User talk:Vincent Steenberg/Archive/3

Empilement de modèles

Bonjour Vincent. J'ai remarqué tes ajouts des modèles {{Painting}} et {{Information}} à des pages qui portent déjà un modèle de description de musée. Je n'ai pas de remarques pour {{Painting}}, mais pourquoi ajouter {{Information}} qui est redondant avec les informations données par le modèle du musée et le modèle de licence ? Ça disperse l'information et rend difficile la lecture. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jastrow, thanks for your remark. This seems to be a case of misconstruction. I revisited File:Four Evangelists Jordaens Louvre Inv1404.jpg just now and had a closer look at it. Because my language settings on commons are set to Dutch by default I could only read "Source/Photographe" as "Source" ("Bron"). Compare this to this. In other words in French tl information is, like you say, redundant, while in Dutch it might not be. So, when I have a minute I will fix the Dutch translation of tl Louvre and revert my edits. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Vincent. I apologize for having written in French; I assumed from your editing the French-speaking Wikisource that you spoke French. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

no broblem. I can read French ok, but my writing is terrible. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

About your deletion request

The best thing to do is create a category named (f.i.) Paintings attributed to Johannes Vermeer, move the images there, and make a cat redirect. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Good evening to you too, If there are more paintings with that attribution I might do that. BTW, why did you put "by Johannes Vermeer" after some sub categories of Category:Johannes Vermeer? Is that something new, I missed out on? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The same to you. Sometimes categories are just to general. Paintings of different artists might end up in the same category. The most obvious case is Category:Details of paintings, but you could think of other categories as well. Commons is not a database made up of index words but categories, so some specification is required. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand. One of the oldest subcategories of Category:Johannes Vermeer was Category:Girl with a Pearl Earring. As far as I know this has never caused any confusion. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not something new, see f.i. Category:Allegory of Faith by Santo Varni (Staglieno, Genoa). I started to do that when I created Category:Work based on paintings by Johannes Vermeer because images cluttered up the categories (a.o. Girl with a Pearl Earring) that were not works of Vermeer. Since several painters made works of the same subjects Vermeer has chosen (see f.i. Diana, Praxedis, Allegory..) a refinement of the category's name is defendable. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Painting names are not like rock band names: many artists have painted the same subjects with the same names. It is better to have a systematic naming system than to adapt it each time a second item with a comparable names pops up. Besides that, many painting names are confusing, so should have a disambiguation (painting, photograph, book, movie, sculpture, song, poem ...) so you might as well create it immediately as "<Painting name> by <painter>". --Foroa (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, that's understandable. But isn't it Wikipedia/Commons policy to put any additions in parentheses, such as Category:Allegory of the Catholic Faith (Johannes Vermeer)? Shouldn't this apply to categories as well? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(Indent reset) Commons rules are not that specific. I would say, the following de facto standards are prevailing:

• "Name in/of/from/by location/painter/..." preferred form where there is no confusion possible for in/of/from/by
• "Name, location, county ..." to precise a location
• "Name (painter/band/movie)" to state what it is

In this case, the first and last case would work, but the fact is that like for movie and book titles, the name of the painting can create some confusion. Anyway, for paintings or long "artistic" titles, I don't see a clear de facto standard, so no real need to rename them. --Foroa (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, if that means that unique titles like "Girl with a pearl earring" do not need disambiguation, I think we agree. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File mover

The functionality of the template {{Rename}} has recently changed. You might need to clear your cache to see the changes. If successful you should then be able to use the new "Quick adding" link in the template to instruct CommonsDelinker to replace the old name with the new name in all wikis. Please use that every time you rename a file. If further questions arise, feel free to write on my talk page --DieBuche (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Template RKD

Hello Vincent,

First of all, nice template! I am very fond of these links back to the authoritative institutions.

I see what is the problem. This is a bit technical :-) :

{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:File}}|{{ns:Category}}}}

is not a correct code. You may read about the switch syntax on mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##switch. The purpose here is, if and only if the template is on either the File or Category namespace, it writes the last parameter after the equal sign (See {{Joconde}} for an example). When the last part got removed, the template broke and writes {{ns:Category}} --> « Category ».

