Hjart

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Hjart!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Revolverkanonbunker Arrild 03.jpg

File:Revolverkanonbunker Arrild 03.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!

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Sektionsbunker Arrild 04.jpg

File:Sektionsbunker Arrild 04.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!

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi Hjart, 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.

Handle with care! Cheers!  --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Renaming

Sorry, you've renamed my file File:Kopenhagen (DK), Amaliehaven -- 2017 -- 1713.jpg. The name is part of the attribution and should not be renamed. Additional the new name has not my name schema. It would be better to ask me, the author, first. I've renamed the file back to my name schema. --XRay ^talk 19:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't aware that anyone had specific naming schemes. Thanks for notifying me. The original name did wrongly describe the contents of the image as "Amaliehaven" (which is probably where it was taken from though), so I do feel some justification in renaming it--Hjart (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of people with own name schemes. ;-) I'll change the name in my archive first, then Wikimedia Commons. So I can find my photograph: With name and id. The name is part of the exif data too. So renaming at Wikimedia Commons is only one part. As Hedwig said: Handle with care! --XRay ^talk 16:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The original filename is still maintained and redirects to the current filename, so you should be able to find it, no matter what? --Hjart (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

In this case I'll fix the name in my local archive and everything is OK. You're right, the name was wrong. Thank you for the hint. But in a lot of cases you should ask the uploader first - before renaming. --XRay ^talk 17:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Kastell von Kopenhagen, Kommandantgården -- 2017 -- 1759.jpg

First of all: an edit war is no solution. If a category is really wrong, it can be removed. But if the category is wrong, but necessary, you should choose or create a suitable category, please. Now a category with a location is missing at my photograph. "Cannon at..." is IMO not enough. The category you have removed is the nearest location and the direction of the view is not relevant. The cannons are in my point of view still a part of the Kommandantgården, not only the building itself. So please try to find a good solution that is acceptable for us. --XRay ^talk 08:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The Kommandantgården category is for images that actually depicts Kommandantgården. If we allow anything else the category will soon become a complete mess. Yes, these cannons are usually on display in front of Kommandantgården, but IMHO isn't by any means part of the building. If you really want a "location category" more accurate than "Cannons at Kastellet" (which imho says all you really need to know about location) or the main "Kastellet" category, then I invite you to create one for images taken from "somewhere around Kommandantgården". --Hjart (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll also invite you to rename the file "Kastell von Kopenhagen, Kanonen an Kommandantgården (or Kirkepladsen)", since "Kommandantgården" alone is just plain confusing.--Hjart (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The renaming of the file is no problem and will be done within the next days. But the category is a problem. IMO someone with local knowledge should create the category. --XRay ^talk 11:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I am fairly familiar with Kastellet myself and I don't see the "Cannons at Kastellet" category as a problem at all.--Hjart (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Escalators?

Hi! I've seen your category Category:Københavns Hovedbanegård - escalators. My three photographs don't show escalators, only stairs. ;-) --XRay ^talk 14:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that's the stairs up the Tietgens bridge ;-) Forgot about those. There are no stairs-only at the other end of the platforms. --Hjart (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Gallery pages

Hi, please only create pages in Gallery namespace if you are adding a gallery to the page. Jcb (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm Still working on it. My plan is an interactive map. --Hjart (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you just delete the map, I spent 2 hours creating? --Hjart (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

All those pages of mine that you just deleted, actually had meaningfull content (and actually were linking to media). I spent a lot of time creating them in the hope that they would be helpfull to other users. Could you please ask before deleting again? --Hjart (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The content may be meaningful in your opinion, but we have rules here and I don't need to ask your permission to apply those rules. Jcb (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I was lucky to have a copy, so i can recreate the most important pages (and include a small gallery if that's what it takes to satisfy you) --Hjart (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Problem in VI

Hi, I watched your appointments in VI. They are potentially eligible except one. VI is a label that is difficult to integrate but it is the most interesting. I took a long time to understand it. But I was helped, especially the creator of the label who is Danish! For this reason you will always find me ready to help you. Have a good day. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

For Gågade - Kørsel tilladt.jpg you thought the sign was right and you based your picture on this idea. In fact if you correct the aberration of perceptive you see that the buildings are straight but that the panel is inclined to him. It is easily explainable because it is a removable panel (look at the base) the services of the road must put it and remove it often. If you make your images in RAW you can easily correct with the program CameraRaw, otherwise photoshopes or other program do it. Look also at the changes in the syntax of the scope.

For Sønderskov Hovedgård 01.jpg I corrected the perspective and reloaded the file. The image is well recorded but the display may take some time before the correction is taken into account. After having corrected them, you can place in the competition VI the other views of the building. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Weather radars in Denmark DMI weather radar at Juvre on the danish island Rømø.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment It would be useful to add the name of the locality to the scope. It is interesting to give a caption in English. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Info Thanks. I've added the location. The original file actually did have an english caption, but maybe that wasn't what you had in mind? I've added it to the description too though. --Hjart (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
H.C. Andersens Lind.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope is incompressible, and there is no English translation to help us in the caption.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Info The Wikidata item representing the tree had an english description, but forgot to add one to this image. Sorry --Hjart (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Category:Sønderskov Hovedgård south & east facades.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment This building is complex, to understand it well you have to see the 4 sides. So you can present several images with adapted scopes. You give in the scope the name of the building and you add the meaning of the exposure, for example: south facade or north east facade. Corrects tilts and aberrations of perspective; the verticals must be straight. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Info Scope changed. I have no experience correcting tilt etc and will probably need quite some time to learn it. --Hjart (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Moving of files - reason?

you moved this file - you are aware, that the 43 means, that there at least 43 other pics? (actually 49) and they all are placed in Köthen, right? You did not give a reason why you moved that file (and this one). ...Sicherlich ^talk 20:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I actually had no idea about the meaning of that number. I didn't look at the Köthen category and so didn't make the connection. I was trying to make some sense of the Persil clocks category. To that end, adding the location was usefull. A lot of files I come across on Commons are named in ways that appear quite random, so I don't always think too much about them. --Hjart (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Rather than moving them back, I would suggest adding "Köthen" to the rest. --Hjart (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Øster Nykirke

Hi Hjart,

why did you withdraw the Trap/"Statistik og topografik beskribelse af Kongeriget Danmark" information?

As long as there is no information by Natmus/Danmarks Kirker, Trap is the best one (and on some churches Danmarks Kirker does not tell much more than Trap.--Ulamm (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you please add that kind of links to the corresponding wikidata item, rather than the Commons page? Wikidata is a far better place for that. --Hjart (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You did not only remove a Trap link. you removed a Danmarks Kirker link. That is severe vandalism.

If you place the Danmarks Kirker link in the infobox in a way that it is visible in the category, too, it is o.k.

For users, informations placed in the infobox are no advantage in relation to the direct placing in the category.

Placing in the category is less work.--Ulamm (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not the maintainer of your ill kept infoboxes.--Ulamm (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note that I'm not a developer and that I'm not the maintainer of the Infobox and therefore do not decide which info is presented in the infoboxes. Please also understand that info on wikidata will potentially benefit far more users than info which is only on a Commons page. Lastly please understand that Commons is really not a place for storing links and the like.--Hjart (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Now I have entered the Danmarks Kirker link into Wikidata, but that way it remains unvitible to visitors of the category.

As an example of a databas link in a Commons category see Category:Lunds domkyrka.--Ulamm (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

CORRECT BEHAVIOUR IN AN OPENSOURCE PROJECT: If you find a correct information in a layout or position you dislike, you must not delete it and xou must not hide it. You have to transform it in a way, that it is visible fo everybody in the design you approve.--Ulamm (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

If you would like to see those links in the Infobox, please suggest it over at Template talk:Wikidata Infobox. Thank you. --Hjart (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That suggestion is o.k..

But visitors need the information now. So it has to be presented, now, in a provisional way.

When the software will have been improved, it can be transfomed into the new way.--Ulamm (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I think those pages doesn't really have enough visitors to justify this "provisional way". Do also please note that the database links at Lunds domkyrka was added long before Wikidata became popular. Nowadays Wikidata is a much better place for storing those. --Hjart (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

A link in Wikidata, which is invisible in Commons, is only found by a handful of very skilled visitors.

