User talk:Vincent Steenberg/Archive/8

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

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion tag[edit]

Hi Vincent. Is there something wrong with this category that I created recently and that you are nominating for speedy deletion? [1] Is it conceptually problematic in a way that "Landscape painters from France" is not? Why couldn't you discuss the issue with me or notify me that you were planning to delete it?

Coincidentally, I have actually been drafting a question for you about terms that would be best for me to use regarding categorizing art from the Netherlands--because I have noticed your name a lot in these matters. However, it appears once again that my perception that this project operates almost entirely without communication is vindicated. Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boo-boo, That category was causing overcategorisation (see COM:OVERCAT). But apart from that I find that it makes it more difficult to retrieve categories. For example Rubens' work includes some landscapes. That would make him a landscape painter. But anyone who knows a little bit about Rubens wouldn't look under landscape painters. A flat list in this case just works better, if you ask me. Sorry I used the speedy delete tag, but a 'normal' deletion procedure sometimes takes forever. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Paintings by Hieronymus Bosch by location. This took almost 4 months!!
I'm not sure what question you mean. If you mean the open questions on your user page, I can say that I agree with almost everything you say. I also think that Paintings by artist by museum should be avoided and that Paintings from country is more obvious than Paintings in country. On consistency I think that if each user does what he thinks is best, things will turn out more or less ok. You mentioned Category:Works of John Singleton Copley, artist. I think this is not a matter of consistency, but one of good english. "works of" should be "works by" and the added "artist" makes no sense so it can be dropped. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I suppose we disagree on the matter of over-categorization in this case. I would not want a painter of many genres to appear only in "landscape painters", but if it is an important part of their work, I don't think it is over-categorization. Category:Landscape painters from France would usefully contain Monet, Pissarro, and so forth. It does not mean that they can't be in another "French painter" category as well.
I will put the speedy tag back on that category, as it's not important. I only wanted an explanation, as my interest in this project always balances on whether there is any benefit to trying to "organize" it, or whether we are all working at cross-purposes! In a similar matter of bafflement, I recently went to a fair bit of work to populate Category:Paintings from France by decade, only to notice a discussion today at the bottom of this talk page which suggests that a painting from Germany should not in fact be categorized as a painting from Germany. If the preposition "from" has different connotations in German and English, I do not know. I had planned to work on Italy and Germany next, in a similar manner. The note that I mentioned--that I had prepared for you but hadn't posted--was to eventually ask your opinion on how to proceed with paintings from the Netherlands, given the varying terms used in Netherlandish art history. (I had noticed that you were active in editing this area.) I will just paste it below in a collapsed box for your information, but don't feel obligated to reply at this point.
draft
Hi Vincent. I have noticed that you are active in the arts and in (Dutch) art categorization. I would like to ask for your advice as follows. I am working on populating categories that refer to the decade and "country" of origin of paintings. (See Category:Paintings from France by decade for the most complete example. User:Mattes has developed some of these as well. We have not discussed it, however.)

My goal is to create a chronological view of French art, Italian art, etc. I would also include at the decade level, eventually, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands. However, art from the Netherlands is more complicated in terms of origin, as you know better than I do. I am looking for suggestions as follows:

  • If categories like "Category:___0s paintings from the Southern Netherlands" were created, what range of decades should they be created for--more specifically, would they end in 1830 (1820s)?
  • Same question for the "'Northern Netherlands".
  • However, you yourself created all the centuries in Category:Paintings from the Netherlands by century, as early as the 16th century, and did not refer to Southern or Northern. Does that mean that you would avoid "Southern" and "Northern" and simply create decade categories within the above category structure, if you were doing this project? (Example:"1660s paintings from the Netherlands"). BUT, you also created the South/North distinction for the painters, as in Category:Painters from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830).
  • Another way to ask these questions is as follows. See Category:WGA School: Flemish and Category:WGA School: Dutch. How would I relate each of these two terms to the common usage on Commons? Would we refrain from using the words "Dutch" and "Flemish" completely? The English wikipedia is happy with them...
  • Finally, there is the issue of "Early Netherlandish". My understanding is that it encompasses the north and south and so would need to be separate, if even necessary (or alternately "Category:1400s through 1550s paintings from the Netherlands").

