User talk:Stunteltje/archive 2013

Category:Georgi Mamarchev (tugboat, 2009)

Hi Stunteltje!

The Bulgarian tugboat Georgi Mamarchev was built in 2009 - according to its category. But is this correct? The vessel doesn't look this new. Can you check this, please? Thanks, regards, High Contrast (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I fixed it. --  Docu  at 11:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy new year! The correct year is 1972 [1], regards --Rolf H. (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for help! Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Bodenseeschiffe

Hallo Stunteltje, würdest Du uns bitte wieder ein paar Kategorien basteln zbs. [Category:Überlingen (ship, 2010)] + [Category:Überlingen (ship, 1935] Siehe bitte [2] Hartelijk dank -- Biberbaer (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Stunteltje (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Stunteltje, vielen Dank, dass Du die Kategorien für die Bodensee-Schiffe Überlingen (1935) und (2010) und Lindau (1958) eingerichtet hast. Darf ich Dich bitten, auch die letzten beiden SubCats zu bilden? 1) aus Category:Ships of Lake Constance > Category:Friedrichshafen (ship, 1952) und 2) aus Category:Konstanz-Meersburg ferry > Category:Hegau (ship, 1957). Es eilt aber nicht. Vielen Dank und Grüße --Ameichle (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hartelijk dank! --Ameichle (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Stunteltje, Du hast die Cat:Konstanz-Meersburg ferry entfernt wegen HotCat. Ich bin ein Greenhorn und verstehe das nicht, auch mit Help. Kannst Du mir kurz sagen, was ich bei der Cat. besser machen kann? Danke und Gruß --Ameichle (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wenn die Schiffe in die Category:Konstanz-Meersburg stehen, ist is übercategorisiert wenn auch bilder von die Schiffe in Category:Konstanz-Meersburg stehen, Dass ist alles. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Fishing boats at Hastings, 1967 - geograph.org.uk - 1319217.jpg

How can a picture taken in 1967 show a boat built in 2002? Rmhermen (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not, simple. I assume there was another ship with that licence and name involved. I'll have to look for old administation files. Hope I can find them. Thanks for the message. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

list of ships

Hi Stunteltje,

At the above page, I added a list of ships found in the category. If you prefer, I can place it somewhere else or remove it entirely.

I started experimenting with various ways to build and format such lists (see Category talk:Ships). --  Docu  at 05:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks. Maintenance (adding ships) automated? --Stunteltje (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. If ships are added to the related categories, eventually they should appear there. --  Docu  at 03:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

ENI nummers en Binnevaart schepen

Hoi Stunteltje, Zal ik zoveel mogelijk doen hoor! Het groete aantal zeeschepen in verhouding tot binnenvaartschepen komt doordat ik die vroeger niet zo waardeerde. De laatste tijd fotografeer ik alles wat voor de lens komt zodat we wikmedia zo groot mogelijk kunnen maken. Groetjes, Alf

Met dank voor de inzet!! Op die manier steken we straks De Binnenvaart nog naar de kroon. Wij kunnen namelijk meerdere foto's per schip kwijt. Als ik weer eens over de Nieuwe Maas vaar pak ik ook alles mee. --Stunteltje (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Flag/shipyard

Please see Category talk:Ships by registration country. --  Docu  at 05:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

For a small start at the new Wiki, please see Wikidata:Wikidata:Property_proposal#Ships. --  Docu  at 06:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

File:13494-Lis-04-fotoSchip.JPG

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 21:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

File:13494-Lis-03-fotoSchip.JPG

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 21:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ships built at Arnhemse Scheepsbouw Maatschappij, Arnhem

Category:Ships built at Arnhemse Scheepsbouw Maatschappij, Arnhem 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 category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Cycn (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Atlantic_Performer_(ship,_2011)

Atlantic Performer (ship, 2011) 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!

