User talk:Multichill/Archives/2013/January

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

RCE id's

Hallo Multichill, ik heb een aantal foto's uit Delft die nog niet waren voorzien van een id automatisch kunnen voorzien van een rijksmonumentnummer. In totaal waren die ongeveer 300 foto's. Van de 3000 possible objecten waar we ooit mee begonnen voor Delft is dat ongeveer 10% en van de 1500 foto's na het wegwerken van series 20%. Ik heb getracht de koppeling zo zorgvuldig mogelijk aan te leggen, d.w.z. momenteel alleen doorgevoerd bij Delft, alleen bij 100% gelijk adres (case insensitive), alleen koppeling aanleggen als het adres een huisnummer bevat, alleen koppeling aanleggen als bij het RCE adres maar 1 objectnummer staat en het resultaat uiteindelijk steeksproefsgewijs gecontroleerd. Deze methode zal uiteindelijk niet foutvrij zijn, maar zoals het er naar uitziet lijkt het foutarm. Alles handmatig doen heeft ook zijn nadelen op fouten: (copy/paste fouten, straatnamen verhaspelen, fouten door concentratieverlies en grote hoeveelheid werk, etc.) Zal ik deze aanpak doorvoeren op nog een grote stad, zoals Amsterdam/Breda ? Rudolphous (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ik zou het gewoon proberen en meekijken met de edits. Multichill (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Gemeentelijke_monumenten_in_Heusden,_North_Brabant

Category discussion warning

Gemeentelijke monumenten in Heusden, North Brabant 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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 ∙ +/−

LeeGer (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Bot problem

Your bot makes double entries, like this one: [1]. --VanBuren (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I know, it's not really a problem. It won't show up double for the viewer and if you move it to another category with one of the tools it will automatically remove the double entry. By the way, why are you using big tags? Multichill (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, gezien je edits heb je die tools nog niet ondekt. Kijk eens in je preferences en zet dan hotcat en cat-a-lot aan. Dan gaat het allemaal een stuk gemakkelijker en sneller. Multichill (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Dank je, dat zal beter gaan. Vraag: ik was van plan verder aan de [categorie Rijksmonumenten in Delft] te werken, net als eerder vandaag, maar als jij er nog mee bezig bent wacht ik liever. Hoe lang ben je er nog mee bezig, denk je? --VanBuren (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done was als onderdeel van de bezem voor http://toolserver.org/~multichill/temp/queries/erfgoed/top_rce.txt . Sorry dat ik je voo de voeten liep. Ik denk trouwens dat het in Delft best wel de moeite is om een aantal cats aan te maken voor specifieke monumenten. Multichill (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Ja, was ik van plan (en had ik ook al gedaan zoals voor Synagoge en Kruithuis). Maar zelfs sommige cats worden erg groot, zoals voor de Nieuwe Kerk. Maar het bijelkaar zoeken van bestanden is wel eens een keer leuk werk. --VanBuren (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Als je die specifieke cats gaat maken, kijk dan zeker naar een tool als cat-a-lot, een uitkomst daarvoor. Akoopal (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

RCE id's

Hallo Multichill, ik heb een aantal foto's uit Delft die nog niet waren voorzien van een id automatisch kunnen voorzien van een rijksmonumentnummer. In totaal waren die ongeveer 300 foto's. Van de 3000 possible objecten waar we ooit mee begonnen voor Delft is dat ongeveer 10% en van de 1500 foto's na het wegwerken van series 20%. Ik heb getracht de koppeling zo zorgvuldig mogelijk aan te leggen, d.w.z. momenteel alleen doorgevoerd bij Delft, alleen bij 100% gelijk adres (case insensitive), alleen koppeling aanleggen als het adres een huisnummer bevat, alleen koppeling aanleggen als bij het RCE adres maar 1 objectnummer staat en het resultaat uiteindelijk steeksproefsgewijs gecontroleerd. Deze methode zal uiteindelijk niet foutvrij zijn, maar zoals het er naar uitziet lijkt het foutarm. Alles handmatig doen heeft ook zijn nadelen op fouten: (copy/paste fouten, straatnamen verhaspelen, fouten door concentratieverlies en grote hoeveelheid werk, etc.) Zal ik deze aanpak doorvoeren op nog een grote stad, zoals Amsterdam/Breda ? Rudolphous (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ik zou het gewoon proberen en meekijken met de edits. Multichill (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Gemeentelijke_monumenten_in_Heusden,_North_Brabant