I know I have asked you many questions here, but they are really one large question about how to organize Netherlandish paintings over time. Any advice you can provide will improve the result, I'm sure. If language barriers or lack of interest in the proposed category structure is an obstacle to your help, I understand.

So, if a "1520s painting from Germany" does not belong in "Category:1520s paintings from Germany" according to the small majority of arts editors, I fear I am very much wasting my time. I wanted to set up this system to allow people to view the changes in art over time and by area, which I would actually make a cornerstone of an arts categorization system if I were designing if from scratch. Regards, Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can ignore that. Category names should be in English (see Commons:Naming_categories#Language). "Paintings from country" might be ambiguous in German (Gemälde aus Deutschland), but not in English. Even if a painter spent some time abroad, the paintings he made there are still considered paintings from his country of origin.
Otherwise, I think sorting paintings by decade is fine. However, I must say that it does not necessarily serve the primary purpose categories have on Commons, which is to store and retrieve files (see Commons:Categories#Purpose_of_categories_in_Wikimedia_Commons). But then Commons is an open source project, so I think there should always be room for experiment. As long as it doesn't interfere with what's already there. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We work with what we see in front of us, unless what we see in front of us makes no sense. Precedent vs policy. I would venture that more than 90% of categories in the arts do not serve the purpose that I think you're suggesting, so I remain perplexed by some of your views. Me creating a group for landscape painters from an important art-historical area is "over-categorization"--nonsense--while certain other editors are prodigiously creating "Paintings by X in Museum Y" that contain two items apiece. Wouldn't that be lower-hanging over-categorization fruit, so to speak? Rhetorical question. In any case, we can wind this down. Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well the category you mention is a good example of what not to do. So I don't think our views are that far apart. If ever you have the time and you want to fix this particular category, I would say: go ahead., Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Early Netherlandish paintings in the National Gallery of Art‎[edit]

Hallo Vincent Steenberg, ik ben erg geeriteerd, dat Category:Early Netherlandish paintings in the National Gallery of Art‎ subcat van Category:Flemish paintings in the National Gallery of Art zou zijn. Deze categorien zijn toch altijd parallel? see Category:Paintings in the Hermitage HG –—Oursana (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Oursana, Mee eens. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Dank je, ik heb het al veranderd.–—Oursana (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History paintings by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo[edit]

Sorry but this category is worst than ..py painter by museum. File:Giambattista Tiepolo - The Death of Hyacinthus - Google Art Project.jpg is mythological, not historical. File:Giovan battista tiepolo, bozzetti per la chiesa di san pascual baylon ad aranjuez, 1767, 01.JPG is religious. I hope you agree to delete this category, otherwise we have to use cfd.–—Oursana (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, history painting is a generic term to indicate all sorts of paintings that originate from the written word (see History painting). These include mythology stories as well as the Bible. As for Tiepolo, I think Category:Mythology paintings by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo and Category:Religious paintings by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo work just as well. I mean, he left such a huge number of paintings, neither of these will be too specific. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for the good explanation. User:Mattes moved File:Giambattista Tiepolo - The Death of Hyacinthus - Google Art Project.jpg meanwhile. For File:Giovan battista tiepolo, bozzetti per la chiesa di san pascual baylon ad aranjuez, 1767, 01.JPG I still can't see the reason for cat History paintings–—Oursana (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands[edit]