If a building is mentioned in a foreign language Wikipedia (seen from the country, where it stands), it is most helpful to make a link to its Commons category. There, visitors can find further images of this building, and if there are Wikipedia articles in another language than their own, they can choose the language they understand best.--Ulamm (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Clicking the wikidata link doesn't really require all that much skill, does it? --Hjart (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• The button to open Wikidata is designed as an invitation to enter further informatoins.
• Most visitors of Wikipedia do not know of the existence of Wikidata. It is even a step to explain them that there are WM Commons. Remember the slogan "Internet without barriers". If a visitor does not find an information, not the visitor is wrong. It is the mistake of the author(s).--Ulamm (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Some redundance can be a way to reduce barriers. A link costs very fwe bites. It is not wrong, if the database link is placed in Wikidata AND in the Commons category AND in the Wikipedia article(s) (if there is an artcicle or are articles).-

ONCE MORE: If YOU find a correct information but dislike its way of presentation, it is YOUR job to transform this information into a barrier-free presentation that fits your taste.-Ulamm (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Commons categories and Wikipedia articles.

In several Commons categories on Danish churches, there are pretended links to Wikipedia articles that do not exist.

If a user follows such a "link", he is led to a request to create the article.

That is fraud and /or the outcome of bad maintainance.--Ulamm (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed some of those. Please understand that I did not add any of those links. --Hjart (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

If I have detected such a fake link, I delete it.

Links to existing articles can be created at the "add links" button. That way they are integrated into Wikidata.--Ulamm (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Do not build unnecessary barriers

If there is no article of such a church, the necessary background informations must be available from the category. Otherwise they are not found.

i am working on this building, now. The link to background informations has to be visible, now. When the informations can be integrated into the infobox in a way, that they are visible from the category, you may transfer them.--Ulamm (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I've personally put a lot of work into some of the churches you're "working on" right now. What you're doing will basically just mean more of a workload on me. So please stop. For now please find something in another country to work on. --Hjart (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

People look for Wikipedia articles.

If there is no Article, they look in Comons categories.

If the link in Wikidata is not visible in the category is not found.

We have to present the available informations to the visitors, so that they can get well informed without difficult research.

Last not least, it is no disadvantage, if the link to Danmarks Kirker or the link to Trap is placed in Wikidata AND in the category file.

That's very few bites.

Any electronic information system is friendly to its users/visitors, if is easy to find the informations. Often the best solution is to provide two or more pathways.

An information system, which provides only one way to get to any point and information, is like a horrible magic castle.--Ulamm (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, for now, please find something in another country to work on. --Hjart (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not work on Danish architecture for tediousness. I work on the architeture of several Eutopean countries as a system. I work on Danish architecture because it is an essential part of European architecture.--Ulamm (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Please consider this wikidata query, which lists all danish churches with images, positions and the "Danmarks kirker" links added so far (looks like the job is still running). Please note that having basic info in Wikidata is basically way more efficient and way more usefull than having it on Commons or in Wikipedia articles. --Hjart (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

:To understand the regional distribution and regional mixes of building structures, the Commons' sortering/assort by regions and municipalities is more helpful.--Ulamm (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

We could run Wikidata queries per region or per municipality e.g. Åbenrå Kommune. Once we have the data, Wikidata potentially could also be used for queries that you basically cannot hope to do in Commons alone. --Hjart (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The only reliable thing in the Wiki system are the images themselves.They have to be compared with extern texts. In many if not most buildings, there are parts of various styles and various materials. And some relevant buildings even have no photo in WM Commons. Or the categorization is insufficent (Once I found a former monastery. The only image in WM Commons had only been categorized among "Museums in Denmark", without style, without material of the building, without place) They can only be found using textbooks and Google text research.--Ulamm (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I've put quite a lot of work into manual organization of both Commons & Wikidata myself, so I'm quite aware of the pitfalls. That said, The Wikidata entries for the danish churches are in quite decent shape by now. I have myself found Wikidata very very helpful for finding churches and other structures without any images or other relevant data. --Hjart (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Those hundreds of churches with Romanesque choir & nave and Gothic tower & våbenhus mostly are only classified as Romanesque, in Wikidata.

The romanesque parts mostly are either of granitkvadre or kampesten or frådsten, in the soutwest someimes of tufsten, in Jutland rarely of brick (munkesten). The gothic parts are mostly of munkesten, sometimes with krid, not very often of kampesten. These infromations are available from Trap or from Danmarks Kirker, but hardly from Wikidata entries.--Ulamm (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're on about here. Please note though that Wikidata as a project is still fairly young and that we're still building it and still learning how to use it and how to integrate it with the other wikimedia projects. --Hjart (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It is easier to make the classification of complicated structures by the tool of Commons meta-categories than by the very rigid structures of Wikidata.

((EXAMPLE: A category "Romanesque churches with Gothic towers" can have subcategories like "Romanesque brick churches with Gothic brick towers", "Romanesque fråsten/travertine churches with Gothic brick towers", "Romanesque granite churches with Gothic fieldstone towers", "Romanesque granite churches with Gothic brick towers". Both letter would also be subcategories of "Romanesque granite churches".))

And background links like Natmus/Danmarks Kirker are found by more visitors, if they are placed in the Commons object category than if they are placed in Wikidada. In that case, the Wikipedia article (which still very often is missing) is only the capable short version of the Natmus article. And somtimes it can be an actualization: Danmarks Kirker project was started in 1919. At that time there was no dendrochronology and no datation by radio-luminescence. On some churches described in the first decades, there may be new archeological findings.

Each building has one (main) object category.

Your work is more useful and therefore more valuable, if you accomplish the informations in the Commons category.

Also Wikidata affords efforts. There the problem is the harmonization of terms (evry language has its ow grid) or of municipalities versus their central places, of styles only distinguished by period versus separate lemmata for architecture, sculptures and paintings (different language teams may prefer different outlines of such lemmata).

Please note that we are currently in the process of adding "Danmarks Kirker" links to to the wikidata items of all danish churches and that we'll have that job finished long before you have gone through all of them. After that we can have it automatically added to infoboxes of both Commons and Wikipedia, making it usefull to far more users than if we added the information to i.e. Commons only. Please also note having basic data in a central database like Wikidata makes future maintenance far easier. --Hjart (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata objects are something like an adminsitrative structure.

Commons categories can be linked. They can be linked from Wikipedia articles of whatever language, whereas foreign language Wikipedia articles in most language versions of Wikipedia are only allowed to be linked from artiicles witn an identical subject.

Over several years I've put tons of work into organizing Commons categories myself, linking back and forth in all sorts of ways. Please note that whenever a Wikipedia article is linked to from a Wikidata linking to a Commons category, that Commons category will automatically appear in the sidebar of the Wikipedia. It doesn't necessarily need to be explicitly linked to from the Wikipedia. --Hjart (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This way, Commons categories are an optimal link target for objects mentioned in survey articles, especially, if the object of the category has no WIkipedia arcticle in any language.

Being part of the visitors' surface, they shan't only provide Images, but also links to official and equivalent background informations.

Over the years I've noticed lots of stale info in Commons and the various Wikipedias. Changing a link in danish WP doesn't mean it will be automatically changed in the english or german Wikipedias too. No one wants to manually update basic info (links, website, adresses, etc) in 7 different Wikipedias + Commons. That's where Wikidata comes in. If we add links etc. to Wikidata only and build infoboxes for the Wikipedias + Commons, there's a reasonable chance we can keep them all well updated. Otherwise, forget it. --Hjart (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Well kept Commons categories on objects in many countries do so.--Ulamm (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Look all sub-categories of Category:Churches in Kungsbacka Municipality. That is well kept Wikimedia Commons.--Ulamm (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You mean the Wikidata items associated with the churches in the Category are wellkept? Please note that those Wikidata items appears to have been built entirely from automatic imports from readily available official databases. In Denmark we didn't quite have that option and needs to put a ton of manual work into it. Work which is still in progress. --Hjart (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

On Swedish churches, the link to the cultural heritage data set is redundantly placed in the Commons category proper AND in the Wikidata object set:

Yes, I noticed the redundancy. It would make sense to reduce it, by removing the link from the Commons categories. --Hjart (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have done some of your work entering links to Danmarks Kirker, where I had found them, and links to Statitsk Topographisk Bekripvelse af Kongeriket Danmark (which is also a kind of an official data collection), where Danmarks krker still is missing.

Also noting, where Danmarks Kirker is till missing, is a part of this work. But these notes are only necessary as long as you hide Danmarks Kirker, links by placing them in wikidata, omly.--Ulamm (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep saying that we're hiding Danmarks Kirker. You're as free to click the wikidata link as everyone else. --Hjart (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

If each available Danmarks Kirker link is visible in or from the category, it tends to be clicked from international visitors (who have got there from an image or by a permitted interwiki link from a foreign survey article).

