User talk:G.Lanting/Archive 3

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

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:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Natuur12 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Your changes at Urfttalsperre images

I saw that you moved many images from the Category:Urfttalsperre reservoir to Category:Urftstausee. That is okay both names are possible here, but then please move all files from the old category to the new one and create a redirect. I also saw that you removed Category:Kermeter from some of the files, but the forest is clearly visible there. And then you removed the dot at the end of the descriptions. As that are short but full sentences there should be a dot and it is common to have a dot there on Commons. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello G.Lanting, it seems that your latest changes or uploads of the file(s) Weerterbos grenskerk.jpg broke a template. This assumption has been made because the file(s) appeared in the maintenance Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter. To fix this issue please check this category for further information. If the file(s) is/are not contained in the maintenance category anymore someone else already did the work and you can ignore this message. Thank you for your cooperation. --ArndBot (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hallo G.Lanting, zou te achterhalen zijn of de bedoelde persoon hier Albrecht van Oostenrijk is die een "berechting" uitvoert ? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Supermarkt Dorst DSCF5190.jpg

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Supermarkt Dorst DSCF5190.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Tekstman (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Supermarkt Dorst DSCF5191.jpg

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Supermarkt Dorst DSCF5191.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Tekstman (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Supermarkt Dorst DSCF5192.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!

Tekstman (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Dag, G.Lanting. Ik zie dat u aan de categorieën van Zeeuwse plaatsen een toelichting toevoegt, telkens beginnende "Afbeeldingen van ...". In die categorieën kunnen echter natuurlijk ook bijvoorbeeld geluidsopnames of teksten worden gecategoriseerd. Meestal wordt de toelichtingstekst gebruikt om te verduidelijken wat het onderwerp van de categorie is, niet om duidelijk te maken dat er bestanden (afbeeldingen, enz.) in de categorie geplaatst kunnen worden, want dat is nogal evident op deze website. Ik vind, kortom, de beschrijving niet al te gelukkig en wil u vragen of u in het vervolg misschien "Afbeeldingen van" weg wilt laten, want het geeft een mediumbeperking aan die op Commons niet bestaat. Met vriendelijke groet, Eissink (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC).

File:Affiche verbouwing P1140082.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!

JopkeB (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for your tireless edits to improve the metadata of the photos of La Palma and Tenerife that I've uploaded here! Are you also in the Canary Islands? I have a new batch of photos from La Palma that I'll upload soon - then will try to also improve the categorisation of my photos! Also, please let me know if you have any photo requests! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I was in Tenerife from 1 - 14 december 2021 (Overleg) G.Lanting (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@G.Lanting: Sorry I missed you, next time you're visiting, let me know and perhaps we could meet up for a chat? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Palosirkka (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


Palosirkka (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Detail Voor de draad ermee! P1170790.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!

JopkeB (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Interieur Gorcums Museum P1170787.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!

JopkeB (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:Geeren

Is er iemand die de vermelding in de infobox van Geeren een wijk in Breda kan vervangen? (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Geeren). In de huidige staat een verwijzing naar de Duitse stad Geeren. Bij de wijk Geeren moet zo iets komen als Geeren (Breda). Ik kan zelf de infobox niet aanpasen. Bij voorbaat dank en mvr groet, G.Lanting

Gedaan! Ik heb het Wikidata item van de pagina ontkoppeld en een nieuwe (juiste) aangemaakt. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Dank u wel. mvr gr. G.Lanting G.Lanting (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, do you have any more info about the structure at Category:Centro de interpretación (Parque del Drago)? Having been there several times, it doesn't actually seem to be part of the park - it seems to be a private building? Or have I missed something? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not been there inside. I am also not of it is a part of the parque del Drago. We can catagory it with if you think thats better? G.Lanting G.Lanting (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'm asking a local Facebook group to see if they have any ideas, before we start moving things about! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah, no, it is a visitor centre! They started building it in 2011, and apparently they haven't finished it yet! See [1] and [2]. Will add more info to the category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
All your images 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.

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!


dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot


dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot


dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot


dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

File:P1010990vAbbemuseum.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!

HotaniKG (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Inrichting van de introductie van categorieën

Hoi G.Lanting, op de eerste dank voor je jarenlange inzet op Wikimedia Commons met de bijdragen van talrijke afbeeldingen en de opzet van vele categorieën. Door omstandigheden heb ik afgelopen week een stukje van die jouw wijze van categorisering doorkruist, nadat je een dag daarvoor een "herinrichting" van een categorie door mij had doorkruist, zie hier. Nu vraag ik me af of we hieromtrent eens van gedachten zouden kunnen wisselen? En wellicht later kunnen we dit in een iets breder kader verder bespreken?

