User talk:Gzen92

Archives

Archives 2005.
Archives 2013-2015.
Archives 2016-2017.
Archives 2018-2019.
Archives 2020-2021.
Archives 2022-2023.
Archives valued images.
Archives quality images.
Archives featured pictures.

Happy holidays!

		* Happy Holidays! *
		Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!    -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Joyeux Noël! Bonne année!

✴ Happy Holidays, Gzen92 ✴ Merry Christmas and a happy new year! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Buon Natale e felice anno nuovo! Frohe Weihnachten und ein gutes neues Jahr! Aristeas (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Nouvelles photos de Colmar - le jackpot !

Salut Gzen92, va donc regarder les catégories May 2023 in Colmar et June 2023 in Colmar, tu vas halluciner, mon vieux ! PLus de 600 nouvelles photos en tout, et toutes de la meilleure qualité ! Tu vas pouvoir t'amuser à catégoriser tout cela, mais ce sera sûrement un plaisir ! :) Bien à toi, Edelseider (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Beau boulot, Gzen92 ! Tu assures ! Mais ça en vaut la peine ! Si en tu as le temps, il reste les photos de la Category:Koïfhus à catégoriser. Pour ma part, je m'occupe — peu à peu — des collections du musée d'Unterlinden. Il y a encore à faire de ce côté-là ! Cordialement, --Edelseider (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour @Edelseider: j'ai vu que tu t'occupais du musée Unterlinden, c'est bien car il y a aussi beaucoup à faire et je manque de temps. Prochainement, je pense harmoniser Buildings in Colmar by street : à part les bâtiments célèbres, je vais normaliser en "Building at X, rue xxx (Colmar)". Cordialement, Gzen92 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Pas sûr de ton coup, là

Bonsoir Gzen92, j'ai vu que ton bot renomme des tas de catégories colmariennes. Sur la forme, cela paraît judicieux, mais sur le fond, c'est problématique. Pourquoi ? Parce que tu renommes systématiquement building des catégories qui étaient soit "immeuble", soit "maison", soit "villa". En fait, tu effaces la distinction entre ces trois types de bâtiment, qui est pourtant essentielle. En gros : immeuble = grand, maison = petit, villa = riche (et privé). J'aurais à ta place transformé "maison" en house, laissé "villa" tel quel, et "immeuble", eh bien, j'en aurais fait building. N'ai-je pas raison ? Cordialement, Edelseider (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Bonsoir @Edelseider: effectivement. Merci à toi pour le renommage des villas, il n'y en avait pas d'autres (à voir pour Maison des jeunes et de la culture / villa Wiederkehr. Pour les maison et immeuble, j'en ai moi-même crés bon nombre, si ce n'est la majorité et je pense que l'appellation était la plupart du temps erronées, c'est pourquoi j'ai préféré utiliser le terme générique "building", que l'on pourra toujours affiner au cas par cas en "house" (à noter que j'ai conservé les appellations historiques (maison Bergheaud, maison Kern, maison Pfister) même s'il s'agit pour la plupart actuellement de logement collectif.

Concernant mes modifications, j'ai conservés les nom avant/après modification, je peux sans soucis faire marche sur une série de nom. Cordialement, Gzen92 (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

F Haut-Rhin Colmar 07.jpg

I've marked a building in File:F Haut-Rhin Colmar 07.jpg now. What ist this, not the Maison Pfister? PaulT (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@PaulT: that's right. It's a distant view with lots of buildings. The category Category:Maison Pfister (Colmar) is very busy. Putting a note is enough I think, here we could possibly indicate "remote view of Maison Pfister". Gzen92 (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

ok --PaulT (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

ID of File:Centauree de Trionfetti (Centaurea triumfettii) (Belmont).jpg

Hi Gzen92, Centaurea triumfettii is a species of the southern Alps and it does not occur in the Bas-Rhin area. If this is a wildflower, then this is certainly Centaurea montana. If it is a cultivated flower (which is likely outside the Vosges mountains), then it is still very likely Centaurea montana, which is a frequently cultivated species. The major difference is the color of the appendages of the involucral bracts, see e.g. [1]. Leaves are also different, but I am not sure from your image. I do not know how you identified the species, but it is wise to also take a photo with a side view when you take photos of knapweeds because this makes identification much easier. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Robert Flogaus-Faust: identification with plantnet.org, Centaurea triumfettii 28 %, Centaurea montana 18.9 %. You are better than AI, I modify. Gzen92 (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Nouvelles photos de Colmar