Hallo Vincent Steenberg,

Je hebt eerder de Category:Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands aangemaakt. Deze bestaat echter al als Category:Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. Daarnaast is het RCE gevestigd in Amersfoort aan het Smallepad, niet in Rijswijk. Basvb (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Bas, dat klopt. Die categorie is ter vervanging van Category:Netherlands Cultural Heritage Agency. Deze naam had ik ooit ergens op de website van het RCE gezien, maar ik zie nu dat op http://www.cultureelerfgoed.nl/en de naam "Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands" gebruikt wordt. Zie ook http://www.collectie.nl/index-en.html. Omdat commons een internationaal gebeuren is leek het me beter om de engelse naam te gebruiken.
Verder kent het RCE vele onderdelen. Misschien is het hoofdkantoor gevestigd in Amstersfoort. Waarschijnlijk weet jij dat beter dan ik. Wat ik wel weet is dat het voormalige ICN (in 2011 gefuseerd met RCE) in Rijswijk gevestigd is. Op http://www.collectie.nl/index-en.html wordt gesproken van "The Art Collection" [of the Netherlands]. Misschien is dat een betere term (ter aanduiding van de kunstafdeling van het RCE) met RCE als overkoepelende instantie. Dit zou dan resulteren in een Category:Art Collection of the Netherlands of Category:Art Collection of the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands. Is dat een idee? Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Klinkt als een plan. Zelf breng ik het RCE in verband met rijksmonumenten. Het kan inderdaad zijn dat vooral de monumentenafdeling in Amersfoort zit (dat is vast het beste op hun site te vinden). Nederlandse organisaties kunnen denk ik prima met hun nederlandse naam in een categorie, zeker als ze zich ook met die naam internationaal presenteren (weet niet of dat het geval is). In ieder geval worden er nu reeds 100,000en afbeeldingen onder de naam RCE geüpload.
Als ik het goed begrijp is er een afdeling voor Roerend erfgoed. Dit was vroeger het ICN. Maar als ik het goed begrijp bezit deze afdeling niet echt een kunstcollectie maar beheerst zij de kunstcollectie van het rijk. Dus dan lijkt Art collection of the Netherlands mij een betere omschrijving. Basvb (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniël Mijtens (II) - Allegoriserende portretgroep[edit]

Hoi Vincent. Veel dank voor het opknappen van de beschrijving van deze afbeelding. Met vriendelijke groet, regards, Biccie (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geen dank, mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Early Netherlandish paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, Category:Southern Netherlandish paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, Category:Dutch Renaissance paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Jan_Gossaert_007.jpg&diff=next&oldid=74019771

Hallo Vincent, welke cat ist speciaal en juist, het moeten er toch geen 3?? Ik zie net, dat ik jou hetzelfde zonder antwoord op 21 september heb gevraagd. VG--Oursana (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, dat moet me dan zijn ontgaan. Category:Early Netherlandish paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin is gebaseerd op Early Netherlandish painting en alles wat erna komt heb ik eerst ondergebracht in Category:Dutch Renaissance paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, enz., en Category:Southern Netherlandish paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin. Ik geef toe dat in sommige gevallen het moeilijk is vast te stellen wat "Early Netherlandish" is en wat "Renaissance" (bijvoorbeeld Quentin Matsys), maar beide zijn vrij heterogene groepen. En ook klopt het dat er sprake is van een grote overlap tussen "Southern Netherlandish" en "Early Netherlandish painters". Jan van Eyck is immers ook een Zuid-Nederlands schilder. Misschien is het dus een goed idee om Category:Southern Netherlandish paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin net als "Dutch paintings" ook op te splitsen. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wendela Bicker[edit]

there is a new message and image for you at the photography workshop... Penyulap ☏ 20:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rijckaert_Aertsz.[edit]

Category discussion warning

Rijckaert Aertsz. 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Leyo 23:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yale University Art Gallery[edit]

Yale University Art Gallery 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 gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

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

Gerbis (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of a young man, by Willem van der Vliet.jpg[edit]

Hi Vincent, you moved this painting from Category:Willem van der Vliet to Category:Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt. I don't understand? The source does not mention Van Mierevelt at all. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jan, according to the RKD this painting was done by Van Mierevelt or his circle. This seems to be based on the inscription. Van Mierevelt wrote "Anno" with a capital A, sometimes followed by his signature (example), while Van der Vliet wrote "Anno" with a small a, nearly almost followed by his signature (example). Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is strange. Bonhams says on 6 Jul 2011: "We are grateful to Fred Meijer of the RKD, who has suggested that the present work was painted by van der Vliet." whereas the same Fred Meijer at RKD since 2006 says it is from (the circle of) Van Mierevelt. Peculiar. Although Van der Vliet possibly was a pupil of Van Mierevelt it is not likely that he still was his pupil in 1625, because he entered the guild in 1615. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at Christie's, but there it's listed as Anonymous. So no luck there either. It is of course possible that Meijer changed his opinion some time between 2006 and 2011. I will ask the RKD directly. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my late response, but I've been busy. I've contacted the RKD and there seems to have been a misunderstanding between Bonhams and the RKD. Fred Meijer did not (re)attribute this painting to van der Vliet in 2011. The attribution "Van Mierevelt or circle" still stands. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Vincent. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalisation[edit]

I created some templates with langSwitches you use. But I don't know much about art and I don't know, what they mean.