62.30.53.94 19:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

mis-cat

A while ago, but... you added categories to this picture - it's a completely different ship, with different exterior, different hull, different number of masts, different location... In short: Thanks for the work, but please check more carefully in the future because mis-categorized pictures won't be found more easily than un-categorized pictures. :o) Cheers, Ibn Battuta (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Weißen Flotte Dresden

Hi Stunteltje, Category:Weißen Flotte Dresden doesn't make sense to me -- what's your idea behind it? (by the way, it should be "Weiße", not "Weißen") Regards, --X-Weinzar (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In a lot of descriptions at images I found the expression. So I made the category with that name. (And I am not a native speaker of the language and at school this part of the grammar was always difficult for me. So thanks for the correction, I'll change it.)--Stunteltje (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Boat_Abel_Tasman.jpg Wrong IMO

Sorry about the mistake. My concentration was directed to the center of image. --Ivan T. (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. I make my own mistakes and always hope that somebody will recognise and correct them. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Madeira

Hello, Stunteltje. You have new messages at DarwIn's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hamburg

Hi! Thanks for categorizing my files of the port of Hamburg. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 09:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I take the oppotunity to ask you a favour: if you shoot images of ships, please make one extra of the IMO number of sea-going ships or the ENI (Europanumber) of barges and inland passenger ships. It can make life much easier for people like me, building on the database of Commons of ships (24.500 by name already.) --Stunteltje (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I try to remember. Thanks for your advice! Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for categorizing Ships in Germany

	Thanks for categorizing Ships in Germany
	Moin Stunteltje, da mein englisch wirklich schlecht ist, mein Dank in deutsch für die Einordnung der vielen Schiffe. Ich werde Deinen Rat beherzigen und versuchen die IMO Nummer mit aufzunehmen. Tschüß und vielen Dank Ra Boe watt?? 13:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Filemover?

Hi Stunteltje, I saw your recent rename requests and wondered why you don't have the filemover right to do such things on your own. With more than 100k edits you should be experienced enough. --Didym (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Noboby mentioned this before, so I wasn't aware of the existence. Thank you very much for the suggestion. I'll try to find the instruction. Make mistakes from time to time and it is not my favorite action to ask for help with my mistakes. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Made a Requests for rights. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations -- long overdue.

Let me take this opportunity to thank you for taking a leadership role in organizing nautical images. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I do my best. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi Stunteltje, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

--Didym (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You're fast, thank you very much. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Armada Rouen 2013

Hello Stunteltje!

There is a category with lots of ship-categories by a new user. He did his best but I think some of those newly created categories do not fit in the standard "ships categories". If you may have the time, can you please look of those subcats? Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

e.g. this category Category:Commandant Filleau at Armada Rouen 2013 --High Contrast (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the attention. Checked a few and overlooked that one. Corrected and brought in line. The only one doubtful is the one with category Category:TS Royalist at Armada Rouen 2013. But it is only a subcategory of Category:Royalist (ship, 1971). I think that this last category has to be changed. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The name painted on the ship is TS Royalist, so I changed the category. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ships of NOAA

Hi Stunteltje, regarding ships in Category:Ships of NOAA, the category naming is a bit contentious. There is basically no consensus on how to format the ship names, at least not when Docu and I discussed the issue. I made the point that these are (mostly) commissioned United States Ships, and should therefore be named similarly to other U.S. commissioned naval vessels. To me it makes sense for the names to be "Prefix [NOAAS]" "Name" ("Pennant" [R or S, space, number]) just "Name (Pennant)". I never got an explanation why many were strangely formatted with the pennant number before the name, but I'm curious as to your take on it (this is what caught my attention). — Huntster (t @ c) 12:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I named the categories after the name(s) painted on the hull. That's all. And on the ships is painted: NOAA and not NOAAS. Unfortunately naval ships don't paint the names of the ships on the hull, but on small nameplates mounted somewhere on the superstructure. So you will find more and more ships named according this system. We differ in opinion about the fact that U.S. commissioned naval vessels should be named according the English Wikipedia. Every Wikipedia by language uses its own naming system, no problem at all. But here in Commons we use the shipaming in a way that is as much language independent as possible. That is why I think in the end also the naval ships will be categorised in this system, only in Commons, not local. Here in The Netherlands e.g. we prefer an article about the [[nl:Zr. Ms. De Zeven Provinciën (2002)]] but in Commons she has Category:F802 De Zeven Provinciën (ship, 2002). This simple naming system helps for people not familiar with naval ships. Perhaps you recognised that I don't change galleries, see Category:Benham class destroyers. It is only the naming of categories where this way of naming is done. It started with realising that prefixes in category names are language dependent and since then you'll find only M/S, S/S and so on where this was actually painted on the ship. This is according much sites as MarineTraffic, Shipspotting etc.