I took the liberty to revert and create the category Category:RKDimages, as I believe it can be very useful. This way, it is possible to track down uses, make category intersections to determine the work left to do, etc. See for example Category:Base Joconde, Category:Mérimée and Category:Palissy (we could use some category to gather all those categories, by the way...).

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Yes, that technical stuff is quite beyond me. Thanks for fixing the problem. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome :-). I have just made the template {{Iffileorcategory}}, in the hope that this way it is more understandable for human beings ;-). Jean-Fred (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed this edit, so I updated {{RKD}} and it now supports two parameters, for two records in the RKD database. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

yes, that works much better. Thanks a lot. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages on my talk page. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

&nbsp

Hi Vicent Steenberg. If you prefer, we could add some padding to {{Painting}}. This would avoid having to do it on file description pages (1). -- User:Docu at 09:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Docu, yes that would be preferable, I think. But what you could also do to solve this, is to erase the header in template {{Painting}} and 'reintroduce' the original == {{int:filedesc}} == header. I brought this up earlier at Template_talk:Painting#Header. Maybe you want to have a look at that discussion to see if it makes some sense. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I re-read the discussion. I think it can be an advantage to make it visible which template is being used. {{Painting}} makes it clear that it's primarily about the 2D artwork, but {{Information}} could be about the reproduction itself. This doesn't necessarily mean we need a black header with white text, but some indication helps. As the usability team is thought to redesign file description pages, I'm wondering how they will address that. -- User:Docu at 09:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, since most people do not use tl information to describe the reproduction. They just replace tl information by tl painting. In other words they use tl painting as tl information. I sometimes use both templates calling tl information "Photo information" (see for example File:WLANL - Quistnix! - Museum Boijmans van Beuningen - Heilige Hieronymus, Antoon van Dijk, zonder lijst.jpg), but I don't know if that's the right way to go. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In your sample, it seems to have been used that way (by the bot). The uploader of the new version didn't seem to bother fixing it though. Here I left the info just in the source field. From that and this, I guess things wont change anytime soon. -- User:Docu at 19:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories by museum