  1. What is image? [2][3][4][5][6] Reproduction (in a book)?
  2. What is plate? [7] A plate with description under a painting in the museum?
  3. What is on p. from parameter pill? [8] Is it on pill? What does pill mean here?
  4. cat. from cat is catalog?
  5. p. from p is page?

I'm thinking also about template for articles. {{Definite article}}?

{{LangSwitch|de=das|en=the|nl=het|fr=le|default=<span/>}} → {{definite article|museum}}
{{LangSwitch|de=das|en=the|nl=het|fr=au|default=<span/>}} → {{definite article|museum|case=newowner?}}

But is this au correct? prêtée au au Rijksmuseum Amsterdam [9]. And das - von das Rijksmuseum Amsterdam [10]? - I think it should be von dem Museum.

I think something like |default=<span/> is needed because in languages without article here the is unnecessary. BartekChom (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bartek, I've noticed your changes. Thanks a lot for the work so far.
  1. Yes, "image" means reproduction in a book. There are 3 options: color image, black and white image and if modus is unknown just image.
  2. Plate also means reproduction. The catalog Van Doesburg and the International Avant-Garde distinguishes 2 types of reproductions: illustrations in the tekst and separate reproductions. Both with seperate numbers. I tried to incorporate these numbers in the template, but at some point I gave up. Now it just mentions the page on which the repro can be found. I might fix this some day.
  3. "pill" renders the page on which the repro can be found. So 
    ...|color image|pill=100|...
    becomes "with image in color on p. 100".
  4. cat. is short for catalog
  5. p. for page.

Then the articles. I think your suggestion is very good. The "au" is part of Template:ProvenanceEvent, provenance type "loan". See [11]. If you ask me it shouldn't be there, because it's also not to be found in provenance type "bequest" and "gift". Someone must have though you can only loan to a museum, and not a person, so why not include the article in the template. But I think that's wrong. A special article template might solve that.

@[12]: If it's von dem Rijksuseum that that's obviously a spelling mistake by me. Thanks for pointing that out. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I'll try to correct templates. The preparation of the article template will be more complicated. BartekChom (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:1418 Antonio Vivarini Adoration of the Magi anagoria.JPG[edit]

I changed from gothic to Category:Italian Renaissance paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin. See it:Antonio Vivarini#Voci correlate, en:Antonio Vivarini. Greetings ––Oursana (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, no problem. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings by Martinus Schouman in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam and Category:Paintings by Jean Augustin Daiwaille in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam[edit]

Please accept the categorisation barnstar for dedicated categorisation of Rijksmuseum files.

Hi Vincent, I've declined the speedy nominations for these categories and rolled back the edits that emptied them, in my opinion removing these categories does not make navigation easier, it may make them more visible within the context of the Rijksmuseum collection, but removing these subcategories not only makes the parent cluttered but makes navigation to related categories harder. I guess you are worried that images are being buried in subcategories and invisible to find for people who don't already know the work or the artist. One approach is a virtual recreation of the museum either through the use of galleries or categories e.g. Category:British Museum by room.