And the sorting is according the sequence in year of completion. Example: Category:NOAA S 221 Rainier (ship, 1968) will be sorted e.g. in Category:Ships by name via {{DEFAULTSORT:Rainier (ship, 1968)}} --Stunteltje (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The prefix ultimately doesn't matter to me, though I strongly believe that the ships should be named according to the traditions of their home countries, and for U.S. naval ships, having "USS", "USNS", "USAS", etc, can help identify role and organisation at a simple glance. It's completely bewildering to me to see a U.S. ship named "S 221 Rainier" here, just as it would be baffling (and to be blunt, more than a little troubling) to see "USS CVN-65 Enterprise (ship, 1961)". Further, I see no reason why a Dutch ship on Commons shouldn't be categorised under "Zr. Ms. De Zeven Provinciën", with or without the F802. To each language their own. In any case, perhaps I've missed it, but I've not seen any kind of consensus to go forward and use an entirely different format than what has already developed here.

That said, I entirely agree with using a sort method like that...it could probably be pared down to "Rainier, 1968" or "Rainier (1968)", since "ship" seems a little redundant at first glance, but either way sorts the same. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Passende Kategorie

Moin Stunteltje, danke für Deine immerwährende Unterstützung. Ich habe folgenden Artikel [3] Binnenfahrgastschiff (BiFa) Typ III in Vorbereitung. Kann man dafür insgesamt eine Oberkategorie bilden? Es gibt davon immerhin über 60 Schiffe. Gruß -- Biberbaer (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich denke an: Category:Ships built at Yachtwerft Berlin-Köpenick als sub-category von Category:Ships by shipyard und vielleicht noch ein untercategorisierung "by type". Es gibt viele Schiffe dort gebautn sehe www.motorbarkasse.de --Stunteltje (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Nabend Stunteltje, genau so dachte ich das mir. In der Werft wurden noch mehrere Serien gebaut. Nochmals Danke für das nachräumen.Gruß -- Biberbaer (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Zeilschip op de Helderse achtergracht

Hallo Stunteltje,

Kun jij dit scheepje misshien (iets) beter categoriseren, bijvoorbeeld het scheepstype aangeven? Hopelijk kan iemand deze sfeervolle foto gebruiken in een artikel. Met vriendelijke groet, Bertux (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Helaas, het scheepstype gaat me niet lukken. De puriteinen weten beter de verschillen aan te geven tussen schepen met en zonder paardekont. Heeft iets met een aangehangen roer of roerkoning te maken. Het ziet er uit als een klippertje (de kop loopt zo te zien niet rond), maar daar zijn er vóór 1930 duizenden van gebouwd. [En nu nog even te druk om er me er echt in te verdiepen, net terug van een reisje en zo'n duizend foto's geschoten onderweg. Ik zoek me mottig bij al die oude schepen naar de brandmerken en het voorbereiden van het correct categoriseren kost me veel meer tijd dan het schieten van de platen.] --Stunteltje (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Vergeten te reageren, sorry! Ik ben op Commons niet zo vaak met schepen bezig, vandaar. Alsnog bedankt voor je antwoord. 1000 foto's, ja daar ben je wel even mee zoet. Succes ermee, hopelijk ben je daar inmiddels mee klaar. — bertux 20:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Die van mijn reisje zijn grotendeels af, ik upload zo nu en dan een zwik. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please think more about Australian warship category J351 Crowa (ship, 1943)

