User talk:Vincent Steenberg/Archive/6

Geboortejaar Franz Courtens

Dag Vincent, ik zag dat je bij Category:Franz Courtens het geboortejaar hebt veranderd van 1854 naar 1850. Als het inderdaad zo is, wat is de referentie en zou je het ook op de pagina's fr:Franz Courtens, nl:Franz Courtens en fr:Cimetière de Saint-Josse-ten-Noode willen veranderen? Wouter (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Wouter, de bron hiervoor is de dadabase van het RKD (zie http://www.rkd.nl/rkddb/dispatcher.aspx?action=search&database=ChoiceArtists&search=priref=18765). In dit record staan onder "Literatuur" behoorlijk wat referenties, dus ik ga ervan uit dat dit klopt. Ik zal het invoegen in het NL artikel. Bedankt voor de opmerkzaamheid. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Creator Birthyear

Vincent, Unfortunately Birthyear and Deathyear at the moment has to be in YYYY format so your edit here won't work. The year fields are used for 3 purposes: showing lifespan (YYYY-YYYY) in the top line, setting birth/death year categories and applying template tags like {{Works of authors who died less than 65 years ago}} or {{Works of authors who died more than 100 years ago}}. In many cases the date was uncertain but the year is known. That is where the parameter is useful - unfortunately it is not useful when the year is uncertain. I am still trying to come up with a good solution for those cases. --Jarekt (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the explanation, but if the birthyear of someone is unknown or is only known by estimate, isn't it better to just leave "Birthyear" blank? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If the birthyear of someone is unknown than I was leaving it blank or just not have it at all. If year is only known by estimate like circa 1999 than I was adding year 1999, but that might have been a mistake. --Jarekt (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not the end of the world of course, but I think it could lead to confusion or misinterpretation. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Names again

Hi Vincent, I left a message for you (and Johnbod) on your en wikipedia userpage. I want to start following the RKD naming conventions on the english WP and I am not sure if this breaks anything. I noticed with Hans Bollengier that it seems to work alright, so I was wondering if it was OK. I think in the future it will be possible to hardlink an english wikipedia painter to the commons category, but until it is, the best solution is to create them all with the same name, and I think the RKD name is the best choice for Dutch and Flemish painters. Jane023 (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks. I will look at your messages some time soon. About your proposal, I think it's good to look at it from person to person. For example, Jheronimus Bosch in the English-speaking world is called Hieronymus Bosch. Although there are plenty of arguments why Jheronimus should be the preferred spelling of his first name, there's not much you can do about this. So I think you should balance it out a little bit. In most cases the RKD is 'right', but I wouldn't trust it blind either. When a name on commons differs from a name on RKD I usually check other sources such as wikipedia (obviously) and databases like KIKIRPA as well and then make a decision. For example fr:Jean Siméon Chardin is called Jean Baptiste Siméon Chardin on RKD, but a quick look at the French wikipedia article learns that he was called Jean Baptiste Siméon after his death. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know either of those things. I guess I will just carry on as I have been doing, but I will from now on make a full stop in the name if it looks like a common usage. Speaking of names and spellings, I was trying to sort out the paintings that are now on Commons for Jan van Kessel. I sort of gave up when I found out the RKD thinks there are 4 of them:

• Kessel, Jan van (1641-1680) (1641-02/1641-09-22 – 1680/1680-12-24) Noord-Nederlands
• Kessel, Jan van (ca. 1620 - in of na 1661) (1615/1625 – 1661/1681) Noord-Nederlands
• Kessel, Jan van (I) (1626/1626-04-05 – 1679-04-17) Zuid-Nederlands
• Kessel, Jan van (II) (1654-11-23 – 1708) Zuid-Nederlands; Spaans

Looking at the paintings now attributed to them, there are two main themes - botanical paintings with insects and flower still lifes. My gut feeling is this is not 4 but two people. Any ideas? Jane023 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think they are 4 people. the Jan van Kessel (ca. 1620-in of na 1661) could be identical to Jan van Kessel (I), but then the first moved to Amsterdam in 1649 and the other stayed in Antwerp. The different Jan van Kessels can also be found in the dp Category:Jan van Kessel btw, and to make things even more complicated there's also a Category:Jan van Kessel el Mozo. According to one person this last person was not identical to Jan van Kessel (II), but I have my doubts. But with the help of RKDimages you should be able to put all images on commons in the right category, shoeldn't you? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hulp