Bonjour Gzen92, j'espère que tu vas bien ! Réjouis-toi : de nouvelles photos de Colmar sont arrivées et tu peux les dorloter à loisir. Tu les trouveras dans la catégorie June 2023 in Colmar, leur nom commence toujours par "Colmar June 2023". Amuse-toi bien, et merci ! Edelseider (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Et on continue, cher Gzen92 : voici 32 nouvelles photos de Colmar, prises le mois dernier. Voir Category:July 2024 in Colmar. Amicalement, --Edelseider (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Upload d'images de Museu da Casa da Moeda

Bonjour, @Gzen92: ǃ Je ne sais pas comment faire une demande à votre bot, peux-je l'écrire ici? Je voulais savoir si votre bot peut faire upload d'une collection portugaise de monnaies anciennes dans le site Museu da Casa da Moeda. Est-il possible? Quelle que soit la réponse, merci beaucoup d'avanceǃ Cordialement, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour @Mhmrodrigues: je suis d'autre versements (Gallica). Tu peux regarder ici (en bas, "File upload" ou "User assistants"). Cordialement Gzen92 (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour, @Gzen92: ǃ Merci pour ta réponse! Oui, je comprends que vous serez plus intéressé de faire upload de images/objets des musées françaises que d'autres pays. La colléction française est indubitablement riche, et merci pour me montrer ça avec les uploads de votre bot! Merci aussi pour ton conseil; je regarderai les liens. Pardon moi quelques erreurs, J'apprend encore le français. Cordialement, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Fontainebleau photo

Hello Gzen92,

sorry for interfering with your last nomination. I did not want to annoy you, my comments were just about the idea of a speedy renomination which has recently triggered several heated discussions (as mentioned by Basile) and caused a lot of trouble. Therefore I wanted to intervene quickly, before several users vote on the nomination and then are frustrated when somebody starts again to discuss the renomination problem ...

As a sign of goodwill, I would be happy to help you with the improvement of the photo, if you want, in a similar way as with your Château du Saint-Ulrich photo. I cannot guarantee success, but I see some possibilities for careful improvements of your beautiful Fontainebleau photo. Would you be interested? Then I could try what I can come up with, just as a little help and as a compensation for the trouble with this nomination. However in my experience it is better when I start with the original image file, directly as produced by the camera, to avoid any loss of quality caused by the repetitive edits. So if you are interested, just upload the original, unedited image file somewhere and I will see what I can do with it. Of course this is just an offer, you do not need to use my version if you are not satisfied with it!

In any case, no offence and all the best to you, Roman / – Aristeas (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Aristeas: no problem, your comments were right. I accept your help with pleasure. I have difficulty with the colors/contrast of the photos. I only have jpg, see 27 août 2024 à 14:01. Thanks for your help, there is no emergency. Sincerly, Gzen92 (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Gzen92, thank you for your answer and your interest. Ah, very well, it’s good to know that the 27 août 2024 à 14:01 version is the original, so I will start with that version. If it is OK for you, I would like to wait until next week with this as I am busy with some other duties over the weekend. I will contact you when I have a first proposal for an edited version. All the best and have a nice weekend, too – Aristeas (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Aristeas: I always upload the original first, it can be useful. Take your time, I'm in no hurry. Thanks again. Gzen92 (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Gzen92, I am very sorry for the long delay. Actually I have tried my luck with the photo, but I have to confess that I run into serious problems – when I increased the exposure or contrast, I immediately got some additional noise and artefacts … It seems that the the JPEG compression applied by the camera to the original image was a bit strong in this case and has affected both details and colours. (Maybe because it was already a bit dark. My own Sony camera also tends to compress dark JPEG images stronger/with less details and worse colour depth than bright ones. Normally this is meaninless for me as I use and edit raw (ARW) images, but it’s annyoing when one wants to edit the out-of-camera JPE files as you do.)