Category discussion warning

Gemeentelijke monumenten in Heusden, North Brabant 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 ∙ +/−

LeeGer (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Bot problem

Your bot makes double entries, like this one: [2]. --VanBuren (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I know, it's not really a problem. It won't show up double for the viewer and if you move it to another category with one of the tools it will automatically remove the double entry. By the way, why are you using big tags? Multichill (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, gezien je edits heb je die tools nog niet ondekt. Kijk eens in je preferences en zet dan hotcat en cat-a-lot aan. Dan gaat het allemaal een stuk gemakkelijker en sneller. Multichill (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Dank je, dat zal beter gaan. Vraag: ik was van plan verder aan de [categorie Rijksmonumenten in Delft] te werken, net als eerder vandaag, maar als jij er nog mee bezig bent wacht ik liever. Hoe lang ben je er nog mee bezig, denk je? --VanBuren (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done was als onderdeel van de bezem voor http://toolserver.org/~multichill/temp/queries/erfgoed/top_rce.txt . Sorry dat ik je voo de voeten liep. Ik denk trouwens dat het in Delft best wel de moeite is om een aantal cats aan te maken voor specifieke monumenten. Multichill (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Ja, was ik van plan (en had ik ook al gedaan zoals voor Synagoge en Kruithuis). Maar zelfs sommige cats worden erg groot, zoals voor de Nieuwe Kerk. Maar het bijelkaar zoeken van bestanden is wel eens een keer leuk werk. --VanBuren (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Als je die specifieke cats gaat maken, kijk dan zeker naar een tool als cat-a-lot, een uitkomst daarvoor. Akoopal (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Rijksmonument ID-nummer toewijzing

Het interieur in dit plaatje [3] heb je toegewezen aan dit gebouw Category:Hippolytuskapel (Delft). Ik weet 100% zeker dat dat niet past :(. Als het wel een kerk is in Delft zou het deze kunnen zijn: Category:Oude Kerk (Delft) maar dát weet ik niet zeker, naar de plaatjes kijkend. Kan het ook een kerk in een andere plaats zijn? Er is in de tekst sprake van Hippolytus hier [4] hetgeen dan wel de Oude Kerk in Delft is. Graag je 'second opinion'. --VanBuren (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Geen flauw idee. Al deze data komt bij het RCE vandaan dus als het fout is staat het fout in hun systeem. Je zou Rudolphous of Michiel1972 kunnen vragen. Zij zijn wat beter bekend in Delft dan ik. Multichill (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Opgelost [5]. Rudolphous (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Formulier

Hallo Multichill, ik krijg geen formulier meer om het rijksmonument in te vullen. Ook CTRL+F5 en legen van browsercache levert geen verbetering? Is er onlangs iets gewijzigd waardoor het formulier niet meer werkt? Rudolphous (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Inmiddels werkt het weer, d.w.z. gisteravond niet en nu weer wel. Rudolphous (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Wynnfrom LVBlvd.JPG

Pay attention to copyright
File:Wynnfrom LVBlvd.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Funfood ␌ 12:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Wynnfrom LVBlvd.JPG

File:Wynnfrom LVBlvd.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Multichill (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Beta-alanine.png

File:Beta-alanine.png 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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Leyo 11:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Starr 050815-3486 Persicaria capitata.jpg

File:Starr 050815-3486 Persicaria capitata.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Thiotrix (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Akihabara picture4.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Rudko (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Akihabara picture4.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Akihabara picture4.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:Akihabara picture4.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Rudko (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Akihabara picture4.jpg

File:Akihabara picture4.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Rudko (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Yerablur kev23.jpg

File:Yerablur kev23.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

NRHP numbers like 08000629 come out 8000629

I think this is what went wrong with 3 pix on Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Unused images

It's obviously an easy mistake to make, I wouldn't have even known it was a mistake until finding the two county lists, but the only thing that worries me is that these are old files that just came out on the unused list today - so it's likely something somebody did yesterday or the day before.