Beste Vincent, kan jij mij helpen met het oplossen van een probleem. Ik kan sinds maanden geen foto's meer uploaden. Er wordt gezegt dat ik de bron moet vertellen. Ik heb de foto's zelf gemaakt en er blijft bij elke invulling bij bron steeds het zelfde probleem. Er komt telkens weer een waarschuwing dat ik mijn bron moet noemen.Helanhuaren (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, de meest simpele oplossing denk ik is bij bron de code {{own}} in te vullen. Dat kun je doen terwijl je een bestand upload, maar je kunt het ook achteraf invullen. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Flemish and Dutch paintings in the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Strasbourg

Hello Vincent, please have a look at this category: Flemish and Dutch paintings in the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Strasbourg. Looks good, isn't it? Well, yes and no - in fact, there are many paintings and painters missing - Strasbourg also owns a Gabriel Metsu, two Emanuel de Witte, two Jacob van Ruisdael, one Jacob Salomon van Ruysdael, one Gillis Rombouts, two Jan van Goyen, one Pieter Claesz, one Aelbert Cuyp etc. etc. Needless to say that the collection as a whole is one of the richest in France. Could you be able to find some reproductions that could be added to the category? Many thanks! ! ! Edelseider (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Edelseider, great project. Interesting that you put the Flemish and the Dutch paintings in one category. It's true that there are a lot of similarities between the two. I haven't got any reproductions at hand right now, but maybe europeana and/or Web Gallery of Art could help out? If I have the time I will have a clooser look at what's in the category and if I can find any reproductions to add to it. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

WGA could not help as of yet, but I'll check the other link. Thank you! --Edelseider (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Other link isn't useful either, but I found this: http://guinhutdessin.over-blog.fr/article-promenade-digestive-et-meditative-48627061.html. Better than nothing, I say! Cheers, Edelseider (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Nationality

Vincent, {{Nationality}} produces confusing results for various nationalities from the region of Netherlands, see Template:Nationality/testcases. Could you verify that current values are correct? Are some of those the same (right now NL=Dutch for all languages). --Jarekt (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Yes, they're right. That is, they are as I intended. If you want to me completely consequent "Dutch" in "northern nethelandish" should be "Northern Netherlandish". However, this term isn't used very much and "Dutch" covers it sufficiently. "Southern Netherlandish" is a different matter though. A person from 17th century Liège for example is neither Flemish nor Belgian. Does that answer it a little? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed different groupings in EN and NL languages and wanted to make sure it is correct. --Jarekt (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

alternate titles

Hellow Vincent, I was wondering: is it necessary to use {{Alternate titles}} in cases like File:Delftware plaque with landscape and figures 001.jpg. In this case, it appears that the object has no real title in that the artist did not provide any title and I suppose that art historians do not use any reallly special title for the object either. So it just happened that the Rijksmuseum and the Web Gallery of Art described the object in slightly different words. Is it sufficient to use an "alternate title" can sometimes give strange outputs (for example the main title uses a langSwitch with en fr and nl and the alternate title only en and nl, I get a main title in French and an alternate title in English, which looks a bit odd, especially with a non-English artwork.--Zolo (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Zolo, No it's not absolutely necessary. I usually copy titles as they are. Sometimes even including mistakes, etc. The same goes for this plaque. I just copied what was in the title-field of the WGA and the Rijksmuseum website. You're right that often there's an alternative title for one language, but not for the other, but I hope that's only temporary. The more references you check, the more alternative titles you will find. But about the plaque, you're right that the alternative title here is covered by the 'main title' and could therefore be removed. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it in this particular case. By the way in cases like this one, where the museum only provides a Dutch title, shouldn't we either keep the Dutch title visible for everyone (possibly using {{Title}} rather than langSwitch) or indicate in the ref that the translation was done by Commoners, not by the museum itself ? --Zolo (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your question. I think that if commons has the ability to translate titles, it should translate them. I don't believe that the title that is in the same language as that of the artist's country of origin should always show. Sometimes I see other users use the prase "original title". To be honest I don't know what an original title is. Does that mean the title is documented or mentioned on the work itself? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

To me we should provide the "original title" (i don't think i would use these words) when they are mentioned on the work itself or when the artist itself to the work using a particular title (eg in a letter).