Dear Vincent Steenberg. THe category is not unfortunate: in my opinion what was very unfortunate was the deletion of the other, that was fruit of the debate between two only wikipedians, and the other was not even convinced of the need of deletion. As he told there are a hundreds of paintings in Commons tagged by museum, and there is no conflict. Using Creator:Whoever inside double brackets besides the categorisation you´ll always find the image or category under the name of the painter. I created and filled a lot of these categories and many other users too, in the last years. I am almost sure of having created the one that you deleted, although I didn't recieve any note before the deletion. Cheers!Balbo (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Balbo, Apparently I sent the notification so Mattes (see User_talk:Mattes/Archive_3#Category:Paintings_by_Hieronymus_Bosch_by_location) and I forgot about the rest. Sorry about that.
Of course there's nothing wrong with sorting images under categories by painter by location. I also do it quite often. But I do this for a reason. Mainly I do it because museumcategories tend to fill up very fast (for example in Category:Dutch Golden Age paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam). The only way to split up categories like that is creating subcategories by name. However, this often results in an unwanted side-effect: causing what you could call "asymmetrical categorization" in the painter-category (see for example Category:Cornelis Cornelisz. van Haarlem). I know this is not the end of the world, but I just don't find it very attractive. And there is a way to avoid this: categorize images by location by school first. In the case of paintinge by Bosch in the Prado this would be Category:Early Netherlandish paintings in the Prado Museum. I think that's more than satisfactory for the time being. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Vincent, I am sorry I don't get your point. Could you explain a little what do you mean with asymmetrical categorization? Your category Netherlandish paintings in the Prado Museum seems fine to me, but also the sub-category for Bosch. You said in the debate that most museums don´t have more than one or two works by Bosch, but that is definitely not the case of El Prado, and sorting the works of the museum by author, it would be incomplete without a category especifically for his works. You are right: this is not the end of the world, but I don't see why it is better if a category is missing. The tag that I told you (creator with double brackets) is made precisely to find all the works by an author under a sole category, independently of how the rest of categories are sorted. Cheers! Balbo (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, I'll try to explain. Before you created Category:Paintings by Jheronimus Bosch in the Prado Museum all the paintings by Bosch were all arranged directly under Category:Paintings by Jheronimus Bosch. They were all neatly arranged next to each other creating a simple overview of all paintings by Bosch available on commons. You could call this "symmetrical" categorization. By creating Category:Paintings by Jheronimus Bosch in the Prado Museum a number of paintings by Bosch were taken apart while the rest were left untouched. Because of this difference you could speak of "asymmetrical" or "unequal" categorization. Because you created a different categorization key for one part of the categories as opposed to the rest. I tried to look for images on commons that illustrate this, but I couldn't find any.
What is the problem, you may ask.
Basically there is no problem. Asymmetrical categorization happens all the time on commons and (as far as I know) is not against any commons policy. However, in my opinion it is not something to be desired. As I mentioned above symmetrical categorization gives a better overview of what's available on commons and to me it's more pleasing to the eye. In this case I think less is more. For example: someone who is looking for Bosch's Garden of Eartly Delights has to browse through more categories now, than in the old situation.
Solution.
There are 2 solutions to make Category:Paintings by Jheronimus Bosch symmetrical again: 1. Change or delete Category:Paintings by Jheronimus Bosch in the Prado Museum, or 2. Categorize all paintings by Bosch by location. Because most museums own not more than one painting by Bosch the latter is not an option. However, Category:Paintings by Jheronimus Bosch in the Prado Museum does not necessarily have to be deleted. You could choose for a construction I used for Category:Paintings by Johannes Vermeer in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam using tl {{See also}}. But I don't know if this solution is sustainable. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I don't quite understand what you mean by "The tag creator with double brackets is made to find all the works by an author under a sole category".

Now I get your point. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. As you say, this "asymmetrical" categorization is widely spread in Commons, and I think it would be interesting if that concerns you to propose it as a policy in Commons, but for me it doesn't make sense to change partially for esthetical subjective views. For example: Let's say that this category dissapears, then others (i.e.: Paintings in the Prado Museum by author) would have a problem, not of esthetics, but of missing substantial information. As for the "creator" stuff, you'll find it interesting. I'll do my best to explain it, it is difficult to explain because the brackets don't show up when you write them in a talk like this, but please entry in the section "edit" in any of a large host of art files in Commons, for example here: [1] you´ll find the tag Creator:Nameoftheartist inside double brackets. In the example that I show, it (Creator: Francisco de Zurbarán) is just before the categories and before PD-Art-YorckProject. This tag automatically inserts the image under the category of the name of the author, so you always can see all the images by a single creator under his or her name, and then you are free too create as many subcategories as needed in order to make the works more accesible, by location, by year, by moment of the life of the author, by series... The "symmetrical" categorization will always be there thanks to this "creator tag". I think that should be a guarantee if somebody looks for one work withouth knowing anything more of its context but the name of the author to find it without pain. I am pretty sure that this will be satisfactory for your concerns about that subject. Thank you for your kindness and time, and cheers!Balbo (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, I see. You mean autocategorization as described at Template:Creator#Auto-categorization_issues. For Creator:Hieronymus Bosch this is not being used at the moment. And to be honest I don't think it's a good idea to do this. The images might then all be in one category, but they would be in random order and if you look here you will see that Creator:Hieronymus Bosch is used in quite a lot file pages, which means that Bosch's home category would be overly filled, making it difficult to find the image you are looking for. But what about my idea to use {{See also}}? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I find the reasoning inconsistent, as your first point was to find all the images under one only category, and that for definition means to make difficult to find them all in the same bag, and means to have an overfilled category. You don't find that acceptable now, but before you described the same fact as being "neatly arranged next to each other creating a simple overview". That is contradictory! Anyway, and independently of that, I find your proposal of the "see also " a an acceptable possibility if you find it fine, as long as it is arranged in a parallel scheme of the example that you offered, (Vermeer). Best regards, Balbo (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's good to be consistent, but it's another thing to be rigid. I try not to force my way of doing things upon other people. That's why I came up with this solution. I'm glad it is acceptable to you. We'll see if it works or not. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Watermark tag