If international visitors have to click Wikidata under try-and-error conditions, they won't try if they have have clicked in vain, a few times. Or they do't even have an idea what may be found in the Wikidata set. Most visitors of Wikipedia are no insiders.--Ulamm (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please understand that we do not intentionally "hide" those links. We added them to Wikidata only a few days ago. With the intention to have them automatically displayed in infoboxes in Commons as well as on Wikipedias. --Hjart (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sønderborg Municipality, Denmark - panoramio.jpg

To your statement " Actual position is at Brogade 1. See coordinates & https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/pTcKhm4m6WkKZ9JX3PpNxA) " --- I Know, I have seen it in reality. The table was placed there in context to the castle there. It shows the table from the legend of Christian II imprisonment in the north-east tower of the castle. The legend is saying, that he had a only bed, a chimney and a table in his prision cell. The table was to eat something. It was so narrow in his cell that he walked the day, again and again in the round of the round table. The floor got a round notch and so on. However, that's the backround to this table. ;-) But, so important is that picture not for me. ;-) Friendly Greetings --Soenke Rahn (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Compare e.g. thereː http://www.timelineindex.com/content/view/2708 --Soenke Rahn (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The position is not at the castle and the image is nominated for deletion anyway, so no need to haggle too much over it, really --Hjart (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

There the table in the castle ːD https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carl_Bloch_-_Christian_II_i_f%C3%A6ngslet_p%C3%A5_S%C3%B8nderborg_Slot_1871.jpg However, yes maybe it will be erased. However, not important. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Location

I have reverted your change to File:The Black Diamond, Copenhagen 2017-08-16.jpg which already had a correct location for the camera position. See you sometimes are adding {{Location}} to an image that already has a {{Camera location}} -- they are both the same template. {{Object location}} is different. I think you should check your recent changes to ensure you haven't ended up with two conflicting camera locations. I would be careful about modifying locations for existing images, as you may not be able to guess the location as well as the person or camera + GPS already did. -- Colin (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I am fairly familiar with this location and looking at the angle from this image was taken, it's quite obvious that the current camera location isn't entirely correct. Please also note that consumer GPS devices are often wrong or not all that accurate. --Hjart (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Great Zimbabwe

Hi Hjart,

that the location in that gallery page was unlinked was quite out of date.

As for linking geographic co-ordinates I like to use the decimal version, I entered the co-ordnates fount in the text of the gallery page into Google Maps.

I had to see that they were totally wrong.

So I looked for the protected area, in Google Maps, and had to decide what point in it to record. As the Great enclosure is well visible in orthophotos, I decided to record its geodata for the protected area.

I consider your action on Great Zimbabwe a simple aggressive reaction on my lots of corrections and improvements on Danish churches, which you consider your own claim.

Med venlig hilsen, Ulamm (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Visibility of background informations

Hi Hjart, our Dutch collegues have succeeded to place links to background informarions in Wikidata ia a way that they are visible in the infobox of the Commons category.

Nevretheless they have placed them redunantly in the text of the category itself, see Category:Petrus- en Pauluskerk, Loppersum

Twice visible is much better than one invisible link, as you have installed.

Med venlig hilsen --Ulamm (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, please note that the text in the dutch category is from before Wikidata became popular and that they probably wouldn't have done the same thing today. Please also note that I'm not much of a coder and that there's absolutely no way, I'd want to go around adding that kind of links manually. --Hjart (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Once more: If you look in the Category page of a church in the Netherlands, you see the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed link not only in the top of the page itself, "This is a category about rijksmonument number 26265", but the same link recorded in Wikidata is visible in the infobox, too, "Rijksmonument ID: 26265". This way it is very easy for visitors of the category to find background informations.

In your layout, the Natmus link you have recorded in Wikidata is not visible in the infobox. Visitors of the category cannot see, if background information is available or not. That is very unfriendly a layout.-Ulamm (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, If you look at the history of the page above, the info you mention was added back in 2010, well before Wikidata was really an option. They most likely wouldn't have added it after. --Hjart (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

No:

In the infobox of the category of the Dutch church you see the "monumentnummer" with the link to the background information, Rijksmonument ID: 26265

In the infobox of the category of the Danish church you should show the Natmus code with the link to the background information, NatMus: frederiksborg/lynge.

This way you would even overcome some of the problems of geographic orientation (since 2007 vs. before1980) presentday inhibiting the imployance of historical documents.--Ulamm (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Kalundborg

Hi Hjart, in da:Fredede bygninger i Kalundborg Kommune, several ages of construction in the list differ from the FBB data.

Med venlig hilsen, Ulamm (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The page says it was built from data from Kulturarvsstyrelsen aka FBB. I suggest you ask the guys who built the page. --Hjart (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Geo data

Helt enig i, at geodata ofte er mindre brugbare, men brugerens egne oplysninger om sted vil ofte være relevante. Konkret havde du dog ret i, at fotografen åbenbart ikke var klar over, at hun var i Randers kommune og ikke i Hobro. Det er Råsted Kirkegård. Brugeren var ved kirken samme dag (og dér tør jeg godt bruge tidsangivelsen), og den specielle stensætning er synlig i billedets baggrund. --Pugilist (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Billeder importeret fra Panoramio synes i mange tilfælde at være automatisk "tagget" mm, sandsynligvis efter at være uploadet fra det sted hvor fotografen har boet eller lignende. Det er også mit gæt på hvad der er foregået i dette tilfælde. --Hjart (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Flytning af filer

Hej! Jeg har bemærket at du nogle gange flytter filer som fx her uden at henvise til hvilket kriterium du flytter efter. Du skal også være opmærksom på "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better." --MGA73 (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Du har ret. Jeg har flyttet rigtig mange filer efterhånden og i mange tilfælde været for doven til at angive årsag. I dette tilfælde flyttede jeg den fordi "Holbæk Fjordtårn" "computes" væsentlig hurtigere for mig og det derfor er en reel hjælp for mig (og formentlig også for andre). Jeg vil fremover i højere grad angive årsager. Tak for henvendelsen --Hjart (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

He he den årsag synes jeg nu ikke jeg har set som et kriterium ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Geolokationer

Kære Hjart, hvorfor lægger du geolokationer på nærmest samtlige af de billeder jeg lægger op, når jeg ikke selv gør det? Det kan virke lidt demotiverende at have en i hælene på sig det meste af tiden. Mvh. Orphée (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Jeg gør det fordi jeg har redigeret OSM i mange år og at det derfor interesserer mig at vide hvor billeder er taget. Jeg tænker at når man lægger billeder på Commons må det vel være fordi man er interesseret i at andre ser dem? --Hjart (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Koordinater er helt grundlæggende en stor hjælp i forhold til at kunne lokalisere tingene, så jeg tænker at andre vil have glæde af det også. --Hjart (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Jeg vil gerne have at du tager hensyn til det jeg skriver, da jeg finder det demotiverende at have en som arbejder i hælene på mig (både her og på wikidata). Jeg mister lyst til at lægge billeder op, hvilket ingen af os kan være tjent med. Jeg kunne selv have valgt at have lokationer med, men det har jeg fravalgt og derfor kan de lokationer som andre lægger ind på billeder jeg har taget hellere ikke blive præcise. Jeg forstår at det er sjovt at lægge lokationer ind og at det sikkert er gjort i bedste mening, men i dette store projekt må det være andre hjørner man kan arbejde i end lige der hvor jeg befinder mig. Orphée (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Sneum Kirke

reduced brightness, raised contrast; see the western wall of the tower

@ Hjart,

I hope you took some more photos of Sneum Kirke than you have published. Have you also photos showing the structure of the grouted walls, especially of the tower and of the northern side of the nave?

Med venlig hilsen, Ulamm (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

When I was there, there was a lot of tall bushes right next to it, so it wasn't really possible to take good close-ups. Sorry. --Hjart (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

In this church I do not intend exact measurements of single bricks, as I did here

Sometimes it is only a matter of the exposition/brightness, see my revised crop.

In your File:Drivvejen ved Sneum Kirke.jpg there is even a bit of wall structure visible behind the bars of the pedestrian entrance.