When the artist provides no title and we only use a very neutral title like "portrait of X" I agree that it does not sound very useful to provide several languages. However in some cases we provide a much more specific title given in a book or by a museum. This can be interesting but I think it can be misleading to attribute the title to the museum even when the title is actually a translation, and the museum provided the title in a different language (and very often we could imagine a slightly different translation). Actually I have just seen that you sometime provide the reference only for one language (like in File:Jean-Baptiste Siméon Chardin 024.jpg). I think it makes sense.

I have sometimes noticed that some museums give titles in the artist's language between brackets even when it is not clear if the title was used by the artist. I am not sure it really makes sense, but in some cases it may be useful. For example when much more has been written about the work in the artist's language, it may help to know the customary title in this language.--Zolo (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, I gave up that business of "translated by Wikimedia Commons" a while ago. If a title doesn’t have a reference it's up for debate or improvement.

I agree, in the cases you mention {{Title}} can be useful, but as these cases are rare, I don't see a general use for it. I prefer to copy the title as it is, so including any translation by the museum (for example File:Cornelis Troost 004.jpg) or literary reference (for example File:Lot and his Daughters.jpg). But you're right translations by users of commons should not be attributed to an external source. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that this kind of case is not that common for PD artworks (though probably a bit more so for 19th-20th century works). {{Title}} can also be used for formatting purposes, even without the language gadget {{title|{{Portrait of a man}} }}->

Portrait of a Man

label QS:Lit,"Ritratto di un uomo"

label QS:Lhu,"Férfi portré"

label QS:Let,"Mehe portree"

label QS:Lca,"Retrat d'un home"

label QS:Lcy,"Portread o Ddyn"

label QS:Lpt,"Retrato de um homem"

label QS:Lfa,"چهرهٔ یک مرد"

label QS:Lda,"Portræt af en mand"

label QS:Lro,"Portret de bărbat"

label QS:Lja,"男の肖像"

label QS:Les,"Retrato de un hombre"

label QS:Lpl,"Portret mężczyzny"

label QS:Lvec,"Ritrato de un omo"

label QS:Lnl,"Portret van een man"

label QS:Lsl,"Moški portret"

label QS:Lru,"Мужской портрет"

label QS:Lfr,"Portrait d’homme"

label QS:Len,"Portrait of a Man"

label QS:Lmk,"Портрет на човек"

label QS:Lcs,"Portrét muže"

label QS:Lde,"Porträt eines Mannes"

. I suppose it is a bit more machine readable but it may look a bit complicated for a rather trivial result.--Zolo (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A small award for great work

		The Barnstar of Fine Arts
		Vincent Steenberg is being awarded for outstanding, distingushed work on artwork, artists, galleries and templates. Thanks for 38,000+ quality contributions in the Visual Arts field! --Mattes (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I will second that --Jarekt (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks very much. An unexpected surprise. Glad to hear my tweaking and fröbeling (that's Dutch-English for tinkering from Fröbel) is appreciated. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I like your museum inventory pages the most -- keep on working :-) --Mattes (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes you deserve it, congrats.--Zolo (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Fichier

Bonjour, j'avais oublié de mettre l'autorisation c'est fait!--Bruxellensis (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo

Have you seen that? Great work by User:Ji-Elle! Cheers, --Edelseider (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, great photo. I did some searching myself, but all I could find was a handful of black and white photos and File:Joachim Beuckelaer 004.jpg. But I will keep my eyes open. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Great photo, and great work! Maybe you could do some photoshopping on it like you did on the other diptych ("Adam and Eve" and "Gideon"). Cheers, --Edelseider (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Markt 's Hertogenbosch