The point here is that you spelt the name of the ship wrong. And why create a million categories with only one image ? Rcbutcher (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't realise that, sorry. Please read the naming conventions of the ships by name in Wikimedia Commons. Why is it neseccary for only English speaking country naval ships to use by name the royal versions as it is sufficient to do that by convention in the local wikipedia's? More than 26.000 ships in Wikimedia Commons by name and only these naval ship use HMS and so on. --Stunteltje (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of HMS, HMAS etc. prefix is an important British Commonwealth cultural thing. It is unthinkable to refer to British, Australian Canadian etc. warships as anything else but HMS xyz, HMAS xyz etc. The HMS is considered an important part of the name, and to remove it effectively corrupts the name. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You made the correct remark: "Inclusion of HMS, HMAS etc. prefix is an important British Commonwealth cultural thing." It has nothing to do with this international project of Wikimedia Commons. It is not more than normal than that the local Wikipedia's follow their own standard. Use any prefix that is the local standard there. But in Wikimedia Commons much attention is given to the fact that images of ships can be found by users who are not familiar with any cultural habits. If a not naval specialist sees an image somewhere with a pennant number painted on a ship, and starts looking for another image in Commons, he will find it here by pennant number and by name if he found that. And, if you look at the nameplate of a naval ship, you don't find a prefix. So you are not correct in your conclusion that the prefix is part of the name. Royal naming is just very old fashined and creates a lot of work from time to time. Here in the Dutch Wikipedia we had to rename all contemporane naval ships from "Harer Majesteits" to "Zijner Majesteits" with the new king Willem Alexander and we used the opportunity to skip the prefix and add the year of first commissioning. Look at nl:Zijner Majesteits (scheepsaanduiding) and nl:Categorie:Nederlandse kruiser. Now all Dutch naval ships with a certain name can easily be found, by sequence of yearof first commissioning. That is a very usefull way. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Made the correction. My blessing if you reduce the number of categories. --Stunteltje (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please categorize these pictures

This week I uploaded these three pictures that I took in the port of Mar del Plata, Argentina:

• File:Buque Capitán Oca Balda en el puerto de Mar del Plata.jpg
• File:Buque Miss Tide saliendo del puerto de Mar del Plata.jpg
• File:Barcos_en_escollera_norte_de_Mar_del_Plata.jpg

Since you have categorized several pictures I took some months ago, I thought you were interested in adding categories to these three. Thanks in advance and best regards, Alpertron (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Perhaps you can find for me a link to the list of Argentine fishing vessels. http://www.fao.org does not give the year of built. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I know nothing about ships. I took the pictures during my vacations and then uploaded all of them (95) to Wikimedia Commons. This port normally have tens of fishing ships, but this time I did not enter. I took the photographs from a distance of 300-700 meters (according to Google Maps) using the high zoom (up to 30x) of my new camera. There are more ships that could not be seen from the camera location. Thanks for correcting the ship name. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC). PS: I found several Web sites regarding these ships:

• http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1442190
• http://ctmfm.org/?page_id=44
• http://maritime-connector.com/ship/miss-tide-8216502/

Undeleted ship De Lis pictures

I've just undeleted these two pictures that you uploaded on March:

• File:13494-Lis-04-fotoSchip.JPG
• File:13494-Lis-03-fotoSchip.JPG

that were incorrectly deleted by another administrator. These pictures were licensed under CC0, so they can be used on Wikimedia Commons. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You are welcome. Please do not forget the information about the Miss Tide ship listed in the Web page linked in the previous section. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks again. Did not find these details of the Miss Tide. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
      • They can be seen in the last link I wrote in the previous paragraph: http://maritime-connector.com/ship/miss-tide-8216502/ . Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Stunteltje refusal to gain a consensus. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Bidgee (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• I was working on an explanation on your user page. I'll copy that. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if "time goes by", there was a previous consensus and you seem well aware of it. If you wish to change that, it's up to you to open an CfD, not the ones acting according to consensus. Furthermore, one never should go on an edit war. If someone reverts your modification, go to their talk page and ask why, in a civilized manner. This is how Commons rolls. Pleclown (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted some actions and found myself in an editwar. Never had before. So i went to the user page of Bidgee to explain my actions, but during typing he went to the Administrator's page. And there was never a formal consensus, as i already admitted saying that I assumed consensus by more than 26.000 categories, most of them according the naming system without prefixes. Regret inconvenience caused. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing for ships discussion

Hi,

Please do not actively canvass this without doing so in a neutral manner. Comments like this are not neutral ("Evident onjuist."?) and are targeted in such a way as to bias the involvement (even if that is to counteract a perceived bias in existing contributions).