If you have a photo taken from between the lantern and the house, some wall structure may be visualized by variations of brightness an contrast.--Ulamm (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I unfortunately only have the photos I uploaded. I usually try to take visually pleasing and unobstructed photos of all of a church or other building. Because of the bushes, that was impossible from inside the grave yard, so I simply gave up on on that. I had no idea that anyone could be interested in just the wall structure. I pass by a few times per year and will make an attempt at it next time though. --Hjart (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Zinn House

I artiklen om Zinn House på engelsk wikipedia vises bygningen det forkerte sted på kortet i infoboxen. De angivne koordinater lader til at være korrekte, så jeg er ikke rigtig sikker på hvad problemet er. Jeg tænker dog at det måske har noget med en fejl i wikidata at gøre, som du lader til at være godt inde i hvordan virker, så er det noget du kan gennemskue? (og undskyld det dobbelte Mindehøj kategori).Ramblersen2 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Det er et kendt problem, som skyldes bot-importen af coordinaterne til Wikidata (se en diskussion på Template talk:Wikidata Infobox#Odd coordinates). Jeg har manuelt erstattet en hel del af disse koordinatsæt, men der er stadig mange tilbage rundt omkring. --Hjart (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ramblersen2: Jeg rettede koordinatsættet på wikidata, så nu viser kortet i infoboksen i en:Zinn_House korrekt, men i ovennævnte diskussion er jeg lige blevet gjort opmærksom på at koordinaterne i artiklen faktisk er forkerte (check ved at klikke på globen øverst til højre). --Hjart (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ja det kan jeg godt se nu hvor jeg tjekkede igen. Jeg har rettet koordinaterne til dem som er angivet i listed over fredede bygninger i Københavns Kommune. Det håber jeg så er de rigtige. Tak for hjælpen.Ramblersen2 (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Klosterstræde 21 and 23

Undskyld at jeg må ulejlige dig igen, men da jeg oprettede siderne Klosterstræde 21 og Klosterstræde 23 fik jeg følgende advarsel ved Commons linket: ""Warning: Commons category does not match the Commons sitelink on Wikidata - please check (this message is shown only in preview)". Jeg véd ikke lige hvad det er jeg skal tjekke, så tænkte at det måske er noget du kunne hjælpe med.Ramblersen2 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ramblersen2: Helt i orden. Category:Klosterstræde 23 eksisterer endnu ikke, hvilket jeg vil tro er årsagen til ihvertfald den seneste advarsel. Denne bygning findes endnu ikke i Wikidata, så det lyder som om der kan være en fejl på et fejltjek. Category:Klosterstræde 21 ser ud til nu at fungere fint (efter at jeg i eftermiddag oprettede den i wikidata) --Hjart (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Lødderup Trinddorris Hellekiste / Dalgaards Østerhøj

Hello Hjart, first thanks for the thanks - but a question remains: Why did you remove Dalgaards Østerhøj from the category:Lødderup? Does it not belong to Lødderup? I am just curious. Best, Stephan Hense (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I see a lot cases where things are included in a village category even though they are several km away from the village and this was just my first reaction when I looked at the site and noticed that it wasn't actually *inside* any built-up area. I later realized that it was actually close enough to the village, that we could consider it part of it, but didn't follow up on it. Please note that the smallest administrative areas in Denmark are the municipalities (in this case Category:Morsø Kommune) and that I generally prefer to include only places that are actually inside villages etc in their categories. --Hjart (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Stephan Hense: Please note that it's usually much more helpfull to give the id of the exact object the image represents, because that helps finding images of the object by whatever name you prefer (Trindoris, Østerhøj etc). --Hjart (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Navngivning af kategorier

Ved opretteksen af nye kategorier vil jeg foreslå at du så vidt mulig navngiver disse i overensstemmelse med gældende, veletableret praksis og for eksempel inden du opretter dem tjekker hvordan tilsvarende kategorier i andre lande som England og Tyskland (der generelt har bedre eksisterende kategorisering) betegnes. Bare som et eksempel forstår jeg ikke valget af Category:Tillitse Kirke - interiors når man ligesom i masser af andre eksisterende kategorier simpelthen kunne kalde den Category:Interior of Tillitse Kirke. Generalt synes desværre at virkelig mange danske underkategorier er en frygtelig gang inkonsistent rod og jeg forstår slet ikke den omfattende brug af bindestreger som danske underkategorier flyder over med og som slet ikke anvendes på samme måde i andre landes tilsvarende underkategorier. Bare min mening, Jeg véd ikke lige hvordan man starter en mere generel diskussion af emnet hvis der er behov for det). Undskyld brokkeriet og det er slet ikke for at sige at du har oprettet alle disse kategorier (endsige ret mange af dem), nu var det blot fordi jeg bemærkede at du havde oprettet den nævnte kategori og at det var sket for ret nylig. Og da jeg længe har set behov for at få ryddet op i alle disse rodede kategorier og kategorinavne synes jeg at det er lærgeligt, hvis gamle uvaner i stedet har bidt sig fast og er blevet til en særlig danske "common practice".Ramblersen2 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ramblersen2: Jeg foretrækker langt brugen af "Kirkenavn" - interiors, fordi det er langt mere praktisk. Når man søger på "Tillitse Kirke" vil man omgående bemærke både kategorien "Tillitse Kirke" og "Tillitse Kirke - interiors". Hvis interiors kategorien i stedet havde heddet "Interiors of Tillitse Kirke" eller lign. skal man i stedet til at lede i "Tillitse Kirke" for at finde ud af om den overhovedet eksisterer.--Hjart (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ramblersen2: Ok, det ser ud til at du aldrig bruger Hotcat og at du måske derfor ikke helt vil kunne forstå sagen. For os der bruger Hotcat, er "Tillitse Kirke - interiors" en betydelig fordel i forhold til "Interiors of Tillitse Kirke".--Hjart (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nej det gør jeg rigtig nok ikke og jeg mener at både Wikipedia og Wikipedia Commons er til for almindelige brugere og ikke for meget indforståede, gadget-brugende superbrugere/editors. Og jeg vil desuden stadig mene, at det absolut ikke er den navngivningspraksis som er almindelig anvendt, hvilket jeg synes burde give stof til eftertanke. Men som jeg ser det, stikker problemet med danske underkategorier meget dybere: Der optræder mange sære underkategorier som ikke rigtig passer ind i de generelle hierarkier som Wikipedia Commons anvender og hvor de mest "almene" billeder havner nede i en eller anden besynderlig underkategori. Et eksempel er fx Category:Frederiksborg slot - Views from lake and garden ("Slot" skulle jo desiden have været med stort), hvor det typiske "oversigtsbillede" af slottet så havner, medens hovedkategorien så er fuld af alle mulige detaljebilleder af typisk temmelig ringe kvalitet. Jeg er helt klar over, at det ikke er dig som har oprettet kategorien, jeg nævner det alene for at uddybe hvad det blandt andet er jeg finder problematisk.Ramblersen2 (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Jeg er helt enig i at der er mange sære kategorier i den danske del af Commons, som sikkert stammer fra en tid hvor folk generelt var meget mindre erfarne Jeg har brugt ganske meget tid i forsøg at organisere vores materiale bedre og når jeg finder et billede et sted og prøver at finde den rette kategori til Det, finder jeg det langt nemmere, når kategorierne hedder "Tillitse Kirke", "Tillitse Kirke - pulpit" etc. Jeg er enig at "Pulpit of Tillitse Kirke" umiddelbart "ser bedre ud" og ser ud til være forholdsvist "veletableret" eller "almindeligt anvendt", men det er desværre ikke nær så praktisk, så jeg håber meget at du fremover accepterer den måde jeg gør det på. Jeg har tidligere i flere omgange forsøgt at få lidt styr på Frederiksborg Slot kategorierne, men dels var der overvældende mange billeder, og dels havde jeg dengang ikke helt den nødvendige erfaring og dels befinder stedet sig i den anden ende af landet i forhold til hvor jeg bor. --Hjart (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Jeg er helt med på, at du har ydet en enorm indsats med hensyn til at få orden i kaps her på wikipedia commons, hvilket jeg sætter stor pris på. Med hensyn til navngivning af kategorier må jeg dog sige, at jeg slet ikke mener, at det handler om hvad jeg synes ser bedst ud eller hvad du synes er mest praktisk. Jeg har godt nok meget mere erfaring fra Wikipedia emd fra Wikipedia Commons, men hvis det er bare lidt lige sådan (hvilket jeg tror og håber). lægges der vægt på systematik n og konsistens i navngivning af kategorier. Og det synes jeg helt ærlig også gør en langt større forskel end om man en gang imellem skal klikke én gang ekstra fordi man først må omkring Tillitse Kirke før man finder Interior of Tillitse Kirke. Og så kunne det jo også være at man blev opmærksom på en anden mere relevant kategori. Men igen mener jeg, at det handler om, hvad der er almindelig brugt. Og dér finder jeg masser af kategorier som hedder Category:Interior of XXXX Church men ikke andre som bruger din navngivning (skal ikke udelukke at de findes, jeg har bare endnu ikke mødt dem). Er man uenig med navngivningssystematikken herinde antager jeg, at løsningen er, at man tager spørgsmålet op på et mere generelt plan i en Category discussion. Sådan ville det i al fald være ovre på Wikipedia. Det bliver jo noget komplet rod hviss alle bare sidder med deres egen fikse idé om hvad der er bedst og så følger den. Så jeg vil foreslå, at vi prøver at tage spørgsmålet op i en diskussion hvor det ikke bare er os to som sidder og står på hvert vores synspunkt (på dansk). Har du nogen erfaring med, hvordan man gør det herinde? Og igen vil jeg meget gerne understrege, at jeg er vældig ked af, hvis du opfatter dette som en kritik af den store indsats du har ydet herinde for at forbedre kategoriseringen med mere herinde. Den er stor og jeg påskønner den meget.Ramblersen2 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ramblersen2: "Tillitse Kirke - pulpit" formen gør arbejdet med at sortere billeder så meget nemmere, at jeg vil være meget ked af at ændre min navngivningspraksis. Bemærk at det er noget jeg har fundet frem til efter at kategoriseret mange, mange tusind billeder og ikke bare er en "gammel uvane". Jeg kan iøvrigt anbefale at forsøge sig med Hotcat, da dette værktøj særligt i forbindelse med flytning af større antal filer letter arbejdet meget.