Helpt voor je nieuwe categorie deze zoekterm: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%27s-Hertogenbosch+Rijksmonument+Markt+&fulltext=1 ? --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ja, dank je wel. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Leeuwarden series

Hello Vincent, I don't understand exactly what the Leeuwarden series is, maybe you could provide a short description in {{Leeuwarden series}}--Zolo (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Jan van Calcar

Hallo Vincent Steenberg, just to let you know: You forgot the interwikis and some cats when doing the move of Category:Jan van Calcar. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks a lot, but the information given in this category is quite inconsistent now. I don't know if that's something to be desired. Sometimes less is more. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean the addition description above the creator template? Well, I took the descriptions from the de and en wikipedia. Seems not very clear which are the correct dates. I do not mind if you remove the additional descriptions. But I think a description on one sentence is easier to read than the (very nice) creator template. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not that big of a deal. I'm just a little weary of categories that are too descriptive. I mean it might undermine the core function of a category, which is storing files. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure - but which ones? ;) Such dates and locations help to check if a picture could be painted by the author. I really like those one or two sentence descriptions. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That might be true, but see for example Category:Theo Van Rysselberghe. When I open this category my first reaction is "yikes, where did all the files go?... oh, there they are". And Theo van Rysselberghe undoubtedly ‘played a pivotal role in the European art scene at the turn of the century’, but is it really necessary to state this in a commons category? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Amsterdam Museum

Hi ! I'm kind of a newbie in Commons and I've seen you change "my" categories : I thought showpieces of the museum should be in a different category than pictures of the museum itself, but you moved some files away from the category:Collections of the Amsterdam Museum. Why was I wrong ? Thanks ! Léna (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to commons then! The files I moved 'back' to Category:Amsterdam Museum (for examle File:Max Liebermann Waisenhaus Amsterdam 1876.jpg) concern the history of the building of the Amsterdam Museum. They do not belong to the collection. To avoid confusion maybe it's good to create a category called Category:History of the Amsterdam Museum? Or we could put these images in Category:Burgerweeshuis. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I thought they were parts of the collection (and I was in the Amsterdam Museum last Saturday *shame*) . Maybe Category:Pictures of the Amsterdam Museum ? Léna (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

They're not all paintings, so I think History of the Amsterdam Museum covers it sufficiently. Also, the Rijksmuseum has a similar subcategory (see Category:History of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam). Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Claude de Jongh

Hi Vincent, would you mind doing something on Category:Claude de Jongh? The category is red, but not empty, as you can see. Thank you, --Edelseider (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

yes, sure, no problem. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic! By the way, do you know why he's called Claude and not Klaas or something more dutch? --Edelseider (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't know, but French names have always been fashionable in the Netherlands. It is known that Gerard Dou chose that name because it was easier for his French customers than his real name, Gerrit Dou. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello. Just wanted to say thanks for placing that nice template on the Hieronymus Bosch image, as well as for some other fixes on my images that I've noticed. I appreciate it. Enjoy your evening. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, No problem. I just copied that template from the existing File:Jheronimus Bosch 003.jpg. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ta-daaa

See here. And here. --Edelseider (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

hey, great find! I will have a closer look at it some time soon. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And here is another one and another one. In fact, the next days will be quite rewarding.. Keep in touch! --Edelseider (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Institution:Aartsbisschoppelijke Musea, Utrecht

Hello Vincent, could you de-stub Institution:Aartsbisschoppelijke Musea, Utrecht. Their website is Dutch only, so I prefer not to do it myself.--Zolo (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, That's funny, that museum ceased to exist in 1979! It's called en:Museum Catharijneconvent now (Category:Museum Catharijneconvent). This should make it easier to make a institution template, I think. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Funny to have a website with their name too (or is it unrelated?) --Zolo (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Busy days

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I told you, that's a real gold mine I found. Cheers, --Edelseider (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

+ 1

--Edelseider (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Diorama Gouvernementsplein Gerrit Schouten.jpg