As broader participation there is clearly a good thing, I would recommend the following two things:

1. Try to arrange something so outsiders can easily participate. Your initial comment is so long it takes too long to wade through (and if the reader isn't good at English will give up). As this is a binary issue: "Do we include prefixes for these ships? Yes or No?" Then obvious way to handle that is a poll, as I have suggested on the CFD talk page.
2. When the discussion is ready for outside involvement, make any notifications in a neutral manner to a neutral audience. eg "There is a discussion underway here (link) on the most appropriate category names for naval ships on Commons. Basically the question is when, if ever, prefixes should be included in the category name. Your contributions would be welcome there". This English message could then be posted to the COM:VP and to w:WP:SHIPS. It can also be (or better a translation) posted to the equivalent pages in other languages. For example, the German notifications would be at COM:FORUM and de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Schifffahrt. That ensures a broad, neutral audience, of those most likely to care about this matter (meta is the wrong forum).

If you continue to canvass either in a manner that is biased, or to an audience that is likely to be biased, that is unacceptable and I will start a thread on the AN.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Tour boats

Speaking of ships (and boats). I notice that nobody has ever created a category "Tour boats of <country>". There are plenty of "Tour boats in <country> categories, but in some cases like Category:Tour boats in Germany they contain ship names. On the other hand, for UK boats like Category:Millennium City (ship, 1999), they have been added to Category:Passenger ships of the United Kingdom. The German usage appears to be incorrect. But what about the UK usage, is it a reasonable way to do it? ghouston (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, the German usage may be fine. Those boats are located in Germany, after all. It seems they are in some cases also classified to Category:Passenger ships in Germany, e.g., Category:Aktivist (ship, 1962). ghouston (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I can answer my own question. We apparently consider tour boats to be a subcategory of passenger ships, ignoring the ship/boat thing. Then if "Tour boats in <country>" can be created, there's no reason why "Tour boats of <country>" can't be created too. However as long as "Tour boats of <country>" doesn't exist, then adding tour boats to "Passenger boats of <country>" is correct. ghouston (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this will be the right conclusion. It is the way how I categorise. No problem with boat or ship, as for tugboats. Any tour boat is for me a tour boat "in" and a passenger ship "of". If she has rooms so that people stay for one or more nights on board, we talk about cruise ships or river cruise ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Classic International Cruises

Hello. Thank you for your message. I changed the "Classic International Cruises" by replacing the IMO numbers of the ships by the names of the ships. Could you help me find the company logo, please? (Sorry for the mistakes, English is not my native language.)

Good day. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all, you made the right corrections. Your language is perfect for communication here. I am a dutchman and also my English is not my native language. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Logo not found in Category:Logos associated with water transport --Stunteltje (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. For the logo of "Classic International Cruises", I made a zoom on a picture of the Athena to show the logo present on her funnel. Here's the picture: Funnel of the MV "Athena".jpg. (Sorry for the mistakes, English is not my native language.)
Good day. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Handboek voor de soldaat

