance of colour. Sepia photographs were created with sepia ink from a cuttlefish. That helped to stabilise the silver nitrate on the glass plate negatives, and it also gave a softer appearance to portraits in the prints. This method was used until around the 1930s, when colour photography became available. Today we can change the appearance of black and white images digitally, just by clicking on "sepia". But the images in the filepages which I edited today were all taken when the sepia photography process was in operation, i.e. mostly before the 1930s. You can tell whether photographs of that era were made by the sepia process, because they look brown, not black, and they have a soft, high-quality appearance in professional photos. Storye book (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Claxton encoded postcards

I stumbled upon your scans of the Claxton postcard collection. Very interesting. I'm glad someone already cracked this as I would spend too much time trying it myself! Is any more info available on their cipher method? TimSC (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I have the file somewhere. I'll upload it today if I can find it. Storye book (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. See Category:Claxton postcard collection, in code. Let me know if I need to clarify anything. Storye book (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Trustee Savings Bank

Hello. Name that you see in your language is taken from this place. Please modify name in your language in this entry on Wikidata. PMG (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I have corrected the Wikidata title. Storye book (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Can I unrevert your changes? PMG (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The Wikidata page for 110 Kirkgate, Leeds is now correct. You will now need to use "110 Kirkgate, Leeds" instead of "Trustee Savings Bank". I hope that helps? Storye book (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Military_people_of_the_United_Kingdom_in_World_War_I

Military people of the United Kingdom in World War I 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!

Belbury (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I agreed with the request. This question is now resolved. Storye book (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)