Hello, The frame does not create a copyright by itself. Since the painting is old, it can be published on Commons. See COM:DM. Yann (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:H. Stopendaal 001.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:H. Stopendaal 001.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

shizhao (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Lottery ticket Oude Kerk Amsterdam 01.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Lottery ticket Oude Kerk Amsterdam 01.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

shizhao (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Andreas Theodorus Rooswinkel 001.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Andreas Theodorus Rooswinkel 001.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

shizhao (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Station d'Eenhonderd Roe Amsterdam 001.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Station d'Eenhonderd Roe Amsterdam 001.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

shizhao (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hehua

Ja, je mag hem 90 graden draaien. Helanhuaren (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hallo, Ja, dat heb ik geprobeerd, maar dat was niet echt een verbetering, dus ik laat hem voorlopig maar zo. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

okHelanhuaren (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Pieter Hendricksz. Schut 001.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Pieter Hendricksz. Schut 001.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

shizhao (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Painters from Holland

Vincent, I just noticed that there is no such category as Category:Painters from Holland (as there is for most other countries), so my batch process for creating creators and categories for all WGA artists, put bunch of them in non-existing category. I am not sure into what category they should go: is it Category:Painters from the Northern Netherlands (before 1830)? --Jarekt (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, en:Holland is just a part of the Netherlands, so having a category like that would be like having a category called Category:Painters from Saxony as opposed to Category:Painters from Germany. But it's true that most Dutch painters are from Holland. So I would suggest to redirect Category:Painters from Holland to Category:Painters from the Netherlands. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

template:ProvenanceEvent

Vincent, I noticed that you often added some words in the old/new owner parameters of {{ProvenanceEvent}} to make it look better. For exemple in French "à" when it is a person or "au" when it is an institution. While it makes the text sound much more natural it is about impossible to maintain for dozens of languages on thousand of files. An unfortunate consequence is that is that when the small word is missing, the text looks really strange ("cédé Louvre" is far worse than "cédé à Louvre"). For French I would suggest hardcoding "à" in the template, which would prevent using "au" but would always give something understandable. I hope that one day, Commons will be smart enough to make the difference between cases where it should use "à" and cases where it should use "au". :-| Cheers.--Zolo (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, yes, every time I use this template I think, isn't there a way to make this more easy. But what the article is concerned I see two constants: "à" precedes a person ("à Jacques") and "au" precedes an institution ("au musée"). So a possible solution to this problem is to split the parameter "newowner" in "new person" and "new museum". Like that you can incorporate the article in tl ProvenanceEvent itself. What do you think of this? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

We use "à" when people are simply called by their name, but "au" when they are given a title ("cédé au roi de Naples/au docteur Gachet"). We use "au" for "masculine" insitutions, and "à la" for feminine insitutions ("cédé au British Museum/à la National Gallery"). The only solution I can see is: detect commonly used words that call for the use of "au". It would be possible with something like {{#ifexpr: {{Str find|{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|museum}}+{{Str find|{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|musée}}+{{Str find|{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|château}}+{{Str find|{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|palace}}+{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|kingdom}}+{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|royaume}} > 0 | au | à }} But this is very inefficient. For other languages however, "new person"/"new institution" could be a good idea.--Zolo (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, my proposal is a bit crude. Your alternative solution sounds very interesting, but I'm not familiar enough with wikicode to decipher the code you gave. But if you're confident it will work for tl ProvenanceEvent, why not give it a try? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It uses {{Str find}} that as the name suggests- find a particular string in a particular chunk of text. The problem is that the list of words that should be included is very long, and would make the template very heavy -and some limits are imposed to the complexity of templates so I am not sure it would work.--Zolo (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

ok, I see. For the time being I add articles ‘by hand’. For example like this: {{ProvenanceEvent|time=1969|type=purchase|newowner={{LangSwitch|de=vom|en=the|fr=le|nl=het}} {{Rijksmuseum}}, Amsterdam,|oldowner=J.P. Desbons}}. For the time being I don't see an easier way I'm afraid. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 008.jpg

Hi ! I've removed the Category:Paintings in the Amsterdam Museum from the files page because it is already a category of Category:The_anatomy_lesson_of_Dr._Joan_Deyman. Léna (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake! Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Braun Amsterdam HAAB detail 01.jpg