However if you still believe that deleting these categories is the best course of action opening Cfd's for these categories at Commons:Categories for discussion would probably be the best course of action.--KTo288 (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen the speedy nomination for Category:Paintings by Jacob Spoel in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam-is it your intention to empty the smaller categories back into the parent Category:Dutch 19th-century paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, if your logic applies to these subcategories doesn't it apply to all the subcategories?--23:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi KTo288, yes it is my intention to put the smaller categories back into the parent category for the sake of better visibility. I'm doing this also to make navigation easier in the artist's category. For example Category:Lambert de Hondt (II) now contains only one subcat: Category:Paintings by Lambert de Hondt (II) in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. This is a bit silly and unnecessary in my view. The same goes for Category:Jean Augustin Daiwaille, Category:George Gillis Haanen, Category:Martinus Schouman, Category:Jacob Spoel, and many others. Apart from that, none of these categories need diffusion.
But to be clear, larger categories, like Category:Paintings by Rembrandt in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, I will leave untouched. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the frustration of images being buried so that they are no longer visible, howvever in my opinion it is better to diffuse categories rather than to over populate them, anything approaching a hundred images in a category in my opinion needs more diffusing not less. Navigation also mean navigation in not just out of a category, starting from the artist's category where there are few files this seems to make sense, but the cumulative effect of emptying all the little categories will have a detrimental effect on the parent category. If you must nominate these smaller categories for speedy than please do so with the rationale that you want to enhance the visibility of files or overctegorisation.--09:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You have a point there. I usually start diffusing a category when the number of files exceeds 200. Maybe that number is too high. Thanks for your remarks. I will take them into account. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anything approaching 200 files, and in need of a second page, is way overpopulated in my opinion. Sorry if I seem overly critical; looking through the Rijksmuseum categories, I see that they exist only because you spent the time and effort to create and populate them, a word of thanks for that work as I am sure you have only the best interests of how Rijksmuseum files are categorised and presented--KTo288 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, Thanks very much. Critique is always welcome. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flemish paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam-I was doing my evening rounds for speedys when I found this one, please don't take this as a vendetta, but I've declined the speedy and added the three new Flemish categories to it. Categorisation is described by some as a tree, in my view it is more of a intertwined grape vine with multiple trunks. Having just the three new Flemish categories, helps with navigation vertically within the Rijksmuseum category-but it removes the transverse navigation that Category:Flemish paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam provided namely the ability to reach Category:Flemish paintings through Category:Flemish paintings in the Netherlands, and to which these files belong as much as they belong to the Rijksmuseum branch of the tree.--20:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried not to categorise too deep, again for better visibility and navigation. To use an analogy of my own, a row of books (as long as they're not too numerous) works better than a box with books, even if the box is labled. But you're right in saying that I've overlooked Category:Flemish paintings in the Netherlands. This category isn't exactly chockful, so what if we put those 3 new categories directly under this parent category? Does that solve the problem? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does Category:Southern Netherlandish paintings in the Mauritshuis belong to Category:Flemish paintings in the Netherlands, or would we need to check through individual files?--18:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's another issue. Basically, Southern Netherlandish and Flemish refer to the same school of painting. But in literature, especially Dutch literature, the name "Southern Netherlandish" is preferred, as it also includes other parts of what is now Belgium, such as Brabant (Antwerp) and Wallonia. There's no "Walloon school of painting", for example. But in the english speaking word the term Flemish still prevails (see also this quote). So all files in Category:Southern Netherlandish paintings in the Mauritshuis belong to Flemish paintings in the Netherlands, as do all files in Category:Paintings from the Southern Netherlands. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Had a think about your bookshelf analogy, and I won't say that you are wrong and that I am right, I tend towards everything in a box school, but with the boxes labelled and arranged to allow me to find what I need to. Its a question of judgement of which of our two approaches is most appropriate.--KTo288 (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but I try to make sure a category structure is not too deep. I mean, the main purpose of categories is to organize and find files on commons (see Commons:Categories). Too often I come across a category structure that is so elaborate that finding files becomes tedious at best and difficult at worst. Imagine you're in Category:Peter Paul Rubens and you're looking for one of his most famous paintings, The descent from the Cross in Antwerp, you have to work your way through 5 categories. In the process the user is being asked what the new testament is, what the passion is. Not everybody knows this. I try to prevent this, but maybe sometimes I go a little bit too far. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vincent, you may be interested in Commons:Village_pump#Beyond_categories and Beyond categories, as you can see my addition to the discussion it is in part inspired by my chat with you here.--KTo288 (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiData[edit]