Jeg har hidtil kun i meget begrænset omfang taget del i diskussioner på generelle fora, så jeg har desværre ikke nogen rigtig god ide om hvor man kunne tage det op. --Hjart (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Jeg er helt med på, hvad DU synes er bedst og hvorfor. Ligesom du nok har fortået, hvad JEG synes er bedst. Men er du virkelig uenig i min pointe om, at det slet ikke handler om det, men om hvad der er den almiondelig accepterede praksis herinde? For så synes jeg slet ikke du har forstået hvordan Wikipedia fungerer. Og hvordan skal det her sted dog kunne fungere, hvis alle bare gør som de selv synes er bedst? Vi er bare to bidragsydere (jeg har altså også langt ret meget arbejde i at prøve at oprette og fylde manglende kategorier) og har allerede to meninger om hvad der er rigtigt. Jeg har nu tjekket virkelig mange kategorier fra store lande og byer - hvor der må antages at være mange billeder, mange bugere og megen trafik på de enkelte sider. Uanset om jeg kigger på "interior", "pulpit", "alterpiece" eller andet anvender ALLE den systematik jeg foreslår (Interior of, Pulpit of...) og INGEN den som du agiterer for. Fortæller det dig slet ikke noget? Kig ffx på Category:Westminster Abbey. Jeg kan godt forstå, at det er møg frustrerende, når man har langt så meget arbejde i noget og nogen så kommer og kritiserer det/vil lave det om. Men jeg har virkelig svært ved at forstå at du ikke kan følge min pointe om, at det altså bare er den anden praksis som er den almindeligt anvendte herinde og at det er det som tæller. Kører alle andre i den forkerte side af vejen er det altså nogle gange bedre at køre over i den anden side end at prøve at få alle andre til det. (og jeg har altså også langt rimelig mange timer i det her sted).Ramblersen2 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ramblersen2: Jeg kan blot konstatere at der er andre end mig, der opererer efter samme ide, som jeg. Se f.eks. Category:Interiors of churches in Salzburg (state). Bemærk også at jeg kategoriserer på denne måde fordi det gør mit arbejde væsentlig nemmere og ikke bare er fordi jeg "synes bedst om" den form. Bemærk også at formålet med så vidt muligt at operere med en fælles standard, må være at gøre arbejdet med kategoriseringen så nemt for os selv (de af os som i større omfang arbejder med dette), som praktisk muligt. Når vi så finder en måde, som i væsentlig grad gør det ofte noget kedelige arbejde endnu nemmere, vil jeg mene det er decideret dumt ikke at forsøge at ændre det du kalder "den almiondelig accepterede praksis" i retning af den nye måde. --Hjart (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Det forhold, at du kan finde en enkelt kategori her og dér som også er ngoet rod, gør ikke at det ikke er det andet som er standarden herinde. Du glider fuldstøndig af på min pointe om at se på store lande(byer(kategorier med mange bidragsydere og megen trafik når man skal identificere hvad der er gældende praksis. Du "cherrypicker" en enkelt kategori omhandlende en mindre Østrigsk by, hvor det hele i øvrigt er et syndigt rod mellem den systematik du foretrækker og den som jeg og mere end o5 % herinde foretrækker. Og hvor det hele i øvrigt sejler imed en blanding af store og små bogstaver efter bindestregen etc. At der er andre kategorier som er noget rod er i mine øjne ikke et argument for at lade være med strømline de danske kategorier i overensstemmelse med gældende praksis. Hvis man vil lave noget om herinde er den gode måde at gøre det, at tage diskussionen op med andre bidreagsydere hvor alle de som måtte have en legitim og relevant holdning til spørgsmålet kan give deres mening til kende, for derved at finde en konsensus. Det er mig uforståeligt at du kan have brugt så meget tid på Wikipedia uden at have lært og forstået det hensigtsmæssige i så simpel og nødvendig en spilleregl. Dette er ikke din private harddisk eller dine private skrivebordsskuffer, hvor du bare kan bruge den systematik som lige præcis du selv finder mest hensigtsmæssig. Du siger, at det vil være decideret dumt ikke at prøve at ændre det, hvis der er noget man synes kan gøre smartere. Det må jo så være en opfordring til mig om at jeg så også skal prøæve at implementere den systematik som jeg finder rigtig. For pointen er, at der godt kan herske to forskellige holdninger til dette spørgsmål, ligesom der kan være fordele ved begge systematikker. Det er jo derfor, at man IKKE bare skulle begynde at bruge sin egen systematik (uanset om der så sidder en anden i Salzburg og gør det samme), men observere hvad der er den generelle praksis og så følge den eller tage initiativ til en plenumdiskussion af soørgsmålet. Jeg synes at denne diskussion kører i ring.Ramblersen2 (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ramblersen2: Du glider tilsvarende fuldstændig af på mine argumenter. Jeg kan iøvrigt se at omkring 3/4 af alle interiør kategorier for kirker i Østrig følger "kirkenavn - interior" formen og at det ikke umiddelbart ser ud til bare at være en enkelt person der gør det. Giv mig venligst lige tid til at spørge lidt rundt dernede inden du gør noget overilet. --Hjart (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

At jeg ikke er enig med dit argument er ikke det samme som at jeg glider af på det. Jeg véd ikke hvad din pointe er med, at omkring 3/4 af alle kirker i Østrig er navngivet sådan. Hvis stort set alle kategorier fra andre lande samt i/4 af alle kirker i Østrig er navngivet på den anden måde er det vel rimelig klart hvad der er det normale? ;. h. t, om det kun er én østriger eller flere som følger din praksis kan det jo sagtens være én som starter det og nogle andre som så bare har gentaget praksisen i den tro at det var det normale. Jeg synes ikke vi skal fortsætte diskussionen alene mellem os to, da vi jo tydeligvis ikke bliver enige. Jeg har ikke rigtig fundet ud af hvor og hvordan vi får løst tvisten, er du i stand til at finde det korrekte sted eller skal jeg spørge på Commons:Help desk=Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Kommunekort

Hej, tak for informationen. Det var jeg ikke klar over. Jeg er ikke sikker på at mit redigeringsprogram kan lave svg-filer, men jeg kan sikkert finde en converter et eller andet sted. Men umiddelbart vil jeg fortsætte med at smide png'er op af de gamle kommuner, så kan jeg rette det engang senere. Jeg tvivler på at de filer kommer til at blive brugt særlig meget alligevel. Men ja, tak for informationen. Og fedt at se andre aktive danskere herinde! Kaffe42 (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Jeg kopierer lige dit svar herover, så det er lidt nemmere at holde styr på tråden. Med hensyn til SVG, se også Commons:Transition to SVG og Commons:Graphic Lab, hvor det ser ud til at man kan bede om hjælp til diverse udfordringer med grafik. Jeg har fundet en interesse i at sortere/organisere billedmateriale med relation til DK, så jeg bruger en del tid på Commons, Wikidata og (primært) dansk Wikipedia. --Hjart (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Fedt, tak. Jeg tror jeg smider Template:Convert to SVG ind på alle mine kort, så kan det være der er en der kan hjælpe på et tidspunkt. Jeg er selv primært på den engelske Wikipedia, hvor jeg arbejder på siderne for de danske kommuner og relaterede sider. -- Kaffe42 (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Help