Hello Vincent, please specify where in the internet you found this file (weblink). I'm afraid "internet" alone is not sufficient as a source. Regards, De728631 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Unfortunately I can't retrace the website I got it from. But I don't think that's necessary in this case. This image was first published in 1572 and is without a doubt in the public domain. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's true. De728631 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Birthsyear of Antonie Waldorp

Why did you write the year 1803 in the Category:Antonie Waldorp? In the nl-Wikipedia article Antonie Waldorp is the Birthsyear 1802. --Botaurus (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

All authority control databases say 1803. See Creator:Antonie Waldorp --Jarekt (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

According to this he was born in 1803. The wikipedia article was unreferenced, so I ignored it. Maybe I should have changed it. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now I've corrected the date of birth in the Dutch Wikipedia article on 1803. --Botaurus (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks a lot. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Categorization for the Louvre

Hello Vincent, the organization of the Louvre is somewhat complex, or at least not always clear (not mentioning that Atlas and the main website are not well linked and organized along rather different principles). I'd like to make the categorization of the Louvre clerer, ith some texts to explain the structure of the museum. Please feel free to make comments at commons:Louvre/structure--Zolo (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I will. Can I just add my comment to wherever I want to? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, using the talk page may make it clearer, but it is not well strucutred yet.--Zolo (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Vincent! Maybe you have the ability and desire to place high-resolution images from the specified source. Igor

http://www.collectieantwerpen.be/component/option,com_memorix/Itemid,2/lang,nl/

Portret van aartshertogin Isabella Rubens, Peter Paul Rubenshuis

Portret van aartshertog Albrecht Rubens, Peter Paul Rubenshuis

Portret van Cosmo di Medici Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Alfons, koning van Aragon en Napels Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Paus Leo X Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Lorenzo di Medici Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Francesco I de Medici Allori, Alessandro Bronzino Museum Mayer Van den Bergh

NNL (1815) vs (NNL 1830)

Hi Vincent, thanks for all the work you have been doing on the artist creator pages and categories for the Netherlands in the 17th century! It's really looking good. I remember we talked about splitting the cats up into north and south and early netherlandish and then "before the Kingdom of the Netherlands". Well, I am still unclear why there is a gap for some cats as "before 1815" vs "before 1830". Shouldn't these all be 1830? I am asking because I had trouble finding the cat for Andries Jacobsz. Stock‎ and it's because of the category Printmakers from the Northern Netherlands (before 1815). Shouldn't this be 1830? Jane023 (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Some categories with the year 1815 are still around. My plan was to replace them by the 1830 categories in time. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks! I am in no hurry, but it's been so long I just couldn't remember. I think I have even put a few painters into (1815) cats since then and I will try to correct this when I get the chance. Jane023 (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Ships on a Stormy Sea c1672 Willem van de Velde the Younger.jpg

Hey, it seems like you were the user that (incorrectly) instigated the incorrect renaming of this painting (that I have now corrected). I know commons contributors are very overworked and that it is a thankless task trying to maintain accurate results for all images on commons. Unfortunately, if you look beyond the inaccurate source you cited, you can see that every other googlable source for this painting would have suggested that your "correction" was not accurate. I know it is difficult to deal with ostensibly reliable sources that actually wrong - but hopefully this alerts you to the flaw! Ajbpearce (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for your sharp observation. You are completely right. I had a chance to look at the 1953 article by Van Gelder. In it he describes an exhibition at the Royal Academie of Arts commenting about a number of what he thinks are incorrect attributions. About the Toledo painting he writes the following: ‘No. 587. Willem van de Velde the Younger is probably by L. Bakhuizen’. Probably, he writes!!! So I was too hasty in changing the attribution of this paiting, and so was the Netherlands Institute for Art History, which is usually quite reliable. I know commons is not one big sandbox in which to experiment, but situations like this do keep you sharp and focused. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does seem odd, I guess the NIAH record has just not been updated in a long-time. I noticed the issue because I was doing some research on turner (who made a famous companion painting to this one) and found there was another copy of this image that had been incorrectly attributed to him on commons. So we had two copies of this painting, both attributed to someone else :D Ajbpearce (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Alexander_Kropholler

Alexander Kropholler 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!

84.61.131.15 19:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)