Hi Vincent, your categorization and creator template wisdom is needed over at Wikidata:Artworks_task_force/Infoboxes. Jane023 (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jane, Thanks for the invitation. I had a look. I think the idea is to centralise certain basic information on people and in this case artworks. For example the Night Watch. It that correct? But how does this relate to commons (Category:The Night Watch)? In other words, how is it used? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiData is going to be the central repository for all data that can be used in more than one sister project. Right now it only supports interwiki links and some infoboxes, based on the properties available in WikiData. Everyone is free to define new properties, so if you look at this one for example for "original title" which was only created in April, it could be used to hold the text "The Company of Frans Banning Cocq and Willem van Ruytenburch" for the Nightwatch, and so forth. The artwork template on Commons could be used to download information about creators and other information from Wikidata. In order to do this WikiData needs to be populated with that information, but of course we need to set up the structure first, such as properties and so forth. This will enable us (eventually) to create a common infobox for artworks that can be used in all language projects. How WikiData and Commons will be integrated is still being discussed I think. You should join the discussion, and maybe create a task force for creator templates here. Jane023 (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me again! I just wanted to let you know there is a discussion about WikiData and Commons here: Commons talk:Wikidata for media info. Jane023 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thank you! Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Vincent[edit]

I have a question for you, because of the location of this painting (File:Dieric Bouts & Hugo van der Goes - Triptiek van de Heilige Hippolytus.jpg). The discussion is here. Maybe you can tell anything to it (because of your geographic origin). thanks --Botaurus (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can. According to the Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD) (see http://www.rkd.nl/rkddb/dispatcher.aspx?action=search&database=ChoiceImages&search=priref=36930) and the Royal Institute of Cultural Heritage (KIK-IRPA) (see http://www.kikirpa.be/www2/cgi-bin/wwwopac.exe?DATABASE=obj2&LANGUAGE=0&OPAC_URL=&89913=ON&LIMIT=50) it is located at the St. Salvator's Cathedral in Bruges. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick information. --Botaurus (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam[edit]

Hi Vincent,

I reverted your last edits. Before you reverted mine without any comment. I do not see any reason, why this category should not belong into categories Category:Paintings by painter by museum and Category:Aert Anthonisz. VG --Oursana (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oursana, firstly, Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam is already in Category:Paintings by painter by museum, via Category:Paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam by painter. So this is overcategorisation. Secondly, Category:Aert Anthonisz. only contains 7 files and does not need diffusion, in my opinion. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid about this. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paintings_by_painter_by_museum is sorted via museum and directly by artist, necessarily to find the artists. When artists are in several museums you do not have the problem because there is the cat ...by museum. But also here it is not overcat, simply the parent cat Paintings in ...(Museum) is sorted extra in the first section. Otherwise you should also delete all Paintings by (painter) in ..(22 museums)-cats. You cannot mean this.
You created Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, with notice also be found in Category:Aert Anthonisz. To take Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam as an undercat therein gives a good overview. I hope you can agree, it makes information clearer and is within the usual system, see your first categorization. Otherwise information about Aert Anthonisz. paintings in Rijksmuseum is lacking. I would very much appreciate that you can keep this categorization. VG ––Oursana (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Maybe the first group should be put in Category:Paintings by museum by painter. Just an idea.
Yes, but to have an overview in one cat is very practical. i often use it to check.--Oursana (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, no problem. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam was intended to diffuse Category:Paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. So it's not that I don't see the use of categorising paintings by painter by museum. I just don't see why such a small category (7 files) should be diffused. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to diffuse Category:Aert Anthonisz. (7 files), but adding Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam is not diffusing, just gives more information. I competely agree with your notice to double keep the files in Category:Aert Anthonisz., but then include also Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam as sub. It is not disturbing or diffusing, simply gives information about rijksmuseum..VG--Oursana (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, but this does cause overcategorisation. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but sometimes must be to find files back. You did overcategorization first by keeping files of Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam in Category:Aert Anthonisz. as well. All other problems result from this. So I do not understand that you keep the files in two cats (which as such I do not mind) and you do not want to show the subcategory. In case you want to revert again what can we do? Could we try to get a third opinion or could we keep it. Or you simply do not use Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam for 3 files and sort them without extra cat. The last I do not prefer. But when you see problems with Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam as subcat to Category:Aert Anthonisz., perhaps the solution could be this way round.VG --Oursana (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, Category:Paintings by Aert Anthonisz. in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam doesn't have to be a subcategory of Category:Aert Anthonisz., but maybe I'm being too finicky. It would be interesting what other people have to say about this. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vincent, I asked User:Botaurus, who does not answer in this matter. Do you have any other ideas? VG --Oursana (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Painters from the Northern Netherlands (before 1830) and Category:Dutch Golden Age paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin[edit]