After some futile attempts I have contacted Radomianin who has more experience with editing JPEG files, including careful handling of noise etc. He was so generous to try his skills at the Fontainebleau photo and has created a version which is both brighter and a bit more contrasty, not to mention the perspective correction and minor details. I have done some additional retouching of very small details. I have uploaded it here so that you can download it. The crop is intentionally a bit wider than in your version; if you prefer the complete image or a smaller crop, just tell me so and I will upload it.

Please check the result of our efforts ;–). What do you think? On the one hand Radomianin and me thithe photo looks more balanced and appealing now. On the other hand we are not 100% satisfied with the result; despite of our extreme care when editing the photo it looks a little bit like a smartphone photo now. However we fear that this is almost unavoidable because of the technical limits of the original file. You did everything well when taking the photo, of course! But as already mentioned in this case the JPEG compression has not only affected details (emphasizing the major contrasty edges, but smearing some finer details) but also somehow reduced the colours. The result is that whenever we try to make the photo a bit brighter and to increase the contrast we will also increase the traces of the compression. We have already tried to minimize this effect (and even manually removed some traces of compression artefacts etc.), but it seems almost impossible to avoid it completely. The only way to avoid this problem completely even in such difficult light situations would be to take such images (also) in the raw image format (in the case of Sony cameras, an ARW file). Raw images have much more potential and reserves for editing.

But that was just an extra discussion. If you like this version of the photo, please upload it – either as a new version over your image File:Château de Fontainebleau (Fontainebleau) edited (1).jpg, or, probably better because that image is already a QI, as a new image, e.g. File:Château de Fontainebleau (Fontainebleau) edited (2).jpg. It’s your photo, of course; just please mention in the description that it has been edited by Radomianin. (No need to mention me, my contributions were very minor in this case.)

In any case, sorry again for the long delay, all the best to you and greetings – Aristeas (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Aristeas: Thank you for all these technical details (i didn't know!) and your work, as well as Radomianin. I will propose the image. Many thanks. Gzen92 (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2023 voting is open!

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2023.

Round 2 will end at 28 October 2024, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

If you have already voted for Round 2, please ignore this message.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Category for the picture or for the category

Sorry, I have reverted your revision before figuring out completely what you had done. Still I suppose your method is not quite correct. I added the category Clothing shops in France to this picture because this shop is currently located in this house and could be seen at the picture. You moved this category to the category created for this building. However, this building is many centuries old, and most of the time it had not a clothing shop in it (an it is quite possible that in 5 or 20 years will not have it anymore when the space on the ground floor would be rented by somebody else). So, if any picture of the same building created before or after the clothing shop in it will be added to Commons and obviously end up in the category of this building, it should not be included into the category for clothing shops. Thus this category has to be located in the page of the pictures itself, as any category for temporary, not permanent qualities of this building. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Андрей Романенко: I understand, what you say is right. I actually did that for this city. Gzen92 (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

File tagging File:Le bouc, texte de Rainer Werner Fassbinder - photographies - Alain Fonteray - btv1b10611364c (181 of 343).jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Le bouc, texte de Rainer Werner Fassbinder - photographies - Alain Fonteray - btv1b10611364c (181 of 343).jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Le bouc, texte de Rainer Werner Fassbinder - photographies - Alain Fonteray - btv1b10611364c (181 of 343).jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Didym (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Import des photographies de restauration des terrains en montagne

Bonjour @Gzen92:

Un grand bravo et merci pour l'import en masse d'une partie des photographies des travaux de restauration des Terrains en Montagne (ministère de l'Agriculture), à partir de ce qui a été mis en ligne sur Gallica (File:Terres noires - Perrot - btv1b10700419j.jpg et compagnie).