	Help
	Hello Hjart. Im new on editing on wikipedia. Im making a author portrait, and i uploaded af picture (that I own the rights to, during my job at the authors publisher, and the agreement we have with our photographer). It has been deleted because of a suspicion of lacking rights to publish the picture. How do i get around this problem? Katinkapohl (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hej Katinka. For at beskytte vores projekt mod mulige retssager, er vi netop ret strikse med hensyn til copyrights og mulige brud på den slags. For at bevise din ret til de billeder du har forsøgt at bruge, vil jeg anbefale dig at sende en email gennem Commons:OTRS/da. Held og lykke med det. --Hjart (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

File(s) appeared in Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags

Hello Hjart, it seems that your latest changes or uploads of the file(s) Badebro (Unsplash).jpg broke a template. This assumption has been made because the file(s) appeared in the maintenance Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags. To fix this issue please check this category for further information. If the file(s) is/are not contained in the maintenance category anymore someone else already did the work and you can ignore this message. Thank you for your cooperation. --ArndBot (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Klemensker, Klemensker Kirkegaard, Runesten (1).jpg

There are 9 runic stones in Klemensker:

• http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Klemensker-sten_1
• http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Klemensker-sten_2
• http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Klemensker-sten_3
• http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Klemensker-sten_4
• http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Klemensker-sten_5
• http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Klemensker-sten_6
• http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Klemensker-sten_7
• http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Klemensker-sten_8
• http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Klemensker-sten_9

and there is no #10

• http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Klemensker-sten_10

This is a grave stone: Gravestone – This stone dates from the Catholic time. It was first registered in 1819. It stood in the churchyard. Later it was split in two and bricked into the belltower. It was recovered and placed here in 1881. The stone itself dates from either the 1200’s or the 1300’s. There’s an escutcheon on the lower end with the name ‘Anders’. The last name is illegible.[1] Macuser (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Macuser: Ok, I was wondering why a split stone like this would be exhibited here, if not for a very good reason, which I found most likely to be runes. Can I suggest coming up with a more detailing filename than just "gravestone" and a detailed description in the file? --Hjart (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggested "Klemensker, Klemensker Kirkegaard, gravestone (1).jpg" , not just gravestone. As for description, there is no place for an article, it is just a picture of a gravestone, and there is no single rune on it! Macuser (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Country

Hi Hjart, i have seen, that you categorized Milss from Austria to germany - not everywhere it'spoken german is germany, alo in Austria we speak german ;-) --regards -- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 11:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Karl Gruber: Ah sorry. I always forget that. I was just cleaning out some of Category:Mills and only had a closer look at the most interesting cases. Hope you can relocate those that belong in Austria. --Hjart (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

There were not so many pictures, and so I believe, that I reached all there. --regards-- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 14:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Gammel Kongevej

Jeg undrer mig lidt over at du har flyttet Category:Gammel Kongevej til Category:Gammel Kongevej (København). Jeg er med på at der også er en Gammel Kongevej i Christiansfeld, men lader man ikke som regel den markant mest kendte beholde det simple navn? Jeg håber ikke at du ser det som københavnerstorhedsvanvid, men objektivt set er den ene en markant gade i en hovedstad,m medens den anden er en mindre markant gade i en by med 3000 indbygger som vi (ind til videre) har ét billede fra. Det er jo næppe fordi kategorien ville sande til i fejlplacerede billeder fra Christiansfeld. Desuden er jeg lidt uforstående overfor at du konsekvent bruger "København" og ikke "Copenhagen" i navngivningen af kategorier når nu Wikipedia Commons guidelines for navngivning af kategorier specifik nævner at engelske navne bruges hvor disse er veletablerede hvilket jo må siges at være tilfældet med Copenhagen.

Jeg har rodet med en del gadenavne i andre dele af landet og har opdaget at det kan være ret forvirrende og lede til en del fejl specielt for mindre erfarne eller opmærksomme bidragsydere, hvis det af kategorien ikke tydeligt fremgår i hvilken by gaden befinder sig. Derfor føjer jeg nu konsekvent bynavn til relevante kategorier, så risikoen for fejltagelser reduceres så meget som muligt. Med hensyn til brugen af "København" må jeg bare sige at jeg til danske emner foretrækker at bruge dansk så meget som jeg kan komme af sted med. --Hjart (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeg er med på at det er nødvendigt i tilfælde hvor der er mange gader og nogen af dem er mere eller mindre lige kendte (Vestergade etc). Jeg synes bare at det er lidt ude af proportioner i det her tilfælde. M. g. t. København/Copenhagen er jeg ked af igen at høre dig argumentere med hvad "du" foretrækker, når det - igen - strider mod Wikipedia Commons guidelines. Grinden til at der er guidelines er jo netop for at alle ikke bare følger deres eget system og når nu de er der synes jeg det er usmart ikke at følge dem. Lige som det med bindestregerne fra sidst, som vi vist aldrig rigtig kom videre med (du skulle lige have et par dage til at spørge omkring med vendte aldrig tilbage).Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

PS Med hensyn til det med gadenavnene kan jeg blandt andet se at Oxford Street i London blot hedder Oxford Street, medens den i en anden stor by som Sydney så hedder Oxford Street (Sydney) - simpelthen fordi den i London er den langt mest kendte tænker jeg.Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Mit gæt er at man tidligere simpelthen ikke har tænkt så meget over at bl.a. gadenavne kan være flertydige og at ingen endnu har tænkt på at flytte Oxford Street til "Oxford Street (London)". Jeg har efterhånden rodet temmeligt meget med diverse by og gadekategorier m.m. og min erfaring er at nu hvor vi har væsentlig flere kategorier end for blot få år tilbage er flertydíge kategorier i stigende grad et reelt problem. Med hensyn til gadenavnet Gammel Kongevej må jeg gøre opmærksom på at det findes ikke mindre end 9 forskellige steder i DK. For os der ikke nødvendigvis er godt kendt i hovedstaden har det reel betydning at også Frederiksberg versionen gør opmærksom på hvilken en den er --Hjart (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

På selve Wikipedia er praksis i al fald at man placerer en artikel på det simple main space hvor den er markant mere kendt end andre med samme navn. Og det synes jeg ret oplagt er tilfældet her med Gammel Kongevej. Det giver simpelthen mere ulejlighed at placere den kendte på mere besværligt navn. Jeg tvivler på at der er ret mange som kommer til at uploade billeder fra Gammel Kongevej i Christiansfeld som ikke er opmærksom på at der er en anden gade af samme navn i København. Angående det med København/Copenhagen og for den sags skylde det med bindestreg/of véd jeg ikke rigtig hvordan vi kommer videre. Hvis du selv føler dig berettiget til bare uden videre at flytte eksisterendekategorier som du synes ligger bedre et andet sted kan vi andre vel også gøre det. Og så bliver det jo lidt noget rod.Ramblersen2 (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Du kan ikke regne med at folk uden for hovedstaden kender Gammel Kongevej på Frederiksberg "markant mere" end den i f.eks. Ålborg, Odense, Slagelse eller Frederikshavn og jeg kan sagtens forestille mig at der bliver behov for at oprette kategorier for nogen af dem også.