Hallo Vincent,

ik probeer al en tijd NL categorie te begrijpen. Moet niet Dutch Golden Age paintings aangepast worden, aan Paintings from the Northern Netherlands (before 1830), zie ook Category:Dutch Golden Age paintings in the National Gallery, London‎…. of redirect van Painters from the Northern Netherlands (before 1830) terug naar Dutch Golden Age painters. Ik zal het beter vinden als painter and paintings categorie gelijkelijk genoemd worden. En denk je Category:1620 paintings from the Netherlands zou better 1620 paintings from the Northern Netherlands (before 1830), en 1620 paintings from the Southern Netherlands (before 1830) (Jacob Jordaens) zijn. VG --Oursana (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ik denk niet dat dit strikt noodzakelijk is. "Noord-Nederlands" is een verzamelnaam voor een zeer grote groep schilders (Van Geertgen tot Sint Jans tot Cornelis Troost), die onderling erg van elkaar verschillen. Termen als "Renaissance" en "Gouden Eeuw" zijn niet ideaal, maar ze zijn wel nuttig om enige ordening aan te brengen in bijvoorbeeld een categorie als Category:Dutch paintings in the National Gallery, London (228 files). In bedoel de meeste mensen kunnen zich wel een voorstelling maken van de term "Dutch Golden Age" (Hals, Vermeer, Rembrandt, enz.).
Bij Category:Painters from the Northern Netherlands (before 1830) is dit anders. De meeste schilders zijn bekend bij naam, dus je mag ervan uitgaan dat iemand die deze categorie raadpleegt gericht aan het zoeken is naar één specifieke schilder. Een verdere onderverdeling van deze categorie lijkt mij dus niet nodig en ook niet wenselijk.
We hebben hier dus te maken met twee verschillende problemen met twee verschillende oplossingen.
Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hartelijk dank--Oursana (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Four generations Princes of Orange - William I, Maurice and Frederick Henry, William II, William III (Willem van Honthorst, 1662).jpg[edit]

Hallo Vincent, kan je ajb die File-naam corrigeren (- Honthorst). Bedankt --Oursana (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multilingual tags: Title[edit]

Hi Vincent, ik vind die multilingual tags erg handig. Wat denk je over een bouwkast system voor titelen als Adoration of the Child with Saint Jerome, Saint Mary Magdalene and Saint Eustache. Als die heiligen en die verbindungswoorden vertaald zijn kan je heel wat titelen daarmee produceren. VG --Oursana (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Oursana, dat kan handig zijn. Maar misschien lukt het ook met de bestaande templates. Bijvoorbeeld 
{{Saint Jerome}} {{and}} {{Mary Magdalene}}
wordt Saint Jerome
label QS:Lit,"San Girolamo"
label QS:Lhu,"Szent Jeromos"
label QS:Lru,"Святой Иероним"
label QS:Lde,"Der heilige Hieronymus"
label QS:Lpt,"São Jerónimo"
label QS:Lsl,"Sveti Hieronim"
label QS:Lja,"聖ヒエロニムス"
label QS:Lpl,"Święty Hieronim"
label QS:Lnl,"De Heilige Hiëronymus"
label QS:Lfr,"Saint Jérôme"
label QS:Les,"San Jerónimo"
label QS:Lmk,"Свети Јероним"
label QS:Len,"Saint Jerome"
label QS:Lar,"تصنيف:جيروم"
label QS:Lcs,"Svatý Jeroným"
label QS:Leo,"Sankta Hieronimo"

and Mary Magdalene. Het sjabloon {{With}} blijkt ook al te bestaan. Dus misschien dat je met al deze elementen een nieuw template kunt maken. Maar wat je ook kunt doen is template {{Title}} verder uitbreiden. Ongeveer zo: 

{{Title|Adoration of the Child|with|Saint Jerome|Saint Mary Magdalene|and|Saint Eustache}}

De bruikbaarheid hiervan is echter wel beperkt. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dank je, Vincent, ik zal het proberen.--Oursana (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hieronymus Bosch- The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things.JPG[edit]

A new version is available [13]. greetings --Botaurus (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks you. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Followers of Hieronymus Bosch Category:Bosch followers[edit]

Hallo Vincent, dank jouw excellent werk is het een grote vreugde om door de cats and files van HB te gaan. Boven genoemde cats horen imho zamen onder Followers of Hieronymus Bosch. Maar ik wil je graag eerst vragen, of er een nagedachte bij is, die ik niet zie.