Le fonds fait en fait partie des collections des Archives nationales, et non de la BnF, a été numérisé et mis en ligne par les Archives nationales (partie "entrée et conservation"). La mise en ligne sur Gallica a été faite via un partenariat avec l'INRAE. Quelques mentions vers la source d'origine "Archives nationales" figurent dans les métadonnées descriptives sur Commons (lien "autre catalogue" dans les métadonnées descriptives, cote), mais les métadonnées générées sur Commons à partir de Gallica peuvent néanmoins prêter à confusion. Serait-il envisageable, dans les métadonnées importées, de :

• modifier le cartouche Institution par celui des AN :

Archives nationales
	Location	France
	Coordinates	48° 56′ 51″ N, 2° 21′ 51″ E
	Established	1790
	Website	www.archivesnationales.culture.gouv.fr
	Authority file	: Q182542 VIAF: 131469365 ISNI: 0000000121589529 LCCN: n80126087 NLA: 36540372 GND: 1000286-8 WorldCat

institution QS:P195,Q182542

• supprimer "Bibliothèque nationale de France" dans Source / photographe (en ne laissant que Archives nationales et la cote. Le lien vers le catalogue des AN figurant juste au dessus)

Si ce n'est pas possible via le bot, on tâchera de modifier en masse via OpenRefine

Nous avons par ailleurs créer une catégorie "Photographies de restauration des terrains en montagne" rattachée à Category:Collections of Archives nationales (France), et tâchons d'améliorer la catégorisation (voire de rajouter la géolocalisation via locator-tool).

Quoi qu'il en soit, merci encore pour ce gros travail que nous ne manquerons pas de faire connaître dans le cadre du bilan 2024 des actions et usages sur les Wiki des fonds patrimoniaux des Archives nationales.

Cordialement, Archives nationales (France) (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC) et Daieuxetdailleurs (talk)

Bonjour @Archives nationales (France) and Daieuxetdailleurs: merci pour les explications de la mise en ligne.

Actuellement, j'uploade des images de la BnF uniquement via l'API de Gallica (il y a d'autres partenaires comme des musées par exemple que je ne traite pas pour le moment). Je comprends ce que vous me dites et c'est étrange que l'API ne me l'indique pas comme tel. Bon, ce que je peux faire après coup :

1) rechercher dans les images déjà chargées (dans Category:Images from Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France) uploaded by Gzen92Bot) celle qui contiennent l'url "https://www.siv.archives-nationales" ;

2) pour ces images, remplacer le modèle {{Institution:Bibliothèque nationale de France}} par {{Institution:Archives nationales (France)}} et ajouter la catégorie Category:Photographs in the Archives Nationales (France).

Qu'en pensez-vous ?

Cordialement, Gzen92 (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour @Gzen92

Merci beaucoup pour cette proposition. Il semble, après vérification, qu'on puisse en fait de notre côté modifier en masse le wikitext via OpenRefine et le plug-in Commons Reconciliation, ce qui permettrait de changer le modèle Institution, de rajouter un champ Lieu (à partir de ce qui est plus ou moins structuré dans la description), les coordonnées géographiques (a minima à la commune).

Les images de restauration des terrains de montagnes uploadées contenant "https://www.siv.archives-nationales" ont été ajoutées à Category:Photographies de restauration des terrains en montagne, et d'enlever un contenu redondant "vide" qui figurait dans les métadonnées de Gallica. Si ça ne fonctionne pas nous revenons vers vous pour le changement du modèle Institution.