All the best. Smallbones (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Thermopylae.JPG

File:Thermopylae.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Veggies (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Respond

You have new answer on my talk page. All best. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Categorisatie erfgoedbot

Hallo Multichill,

Volgens mij gaat er sinds de recente wijzigingen van de commonscats in de lijsten iets mis met de categorisatie. Zie deze en vooral deze. Die laatste is een Rijksmonumenten in X cat maar de categorie X (Wageningen) wordt niet verwijderd. Waardoor de plaatscategorieën een beetje overbevolkt blijven. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Exact or scaled-down duplicate...

Hello,

I have restaured all files. It's an error. I wanted to try the VisualFileChange for proceed the duplicated files, but it does not work because he don't transform duplicated files by a redirect.

My apologies for the inconvenience. --M0tty (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Zwarte plaatsing

Deze is op zwart blijven staan: [6]. --VanBuren (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Doorgegeven aan de RCE. Basvb (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deze staat er ook nog: [7]. --VanBuren (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Beter in andere categorie?

Hallo Multichill, Bij de rijksmonumenten in Gouda staan veel afbeeldingen van de ramen van de St. Jan in Gouda. Kunnen deze niet beter in de Category:Stained glass windows in Janskerk (Gouda)? Bij een daarvan,File:Voorbeeld van lichte putcorrosie in glas nr. 7, detail E 15 - Gouda - 20259131 - RCE.jpg heb ik dit al gedaan. Alleen krijg ik niet de Category:Stained glass windows in the Netherlands weg. --Agaath (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Agaath

hallo Agaath, ja die afbeeldingen kunnen het best in een aparte cat als het er heel veel zijn. Momenteel worden 550.000 afbeeldingen geïmporteerd, dus het zal af en toe voorkomen dat bepaalde categorieën een beetje overspoeld worden met afbeeldingen. De categorie Stained glass windows in the Netherlands kun je op deze manier wegkrijgen. Die RCE-subject sjabloontjes voegen soms automatisch een categorie toe, als jij het niet eens bent met die categorie kun je dat sjabloon (een sjabloon is iets dat tussen{{dit soort haken}} staat).
Als je veel afbeeldingen wilt categoriseren is cat-a-lot een handig hulpmiddel bij Voorkeuren en dan uitbreidingen kun je cat-a-lot aanzetten. Daarna kun je als je op een categoriepagina bent groepen afbeeldingen aanklikken en categoriseren. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Bas, ik ga het proberen MvG --Agaath (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Agaath

Category:Unknown

Hallo Multichill,

We laten de foto's zonder plaatsnaam in de Category:Unknown terechtkomen, maar bovenaan die cat staat dat alles in die cat verwijderd kan worden, beetje onhandig lijkt me (en hopelijk is er nog niets verwijderd), zullen we er een unknown place cat van maken?

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 Support Lijkt me een goed idee. Graag z.s.m. uitvoeren; ik kan niet garanderen dat er niets weg is maar zie hier (nog) niets zorgwekkends. Trijnsteltalk 00:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Ik kan zo 123 niet vinden waar die unknown wordt opgepikt. Ik heb nu maar even de boel naar Category:Unidentified locations in the Netherlands verplaatst. Multichill (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Als het goed is moet dit het oplossen. Basvb (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Bot stilgevallen

Hallo Multichill,

De uploadbot van RCE afbeeldingen is stilgevallen, heeft misschien iets te maken met dat de wiki de laatste dagen ook al erg sloom lijkt (ik begreep een serverwissel die wat negatieve effecten voor bewerken zou hebben). Basvb (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ik weet het niet. Herstart. Multichill (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mislukte uploads?