File:Jheronimus Bosch copyist 001.jpg heeft een ref-fout, die ik niet kan oplossen. Ik heb Category:Paintings paraphrasing Jheronimus Bosch weggenomen. Deze file is in Category:Bosch followers, is terwijl die kleur-uitvoering File:Follower of Hieronymus Bosch - Adoration of the Magi - Upton House (open).jpg in Category:School of Hieronymus Bosch is, buiten Category:Paintings after Hieronymus Bosch. Die verhoudinge van deze categorie zijn voor mij onklaar. Meschien kan je hier verder helpen. VG --Oursana (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Oursana, ja, dat klopt. Category:Bosch followers moet inderdaad verplaatst worden naar Category:Followers of Hieronymus Bosch.
Ik zal kijken of ik File:Jheronimus Bosch copyist 001.jpg kan verbeteren. Die constructie met voetnoten stamt nog uit de tijd dat het niet mogelijk was "References" in template "Artwork" te vermelden.
Toeschrijvingen aangaande followers, workshop, copies enz. zijn soms erg ingewikkeld. File:After Jheronimus Bosch 023.jpg is een getrouwe kopie van het middenpaneel van File:J. Bosch Adoration of the Magi Triptych.jpg, dus een kopie. Maar File:Circle of Jheronimus Bosch Last Judgment.jpg is geen kopie, maar bevat wel heel duidelijk elementen uit het rechterluik van File:Jheronimus Bosch 023.jpg. Vandaar de categorie Category:Paintings paraphrasing Jheronimus Bosch. Maar strikt genomen vallen werken als File:Jheronimus Bosch copyist 001.jpg, omdat ze zo afwijken van het origineel, onder followers. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing Google Art Project template with Artwork template[edit]

Hi, I noticed on some images like File:Rembrandt van Rijn - The Concord of the State - Google Art Project.jpg that you replaced the Google Art Project template with the Artwork template. This removes all the GAP metadata and removed it from a number of hidden categories to which it is automatically added by the template. In the future, please do not do this. Instead, edit the fields labelled "commons_" at the beginning of the template. These will allow you to override any of the fields with any information you choose, without these other deleterious effects. Here is an example edit by me showing how I added your metadata to that image. Thank you. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor @ ar.wiki[edit]

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jan Havicksz. Steen - The Doctor's Visit - Google Art Project.jpg[edit]

Hi Vincent, mag ik jouw vragen om hier het laatste gedeelte von Provenance, het actuele bruikleen, weer terug te zetten op credit line, zie http://collectie.boijmans.nl/en/work/VdV%2076%20%20. VG --Oursana (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, dat kan, maar is dat niet dubbelop. Op {{Artwork/doc}} staat dat credit line "may also be part of the museum's obligations to the donor". Volgens mij is daar hier geen sprake van en hoeft credit line dus niet per se gebruikt te worden. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hoeft niet, maar boijmans, zie link boven, schrijft zelfs Credit line, zie ook http://collectie.boijmans.nl/nl/collection/vdv-76. Meschien kan je dan /ook/ deze referentie actualiseren, zie met, User:Mattes#Credit-line. VG --Oursana (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, ik heb het aangepast. Ik zal binnenkort nog even kijken naar {{Boijmansonline}}. Ik begrijp dat die een update kan gebruiken. Bedankt voor de aanwijzing. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bedankt. Ik heb net RKD geactualiseerd. VG --Oursana (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ik heb het so gedaan als ik het bedoelt heb als voorstel. Het mag ook graag anders. Boijmansonline is heel langzaam en werkt soms helemaal niet. Darom heb ik die andere website gevonden. VG --Oursana (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vincent_Steenberg/Archive/8&oldid=656907889"