Ultime question, peut-être en lien avec le fonctionnement du bot (qui semble agir sur des corpus entiers) ? : Gallica et le catalogue bnf contiennent plus de 9400 images de cette collection et 1700 environ ont été uploadées sur Commons. A priori rien dans les métadonnées intermarc, ou l'ordre alphanumérique des notices, ne différencie celles importées (exemple Route_forestière_de_Recours_(gorge,_chemin)_-_btv1b106848275.jpg, notice bnf numéro 45956308) de celles non importées (notice bnf numéro 45956309).

En tout cas votre import massif va sans doute nous inciter à mettre sur Commons les autres images du corpus qui sont sur notre portail documentaire (seules les Alpes sont sur Gallica), et à exploiter un peu plus certaines métadonnées.

Bien cordialement, Archives nationales (France) (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Archives nationales (France): Ok, alors je vous laisse faire dans l'immédiat. Sachez qu'il est facile pour pour moi de remplacer des modèles/catégories mais plus délicat d'indiquer des coordonnées géographiques (ou alors à faire un fichier de correspondance).

Votre constat est correct, il manque des fichiers car je n'ai pas terminé l'import des images (j'en ai fait environ 20 %, ce qui correspond à vos chiffres, 1700/9400). J'ai dû arrêter le traitement pour améliorer certains points (discussions techniques en cours). Une fois repris (rapidement j'espère), cela me prendra encore bien trois semaines pour finir l'import des images. Je vous tiendrai informé de la fin de l'opération.

Cordialement. Gzen92 (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour @Gzen92 (cc @Archives nationales (France))

Le wikitext issu des métadonnées de Gallica a été modifié avec OpenRefine et le modèle Artwork enrichi (depicted place, access number, medium notamment). J'ai également géolocalisé les images à la commune, avec quelques corrections d'erreurs dues à des homonymes dans d'autres départements. Les métadonnées Wikidata sont en partie renseignées.

Bref, tout ça rend pas mal (en attendant la suite !), notamment avec la carte : https://wikimap.toolforge.org/?cat=Photographies%20de%20restauration%20des%20terrains%20en%20montagne

Cordialement, Daieuxetdailleurs (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Creation of Category:Files from Gallica needing categories (images, reverse side)

Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to say so at the time, but it's better if files for the reverse sides of things like postcards are kept with the ones containing the fronts since they often contain important information about the publication dates and publishers that will much harder to find and document now. Especially if you end up deleting everything in the category. There's no benefit to doing it that way regardless though. Your just causing more work down the line.

At the end of the day it would have been best to organize the image by type, like putting all the images of postcards in one category regardless of what side it is, and leaving it at that. There are other people who specialize in specific areas and can categorize things beyond that. Like with something like File:(9)4 Alexandria. - Sidi Gaber and Monument to Sir Ralph Abercombie. - btv1b10114701q (2 of 2).jpg it should go in a category for postcards anyway and in description from what I can says that's what it is. So there's really no way to find and categorize it as such after upload. Hopefully the reverse sides of the images at least aren't deleted though since again, they are extremely important to determining the documents' origins. Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: There is no relevant information to better classify the images (postcard or other), it has little structured data.

Pour une image seul "1 of 2", le verso sera retrouvé en modfiant l'url par "2 of 2" si besoin). See Category:Files from Gallica needing categories (images, reverse side) : The image can be moved if it is relevant to keep it. Gzen92 (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

OK. I'll probably go through the images and move them to better categories at some point if no one else does. I don't want to screw anything up if your still in the process of uploading stuff though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Gallica DR

Hi, I would like to split the DR like this to facilitate closing it. OK for you? Yann (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, yes thank you, very good. Gzen92 (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Les explosifs sont salissants - dessin de presse - Wolinski - btv1b53183033k (2 of 2).jpg

File:Les explosifs sont salissants - dessin de presse - Wolinski - btv1b53183033k (2 of 2).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!

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Rosenzweig.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and successful New Year 2025! -- Radomianin (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

	* Happy Holidays! *
	Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!    -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays 2024/2025!

	✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴
	Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! ✴ Hello Gzen92, thank you very much for your great contributions to Wikimedia Commons! All the best, Aristeas (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