Om de situatie nog iets "gecompliceerde" te maken heb ik nog een test-edit gedaan, zie hier, om dat "tussen-resultaat" eens te bespreken. Wat mij in beide voorbeelden namelijk duidelijk wordt is, dat het resultaat een gevolg is van meerdere personen met een andere achtergrond, interesse en prioriteitstelling wat ze willen weergeven. Jouw prioriteit ligt duidelijk bij de plaatselijke geografie, mijn interesse ligt bij de organisatie, en in het geval van de Ulvenhoutselaan 15, Breda komt er uit de Wikidata infobox een bouwkundige beschrijving, en dat blijkt afkomstig vanaf de eerste opzet uit 2014 op Wikidata, zie hier.

Achteraf gezien heb ik zonder vorm van overleg jouw inrichting al eens overschreven, zie hier, en dat was niet zo netjes van mij. In de dagen daarvoor had ik net een paar honderd bewerkingen gedaan rond die ene categorie Akademie voor Kunst en Vormgeving St. Joost. Zo leek m'n organisatorische beschrijving de voorkeur te hebben, boven jouw beschrijving over de plaatselijke geografie. Wat dit betreft ben ik een maand later een meer genuanceerdere kijk, dat die categorie met z'n subcategories beter gesplitst kan worden: In een categorie over het gebouw en een categorie over de organisatie. Nu is dit een ding.

Een ander ding is de samenstelling van de opbouw van de categorie. Nu denk ik weer specifiek aan het laatste voorbeeld: Met een object-location sjabloon, een Wikidata sjabloon, met een omschrijving gefixeerd op de omgeving met allerlei links, met een Rijksmonument sjabloon, en een bouwkundige beschrijving in de Wikidata infobox "Huis met witgepleisterde lijstgevel, groene vensterluiken en ingang met kroonlijst op voluutvormige consoles" wordt het mij te veel, te eenzijdig, te rommelig.

Nu zie ik zelf wel meerdere oplossing, maar ik zou dat in dit geval gezien de doorkruisingen graag eerst met je overleggen. -- Mdd (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Bij nader inzicht zie ik, dat je (wat ik noem) "de boel aan het overrulen bent". Er is een eerste categorie gestart over de kunstacademie in 2014, zie hier, met de introductie:

De Akademie voor Kunst en Vormgeving St. Joost is het oudste onderdeel van de Avans Hogeschool in Breda gelegen in de provincie Noord-Brabant in Nederland.

Dat heb jij in augustus 2022 overschreven, zie hier, tot:

Afbeeldingen van de St. Joost School of Art & Design van de Akademie voor Kunst en Vormgeving St. Joost, kortweg AKV St. Joost, Beukenlaan 1, 4834 CR Breda. Gelegen in het zuidoosten van Breda in de provincie Noord-Brabant in het zuiden van Nederland. Nabij de wijk IJpelaar en Bavel. Het is een onderdeel van de Avans Hogeschool. De akademie is in 2004 ontstaan uit een fusie van de Academie voor Beeldende Kunsten Sint-Joost uit Breda en de Koninklijke Academie voor Kunst en Vormgeving uit 's-Hertogenbosch. Het is een kunstacademie met vestigingen in 's-Hertogenbosch.

Daarnaast had je in juli 2022 aan de Category:Kleinseminarie IJpelaar, een maand eerder, bijna dezelfde bijschrijving toegevoegd, zie hier:

Afbeeldingen van het voormalige Kleinseminarie IJpelaar, Beukenlaan 1, 4834 CR Breda. Gelegen in het zuidoosten van Breda in de provincie Noord-Brabant in het zuiden van Nederland. Gelegen nabij de wijken de IJpelaar en Nieuw Wolfslaar en Bavel. Tegenwoordig is hier de St. Joost School of Art & Design, Beukenlaan 1, 4834 CR Breda gevestigd, het oudste onderdeel van de Avans Hogeschool in Breda.

Bij de laatste lijkt er nog geen Wikidata infobox te bestaan. Zelf ving ik dit een verwarrende situatie. Ik zie graag een categorie primair over de academie, en een primair over het gebouw. -- Mdd (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)