File:Handboek voor de Soldaat.JPG

Soldier's manual

Hoi Stunteltje,

Ik heb eens gezocht naar de auteursrechtenregels die in Nederland gelden en hier ook vermeld zijn. Zie mijn wijzigingen op jouw scan van de omslag. Ik verwacht niet dat we hier problemen mee krijgen. Zo ja geef je mij de "schuld" maar of draai je e..e.a. terug. We hebben het hier ooit even over gehad op WpNl herinner ik me.
Hartelijke groeten uit Toscane van een DplKplBD (lichting 77-2) ;-)  Klaas|Z4␟V:  08:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ga ik niet terugdraaien, want het is correct. Het leuke vond ik om dat "DIENSTGEHEIM" zo uit te dragen. In mijn tijd ging er vaak een lach door de zaal, als we weer eens een film kregen over een triviaal onderwerp als zijnde dienstgeheim. Berucht in dat verband is de film over het goed tandenpoetsen. Maar breek me de bek niet open, zeggen we dan, als ex DplKpl van 64-6 --Stunteltje (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Dank je. Zojuist brak mijn klomp. Waar bemoeit die knul zich mee, vraag ik je af.  Klaas|Z4␟V:  10:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Oceanic_(ship,_1951)

Oceanic (ship, 1951) 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!

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Europa Travemuende-DSC 0518w.jpg

What is the reason for removing all the categories from above file? Espescially why from the IMO Nr. Cat? --P e z i (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Think I found it out by myself just now: Reason is, that in all that cats there is the subcat "Europa 1999" ... --P e z i (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It is very simple, they are already in the category of the ship by name and it is not in line with the policy to add all these categories extra to the image. Click on the category by name and you'll find al the categories. That is in line with the naming system. Extra information on the ship is to be found in the IMO category, as this category does not change when she is renamed of brought under another flag. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That was the second half of my first question: Why did you remove the IMO Cat? IMO this is the most decent way to identify a ship. --P e z i (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Same answer. All images of a ship are grouped in the category of the ship by name followed by (ship, year of completion). That category is in all other categories, like country of built, year of built, IMO number, country of registration, and category ships by name. All these categories are Meta-categories and are not intended to contain images. Your two images were the only ones in Meta category Ships by name, so I removed them. That's all, no problem. Good you asked why, it gives me the change to explain. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the very clear explanation. I'll keep it in mind. --P e z i (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kanalschubschiff Typ 300 (KSS-24)

Hoi Stunteltje, please have a look and clean up it and corrects it, particularly your language :-)), thanks and greetings -- Biberbaer (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done --Stunteltje (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Willem (2010)

Hoi Stunteltje. Ik heb zojuist twee foto's geladen in de door jouw aangemaakte Category:Willem (ship, 2010). Je wordt uitgenodigd ernaar te kijken en zo nodig te verbeteren. Het al aanwezige plaatje File:Veerdienst.jpg in de categorie is trouwens hetzelfde plaatje als op de website van de veerdienst; zou mister Paprika de originele bron zijn, of de veerdienst? Groet, Apdency (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Prima zo. Ik ben altijd weer blij als iemand de moeite neemt foto's van binnenschepen te uploaden. Ik betwijfel ook of het een eigen foto is, meestal staat er dan wel EXIF-info bij van het gebruikte toestel. Dat is hier niet het geval. Van de site is zeer simpel een foto over te nemen, heb ik gezien.--Stunteltje (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Het ontbreken van die data vond ik inderdaad ook al verdacht. Daarbij komt kijken dat het enige andere wat deze gebruiker heeft gedaan, het uploaden was van een andere afbeelding in 2011, die wegens auteursrechtproblemen is verwijderd. Ik heb de foto dan ook voor verwijdering genomineerd. Dank, groet, Apdency (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Helemaal eens, prima. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oeps, toch een mogelijke complicatie. Ik heb net nog eens gekeken naar de geschiedenis van het nl.wikipedia-artikel waar dit plaatje op voorkomt. In de nominatiesessie van die pagina zegt deze gebruiker de eigenaar te zijn van de hierboven genoemde website. Dan zou de foto dus ook zeer waarschijnlijk zijn eigen werk zijn. Je zou nog kunnen zeggen dat hij het auteurschap dan maar moet bewijzen, maar ja, dat hoef ik met mijn foto's ook niet... Misschien moet ik de nominatie dus intrekken. Of zie jij nog een andere weg? Apdency (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Nou, wat je zou kunnen doen is op de eigen pagina van de gebruiker - of even een mailtje sturen - met de vraag of het eigen werk is. En dat even op de verwijderlijst melden. Komt er na een paar weken geen antwoord, is het aan de dienstdoend administrator om verder aktie te nemen. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