Hi Vincent, I noticed you added a {{Watermark}} tag to File:Tentation de Saint Antoine.jpg, but I'm having trouble locating it. Can you clarify? Dcoetzee (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dcoetzee, this image is watermarked by the museo del prado. It contains the text

MUSEO NACIONAL
DEL PRADO

spread over the whole image. For example left of the saint and right of the saint above the pig with the earring. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Provenance event

Thank, by the way do you know where does the colon comes from when I write

1919:  purchased
  {{ProvenanceEvent|type=purchase|time=1919}}

Ah here it appears al right but in a page it appeared

:1919: purchased

ok, maybe you should put time on front of type. Like this: {{ProvenanceEvent|time=1919|type=purchase}}. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Arts/Manual of Style

Hello Vincent Steenberg!
I would like to introduce Commons:WikiProject Arts/Manual of Style to you. I guess you are interested (you may edit that page) ... Thanks and greetings from Munich, --Mattes (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mattes, you already put quite a lot of work in it I see. I will definitely have a close look at it. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll be great! Have a nice day and see you around --Mattes (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Details of paintings by H. Bosch

Hello again!

Why did you remove several assignements towards Category:Details of paintings by Hieronymus Bosch (e.g. diff)? --Mattes (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, The reason for that is the same as Category:Details of paintings by Johannes Vermeer. In my opinion details of paintings should be in the same category as images showing the complete work. For example File:Jheronimus Bosch 011.jpg and File:Hieronymus Bosch 011.jpg. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well, but there should be a parent category covering all the details of paintings by H.B. or not? Otherwise Category:Details of paintings by Hieronymus Bosch should be deleted. Would you like to provide a concept for that? Happy sweating, --Mattes (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that this category eventually should be deleted, but I'm taking by time, as usual. What you you mean by "providing a concept"? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I was wondering if you're following a strategy to place the parent cat. somewhere else. Now I know that you just want to delete all Category:Details of paintings by ... and prior to that you remove the assignements. Well, I'm not happy with that but I understand your motivation. --Mattes (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Heerlijkheid Overijssel

Hoi Vincent, wie zou volgens jou tussen 1581 (het afzweren van Philips) en 1787 (de Pruisische bezetting) de "heer" van Overijssel zijn geweest? --129.125.102.126 23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

De feodale indeling van de Noordelijke Nederlanden bleef na 1581 intact. Gewesten zoals Overijssel hadden na het afzweren van Philips II weliswaar geen staatshoofd meer, maar de rechten van dit staatshoofd bleven bestaan en werden uitgeoefend door (in dit geval) de Gedeputeerde Staten van Overijssel. De heerlijkheid Overijssel bleef dus bestaan en deze situatie duurde tot de afschaffing van het feodale stelsel door de Fransen rond 1795. Vandaar dat op sommige 17de eeuwse kaarten "Transiselania Dominium" (heerlijkheid Overijssel) te lezen is. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ehmm, ja, de rechten van een staatshoofd dat er niet meer is. Je geeft toe dat er geen "heer" meer was, maar blijft vasthouden aan het begrip heerlijkheid. Het feodale stelsel werd, mijns inziens, niet door de Fransen afgeschaft, dat was in (en, OK, ook in de jaren na) 1581 al gebeurd: de Pruisische bezetters en hun reactionaire handlangers werden (zij het met overduidelijke Franse hulp) verdreven en een aantal restjes feodalisme werden ook afgeschaft.