Ik zag een aantal mislukte, lijkt het, uploads langskomen, zoals deze, deze en deze. Ik weet niet wat er aan de hand is, want als ik naar de bron ga krijg ik ook zo'n klein raar plaatje... Groeten, Lymantria (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Zag ik eerder ook al bij een boerderij in een andere plaats. De RCE heeft aangegeven graag dit soort informatie te ontvangen. Het liefst via de commentaarfunctie die bij iedere afbeelding in de beeldbank staat. Ik zal bij een van deze serie afbeeldingen wel wat commentaar zetten. Basvb (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Zie het kopje commentaar bij http://beeldbank.cultureelerfgoed.nl/20412040 Basvb (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Als ik op "Commentaar" onder het plaatje klik (tussen "Georefereren" en "Achtergrond") dan staat er "Geen commentaar". Volgens jou zou daar dan iets moeten staan, toch? --VanBuren (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Er staat inderdaad niet wat ik geschreven had, mogelijk heb ik de verkeerde link gegeven, maar zou de goede link dan niet meer weten. Basvb (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hierboven, een aantal onderwerpen hoger, onder "Zwarte plaatsing" noemde ik twee gevallen. Bij de eerste zei je dat je het zou doorgeven maar staat er ook niets onder commentaar. Bij de tweede heb je het wel doorgegeven want er staat wel een opmerking als commentaar. Dus soms lijkt het wel te werken. --VanBuren (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Ik heb via de link eerder wel commentaar gelezen van Bas, dus ik denk dat het is opgemerkt en weggehaald. Hopelijk gebeurt er ook iets mee. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ook deze kloppen niet

geval 1

Dit plaatje is Station Delft ID 525335. Echter de titel en de summary en het monumentnummer zijn hetzelfde als die van Stadhuis Delft ID 11901. Dat kan natuurlijk niet.

Er is inderdaad een aantal gevallen (toch al richting de 10-20 keer gezien) dat de omschrijving compleet onjuist is, niets van die omschrijving klopt dan (gewoon verkeerde foto erbij gehad). Basvb (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
geval 2

In Category:Rijksmonumenten in Delft staan 15 plaatjes, allen met in de titel de tekst: "File:Detail van verfresten op gevel, gefotografeerd ivm kleuronderzoek", zie [8]. In de summary staat het adres "Koornmarkt 42" waar ook het gegeven monumentnummer 11849 naar verwijst. Echter op dat adres staat een woning waar de details van de 15 plaatjes niet bij horen, zie Koornmarkt 42. Bij de 15 plaatjes staat ook een verwijzing naar "Koornbeurs" maar wat in Delft bekend staat als Koornbeurs is het ook niet. --VanBuren (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In dit geval komt de omschrijving wel overeen met de afbeelding (detail verfresten.) Dus het is een kwestie van goed zoeken wat het wel zou kunnen zijn, ik heb het in de kroeg op nl-wiki gezet zodat anderen het ook kunnen proberen. Een middeleeuws gebouw is het, met veel rondvormige bogen. Mogelijk recent geverfd. Zou ook een Koornbeurs in een andere stad kunnen zijn. Basvb (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Het is Koornmarkt 81, zie hier vergeleken met deze. Het middelste boogje van onderen. Basvb (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Vinden jullie het heel erg om dit ergens anders te gaan bespreken? Mijn overlegpagina vind ik niet de meeste handige plek. Multichill (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed/Foutenlijst. Basvb (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Dank je Bas! Sorry trouwens dat ik net niet reageerde op irc. Zat niet achter m'n computer. Multichill (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Zij- en voorgevel nr. Y 3 - Benningbroek - 20479870 - RCE.jpg

File:Zij- en voorgevel nr. Y 3 - Benningbroek - 20479870 - RCE.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Lymantria (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Rijksmonumenten template

Hello Multichill,
thanks for the note. Sorry for causing your concern. I felt insecure about deleting the template. The Rijksmonument template is contained in the superior "Category:Synagogue, Enschede", so all the files remain listed under Rijksmonumenten. Somehow the template caused the files each being separately listed in the "Category:Synagogues in the Netherlands", while they were within this category already through their being in the sub-"Category:Synagogue, Enschede". So how can one avoid this double categorisation? Is it by simply deleting the sorting entry …"|Synagoge" within the template {"{RCE|…}"}. If so, sorry for not choosing this option.
Best wishes
Ulf Heinsohn Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)--

File:US Navy 110927-N-JQ696-267 An E-2D Advanced Hawkeye launches successfully using the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS).jpg

File:US Navy 110927-N-JQ696-267 An E-2D Advanced Hawkeye launches successfully using the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS).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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Denniss (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Multichill/Archives/2013/January&oldid=90676302"