De Commonsgebruiker is met de nominatie automatisch op de hoogte gesteld (op zijn OP). Ik heb vandaag een e-mail gestuurd naar het contactadres van de veerdienst en zojuist inderdaad op de verwijderpagina melding daarvan gemaakt. We wachten wel af. Groet, Apdency (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Battles

I found out that you created two almost identical categories:

• Category:Battle of Coronel on 9 nov 2007 05:42 and
• Category:Battle of the Falkland Islands on 24 jan 2008 00:26‎

Assume we are talking about the same battle. I am not specialised in naval history, so I think we have to integrate these categories. I know another battle of the Falkland Islands:

• Category:Falklands War‎

What do you suggest? --Stunteltje (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Battle of Coronel" was a German victory, "Battle of the Falkland Islands" was what the British called their victory in the succeeding battle i.e they were separate battles in 1914. "Falklands War" was what the British call the1982 war, Argentina calls it "Malvinas War". I agree that this can be confusing to non-Brits and possibly "Battle of the Falkland Islands (1914)" and "Falklands War (1982)" may prevent confusion. But much discussion would be necessary first ! Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Definately. I feel that this concerns politics and although being a blunt Dutchman, I know that just changing will be dangerous. I'll do a suggestion in the village pump and from there the discussion will start in the right place. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:ENI 03270361 DE JONGE GRIETJE (03).JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:ENI 03270361 DE JONGE GRIETJE (03).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). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Leyo 09:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:ENI 03270361 DE JONGE GRIETJE (02).JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:ENI 03270361 DE JONGE GRIETJE (02).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). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Leyo 09:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ships in Seine Maritime

Hallo Stunteltje, je kunt een reeks files verplaatsen naar Category:Ships in Seine-Maritime vanaf Category:Ships of Category:Ships in France als je die categorieen met catscan kruist met Category:Port of Le Havre of Category:le Havre. Ik weet niet genoeg van schepen, dus ik laat het aan jouw over. Groeten, --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Oef, daar zou ik eerst goed op moeten studeren. Want ik weet niets van catscan. Maar bedankt, ik ga er wel naar kijken. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Probeer of dit lukt: [4] . En anders is User:Pompidom een van de nl gebruikers die goed categorieen weet te kruisen. --Havang(nl) (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ik zie dan 70 bestanden, dat werkt dus. Ik zal er vanavond eens naar kijken, straks eerst naar de Mets in de RAI. Leuker dan de Hiswa, als je voor techniek gaat. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey. Dear Stunteltje, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Image upload

Hi. If you are using Commonits, change the settings. You're uploading images on mediawiki.org, not Commons. -- Tegel (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Never did it myself, so the program must do it. Will try to change the settings. Missed the images already. Thanks. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You're not the first user this has happen to the last couple of days. Maybe some update of the software reset the settings. -- Tegel (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

At least it was easy to reset. Done. Again, thanks for the warning. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Handboek voor de Soldaat.JPG

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Handboek voor de Soldaat.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:Handboek voor de Soldaat.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Stefan4 (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:ENI 02326984 BERGHEM 1 (03).JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:ENI 02326984 BERGHEM 1 (03).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.

And also:

• File:ENI 02326984 BERGHEM 1 (04).jpg
• File:ENI 02326984 BERGHEM 1 (05).jpg
• File:ENI 02326984 BERGHEM 1 (06).jpg

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

File:ENI_02326984_BERGHEM_1_.2803.29.JPG_and_more

Hello, Stunteltje. You have new messages at Jarekt#File:ENI_02326984_BERGHEM_1_.2803.29.JPG_and_more's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jarekt (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

One ship, two names, no IMO

What do I do? How to categorize it? Please help.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

See:

• Category:Angola (ship, 1912)
• Category:Albertville (ship, 1912)

-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If it is the same ship, we cannot do more than directing by categorising to earch other. The year 1912 is long before the IMO numbering system was created. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll use "see also" or something like that. Thanks.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey! Dear Stunteltje, Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests! In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days. And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy! Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team