Als ik het goed begrijp, waren volgens jou de Gedeputeerde Staten van Overijssel de "heer" van Overijssel. Maar waarom dan dat enkelvoud voor "het staatshoofd"? --129.125.102.126 19:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tijdens de Opstand gebeurde er veel - vrijheid van godsdienst werd ingevoerd, een deel van de Nederlanden onttrok zich aan Spaans gezag - maar op politiek gebied gebeurde er niet zoveel. Holland, bijvoorbeeld behield zijn raadspensionaris (een middeleeuws ambt) en de meeste 'nieuwe' gewesten behielden hun stadhouder (ook een middeleeuws ambt). De Opstand was dus meer een wisseling van de wacht, dan een revolutie in de moderne zin van het woord. De Fransen (en met hen de patriotten) beschouwden het bestuur van de Republiek niet voor niets als anciem regime. De Gedeputeerde Staten van Overijssel waren trouwens niet de heer van Overijssel, maar de plaatsvervangend heer. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Laat ik mijn vraag dan aanpassen, van welke heer waren de Staten van Overijssel dan de plaatsvervanger? De pogingen om herendiensten af te dwingen, leidden tot het verzet dat uiteindelijk door Pruisische troepen werd neergeslagen. --129.125.102.126 12:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Niemand dus. De heer was immers afgezet. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Precies, en juist daarom is dat geneuzel over "heerlijkheid" zo ongelooflijk passé (16e-eeuws: 1523-1568) of niet-Overijssels (andere gebieden hadden wel een heer, en dat is, volgens mij, een betere verklaring voor dat "Dominium", een ander woord was buiten de 7 provincien en Zwitserland niet gebruikelijk). En ja, tussen 1787 en 1795 was het weer even een heerlijkheid, en eigenlijk is het vanaf 1815 to nu opnieuw een heerlijkheid: de Oranjes worden niet gekozen (en Hitler werd dat ook niet door de Nederlanders), maar het herinvoeren van herendiensten (de Arbeitsdienst) leidt nog steeds tot verzet. --129.125.102.126 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

ok, prima, als jij er zeker van bent dat de heerlijkheid Overijssel in 1581 ophield te bestaan, is het misschien een goed idee om het artikel Heerlijkheid Overijssel op Wikipedia aan te passen, zodat fouten zoals ik die kennelijk maakte niet meer voorkomen. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

wood in technique

I've removed the "wood" switch in the English version of {{Technique}} and requested a bot to replace {{technique|zz|panel|wood=titi}} by {{technique|zz|titi panel}} Since you have used wood quite often, I probably should have asked your opinion beforehand, however, new parameters really had to be added in the template, and with the wood switch, the syntax got unnecessarily complicated. To me it only has avdvantages to use oak panel rather than panel|wood=oak:

• It is more intuitive for newcomers (at the beginning, I hadn't realised that wood panels had to use one special parameter)
• It is quicker to write
• As 3D works and archeological artefacts can use template technique, the list may get quite long. It is much simpler to semi-automatically update one alphabetical list than several sublists. Woods have to be added in the main list for statues anyway, so it seems natural to have oak followed by oak panel in the main list.
• It is still easy to search strings using the word "panel" in the list if needs be--Zolo (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that makes more sens. Thanks for the notification. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Prado}} and {{Rijksmuseum Amsterdam}}

Vincent,

I noticed today 2 templates of yours: {{Prado}} and {{Rijksmuseum Amsterdam}}. The intention of {{Museum}} is to be used in "Museum:" pseudospacename not in template namespace, just as Creator pages are in "Creator" namespace. I assume that "Museum:" will become a namespace at some point, but for time being it is a pseudospacename. See for example Museum:Rijksmuseum which can be used by typing {{Institution:Rijksmuseum}}. See also {{Museum}} for more info. Could you fix those 2 templates? --Jarekt (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what went wrong here, but I turned both templates into a redirect. I hope that's ok. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fine. Cross-namespace redirects can work strangely sometimes, and I will probably run a bot to replace them. I already replaced and deleted {{Prado}}. Regards, --Jarekt (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)