Jeg er med på at ændringen umiddelbart gør tingene lidt mere besværlige for dig, men i den forbindelse kan jeg blot igen anbefale dig at bruge Hotcat, da den vil vise dig hvilke mulige kategorier der er, lige så snart du har tastet "Gammel Ko". Det vil også hjælpe med at undgå mange af de tastefejl du ofte laver. Bemærk at værktøjet ikke kun er for eksperter.--Hjart (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Når man på dawp f.eks. har 2 personer med samme navn, opretter man straks en "flertydig" side, (eks da:Kirsten_Langkilde) og angiver f.eks. stilling eller andre kendetegn efter begge personers navne. Jeg har forsøgt mig med flertydig sider på Commons, men har fundet at de dels fører til unødigt bøvl og dels ikke på samme måde er nødvendigt her. --Hjart (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Der er altså virkelig mange gader fra andre lande som fordi de er den meste kendte hedder det simple navn. Men tiden må jo så vise om vi får mere end ét billede fra dem til sammen. Men ko kommer nok frem over til en flytte en del kategorier til noget med Copenhagen i stedet for København, for når Wikipedia Commons angiver at det generelt er det engelske navn som anvendes kan jeg ikke se at det skal være afgørende at du tilfældigvis synes noget andet. Derfor håber jeg også du vil undlade fremover at flytte sider til noget med København, da det bare giver dobbelt arbejde (jeg er dog med på at fastholde det engelske navn ved kommunekategorier hvor en oversættelse er mindre almindelig og entydig)Ramblersen2 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeg må indrømme, at jeg også har studset over de mange flytninger af gade-kategorier. For med ca. 632.000 indbyggere i Københavns Kommune og ca. 104.000 i Frederiksberg Kommune, vil et givent gadenavn her ofte være kendt af langt flere end et tilsvarende gadenavn i en given provinsby. Tilsvarende vil der ofte være væsentlig flere billeder fra københavnske gader end af gader i provinsbyer, hvor det til tider kan være lettere tilfældigt, om nogen er kommet forbi. Det er ikke for at se ned på provinsen, men en gennemsnitlig københavnsk bydel er faktisk større end de fleste provinsbyer. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeg har sorteret en hel del billeder efterhånden og efterhånden mange gange oplevet gentagne gange at skulle åbne en gadekategori for lige at tjekke om det nu handlede om den i Indre By eller den i Århus eller i et antal andre små eller større byer. Jeg er træt af det bøvl og derfor må i nok indstille jer på flere flytninger. Jeg redigerer iøvrigt også ind imellem syd for grænsen og har indtryk af at de der ikke i helt samme grad lider af "storbynykker". --Hjart (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Problemet er at det nemt ender i det absurde. Det giver for eksempel ikke meget mening at flytte Category:Kejsergade til Category:Kejsergade (København), når den eneste anden med det navn er en sidevej i Bov, som der ikke er et eneste billede af. Og i det hele taget kan man i de fleste tilfælde gå ud fra, at hvis en dansk gade-kategori ikke har nogen parentes, så er det den i København der menes. Simpelthen fordi der er mange flere gader i København, der har brug for kategorier end i gennemsnitlig provinsby. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Netop...det her bliver taget ud i det absurde. Jeg er dog ikke enig i, at man helt generelt kan/skal gå ud fra, at gaden i København er den uden parantes. Efter min mening er det oplagt en fordel at specificere i tilfælde som Vestergade, Østergade m.m. hvor der er virkelig mange gader og de tit spiller en nogenlunde lige markant rolle i den pågældende by. Dér hvor det bliver absurd efter min mening er når et hovedhandelsstrøg i København efter mange år skal flyttes fra sit navn fordi der er en inferiør gade i en by med 3000 indbyggere og ét billede i kategorien som hedder det samme plus nogle gader som endnu slet ikke har billeder/kategorier endnu. Og det er på ingen måde sådan kategorier ellers bliver flyttet/placeret. Jeg vil foreslå at @Hjart en flytter Gammel Kongevej tilbage igen eller også flytter Oxford Street til Oxford Street (London) og ser hvad der sker.Ramblersen2 (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Flytning af kategorier

Kan du lige én gang til forklare mig, hvorfor det er at du ikke mener at andre må flytte de kategorier som du opretter mens du selv mener dig berettiget til at Flytte rundt på kategorier som det passer dig? Vi burde virkelig tage en community diskussion hvor vi blev enige om nogle generelle principper for navngivning af artikler så vi kunne undgå at spilde hinandens tid og få ryddet op her på Wikipedia Commons. Og jeg vil stadig bede dig om fremover at bruge "Copenhagen" i stedet for "København" når du opretter&flytter kategorier da guidelines såvel som den almindelige praksis her på Wikipedia Commons foreskriver at det engelske navn benyttes hvor dette er bbeletableret. Og ellers kommer jeg til at flytte kategorierne fremover hvilket giver et enormt dobbeltarbejde. Yræls at vi skal spilde hinanden tid med de her kontroverser i stedet for at kunne tage en fornuftig diskussion og arbejde sammen. Ramblersen2 (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeg vil gerne lige igen pointere at der i tilfældet med Bredgade findes over 100 gader af samme navn i DK. Derfor vil jeg sætte meget pris hvis du, for at undgå unødige misforståelser fremover, gør dig en smule mere umage med navngivningen og angiver bynavn i paranteser. Desuden har jeg kunnet konstatere at de f.eks. syd for grænsen ikke er tilnærmelsesvist så opsatte på at anglificere alting, som du synes at være. Dernæst er vil jeg mene at København fortsat er den mest anvendte betegnelse i dansk talesprog. --Hjart (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeg er sikker på at der også er mere end 100 Oxford Streets derude.:) Ja der er måske mange gader med navnet Bredgade men hvor én er væsentligt mere kendt end de andre er det helt normalt at lade denne beholde det simple navn. Og jeg kan da også konstatere, at ingen af de andre gader er mere kendte end at Bredgade i København har fået lov til at beholde det simple main space "Bredgade" på dansk Wikipedia (det synes jeg i øvrigt ville være et helt fornuftigt kriterium at anvende her på Wikipedia Commons). Jeg skal dog gerne tilføje bynavnet i grænsetilfælde da jeg sagtens kan se en vis mening med det (selvom jeg i mange tilfælde synes, at du tager det ud i det absurde) og i rigtig mange andre tilfælde er jeg derudover helt enig med dig i at det bør tilføjes. Når jeg flyttede Bredgade 38 tilbage var det først og fremmest (ud over at jeg tvivler på at der kommer andre kategorier med navnet Bredgade 38) fordi jeg finder din holdning om, at ingen skal flytte kategorier som DU har oprettet, mens du gerne må flytte rundt på andres som det passer dig uden dialog, ja sådan ret inkonsistent og ukonstruktiv. Jeg er dog ikke sikker på, at bynavnet bør tilgøjes i parantes, da jeg kan konstatere at det langt mest almindelige er at anvende det efter et komma. Men det er nu ikke noget jeg vil lave en stor diskussion ud af, da jeg sådan set ligesom dig foretrækker at have det i parantes (jeg har bare været i tvivl om det andet var det korrekte, jf. en eller anden policy). M. h. t. sprog er det vel ikke så overraskende, at et land som selv anvender et verdenssprog er mindre tilbøjelig til at anvende engelsk. Jeg véd ikke lige hvorfor du føler trang til at nævne, at vi på dansk talesprog stadig anvender "København" - gør du dig bevidst dum for at afspore diskussionen og i givet fald hvorfor? Ja selvfølgelig bruger vi stadig "København" på dansk i tale såben som på skrift og sådan skal det naturligvis blive ved med at være. Men jeg tænker. at du er bekendt med at Wikipedia Commons er en fælles ressource for Wikipedia på alle sprog og at det anvendte sprog er engelsk? Ellers bør du nok læse Commons:Language policy: "Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent. See Commons:Categories for the exact policy.". Jeg véd heller ikke rigtig, hvorfor du mener at jeg er opsat på at anglificere alt. Jeg er for eksempel helt med på at anvende danske navne på kirkekategorier, fordi der i mange tilfælde netop ikke er nogen indlysende og officiel oversættelse og det sidste vi har brug for er alle mulige hjemmestrikkede "undersættelser". Men det er altså ikke ligefrem tilfældet med "Copenhagen". Jeg ville stadig ønske, at vi kunne holde den her diskussion mogenlunde saglig, finde nogle rimelige kompromiser som vi (og andre) kunne leve med og så prøve at samarbejde lidt mere konstruktivt. Det her er ikke nogenjs private kongerige.Ramblersen2 (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Sønderjyske_byer

Sønderjyske byer 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!

Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

File:JohanLudvigHeibergOgJohanneLuiseHeibergPlaque.jpg

File:JohanLudvigHeibergOgJohanneLuiseHeibergPlaque.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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ubrugte kategorier: Det forvirrer mere end det gavner

Hej Hjart. Du har rullet et par af mine ændringer tilbage med rettelsen til Aarhus. Et hav af kategorier på commons med labelen "Århus" har stået tomme i årevis og er ikke til nogen nytte. Problemet med at lave en redirect på "Århus (x-kategori)" er, at nye filer ved en fejl kan blive placeret på redirecten (med HotCat) og derfor er der risiko for at fremtidige billedfiler bliver spredt. Praksissen på commons og dawiki er, at vi først og fremmest benytter den lokale stavemåde aa, så medmindre du er klar til en å kontra aa-diskussion og efterfølgende rettelser på estimeret 300.000-400.000 steder, vil jeg foreslå, at vi får fjernet alle de overflødige å-kategorier. På dawiki er jeg dog enig i, at der f.eks. skal være en redirect "Århus" til artiklen om Aarhus. Men det er altså noget andet på commons. --Risvang (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Risvang: Jeg har brugt en hel del tid på at sortere filer også i Århus og staveformen "Aarhus" er begyndt at irritere mig grusomt (fordi min hjerne skal rotere et par ekstra gange for at "processe" den hver eneste gang) og derfor vil jeg sætte meget pris på også fremover at kunne benytte "Århus".--Hjart (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Det er selvfølgelig kedeligt at du føler dig personligt besværet af at skrive aa, men det er nu engang den måde lokalområdet (kommunen) og efterhånden et flertal i Aarhus skriver det på i dag. Og så er det en vedtagen praksis på wikipedia at anvende lokalområdets stavning. Det skal respekteres. Det gælder også andre steder i Danmark, Aalborg, Aabenraa osv. så du kommer nok til at vænne dig til det. Jeg har ikke noget imod at rette dine å-er til aa-er efterhånden, som du laver artikelændringer. Går ud fra at du også skriver Ålborg og Åbenrå? Ellers synes jeg alt i alt, du gør et stort og flot stykke arbejde med både commons og dawiki. --Risvang (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Sisimiut Museum

That's 2 reverts from you already. Please read COM:CAT before reverting a third time. My categorization is perfectly logical. Greenland may have its own government, but it's still part of Denmark. - 62.16.218.151 07:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@62.16.218.151: Please note that Greenland and Denmark are in fact different countries. Greenland is still part of the "Rigsfællesskab" with Denmark, but is considered a different country and is working towards full independence.--Hjart (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hjart: Despite your personal feelings, it's clearly not considered a different country on wikipedia or wikimedia commons, any more than the Faroe Islands. Working towards full independence is different than having it. - 62.16.218.151 08:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@62.16.218.151: All museums in Greenland should be placed in or in a subcategory of Category:Museums in Greenland, so we can clearly differentiate between Greenland and "mainland" Denmark. Please note that the Faroe Islands in the same way are also considered their own country with their own parliament. Both are part of the "Rigsfællesskab", not Denmark. Please also note that I'm a "mainland" dane and that this is not just a "personal feeling".--Hjart (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Flytning til det rette navn, Hanne Borchsenius

Hej @Hjart. Kan jeg få dig til at flytte dette billede https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lilli_Weiding.jpg - som anmodet - til "File:Hanne Borchsenius (Danish actress).jpg"? Hvis det kan lade sig gøre, må filen gerne i stedet blive kaldt "File:Hanne Borchsenius.jpg". Vh. --Søren Svensson (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Tak for hjælpen, nu er identiterne vist på plads. :-) --Søren Svensson (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Helt i orden :-). Hvad var der i øvrigt galt med at bruge File:Lily Weiding (1966).jpg på hendes wikidata profil? Er det ikke hende? --Hjart (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Jo absolut. Det er det korrekte billede. --Søren Svensson (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Jamar Jenkins

What other notable Jamar Jenkins is there? Why a need to disambiguate? - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Similarly, and isn't Garrett better known as a songwriter and singer than as a guitarist? - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• & I see several others, similarly. Why disambiguations on things that are not ambiguous? - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I've been linking musicians commons categories to their wikidata items and the only Jamar Jenkins I found in wikidata was Jamar Jenkins. Apparently the musician Jamar Jenkins hasn't yet been considered sufficiently notable to be represented in any Wikipedia.

Similarly I found 2 basketball players and 1 football player named Reggie Garrett in wikidata, but no musician. In time people will want to upload photos of said players and to avoid mistakes, it's a good idea to disambiguate now. In my experience uploaders will not neccessarily check whether the category belongs to the right person, right away --Hjart (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Reasonable. I'm not enough of a sports fan to have heard of any of these people. Man, it's really weird that the musician Reggie Garrett isn't in Wikidata, someone I've heard on the radio dozens of times. I guess people are much more systematic with athletes because team rosters are so easy to run through. - Jmabel ! talk 22:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

If you feel like it, you are of course welcome to create wikidata items for Reggie and other musicians with whatever info you know. That could also increase the chance people get started with wikipedia articles about them. Just add a {{Wikidata Infobox}} template to his Commons category and click the "create wikidata item" link.

Also sports nerds are generally way more active in wikidata/wikipedia than the music nerds. Consider i.e. Christian Eriksen. Note the dozens of football databases he's listed in and the 60+ wikipedias. --Hjart (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Afstand

Jeg tænker at vi har talt sammen om det før, men nu vil jeg gerne høre igen; er det ok med dig med lidt afstand? Mvh. Orf3us (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Billedbeskæring

Hej Hjart. Du skulle vel ikke tilfældigvis vøre i stand til at foretage eliptisk billedbeskæring eller vide om nogen her på Wikipedia Commons som er det? Det er blandt andet disse billeder af Christopher McEboy og hans kone samt dette billede af Heinrich von Bolten som jeg vældig gerne vil have beskåret så man fik hele billederne uden ramme med.

@Ramblersen2: Jeg har aldrig forsøgt mig med lige den slags, men en hurtig søgning viste mig bl.a. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GiaMxEtppw, som du måske kunne prøve at kigge lidt på.--Hjart (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I øvrigt ser jeg, at du grundet affredningen har slettet Nørre Voldgade 48 fra "Listed buildings in Copenhagen Municipality". I stedet for bare at slette billedet må du en anden gang meget gerne nøjes med at flytte det til listen "Delisted buildings" nederst på siden, så der ikke går information tabt om bygninger som tidligere har været fredet. Det samme gælder naturligvis affredede bygninger i andre kommuner (også hvis en liste med "Delisted buildings" endnu ikke er påbegyndt på den givne side).Ramblersen2 (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Jeg bemærkede ikke den nederste liste, men vil selvfølgelig en anden gang flytte emnet.--Hjart (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Tak

for hjælpen! :) Catfisheye (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Statues in Budapest

Hi, this image, and the others, should indeed be categorized. I looked at Memento Park category, it is categorized in Sculptures in Budapest XXII so the statues that are in Memento park are finally not categorized in Statues in Budapest XXII even if they are statues and are located in district XXII. --Birdie (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please note that this statue has its very category. It makes no sense to put individual images in it in Category:Statues in Budapest District XXII too. Hjart (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hjælp til Wikidata

Hej @Hjart - jeg vil gerne oprette en Wikidata på alle huse i indre Ribe. Kan du hjælp mig godt i gang? Eventuelt ved at oprette en på Puggaardsgade 15, så jeg kan se, hvad du gør? På forhånd tak, --Thomas Dahlstrøm Nielsen Tdn70 09:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Jeg har længe tænkt på det samme. Jeg kan gøre det meste af det programmatisk og derved spare os for en del manuelt arbejde. Når jeg har det klaret må du gerne hjælpe med valg af passende billeder mm. Hvis vi kan finde ud af det, vil jeg i iøvrigt også gerne invitere på en kop kaffe på Quedens. Hjart (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Renaming

don't break the structure of my filenames and don't remove the original file number in my filenames. If you need to add something, put it at the end of the filename. --Ailura (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Please properly include the names of people in filenames. Hjart (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Pavlo Yuriyovytj Fedosenko.jpg

File:Pavlo Yuriyovytj Fedosenko.jpg was taken from https://armyinform.com.ua/2022/03/06/gotovyj-viddaty-zhyttya-za-ukrayinu/. The materials on the site are posted under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, unless otherwise stated. --Deteon (talk) 07:17, 10 maj 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I wasn't expecting to be able to read anything on that page. Also please note that IP accounts doing unexplained edits are easily assumed to be vandals.--Hjart (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hög tid att ladda upp: Wiki Loves Earth 2022!

Förra årets vinnarbild i Wiki Loves Earth!

Hej,
(For information in English, see Wiki Loves Earth 2022 in Sweden or other participating countries.)

Du får det här meddelandet eftersom du tidigare har bidragit med bilder till de svenska deltävlingarna av Wiki Loves Earth eller Wiki Loves Monuments. Jag hoppas att du vill vara med i år också! Som vanligt ingår naturreservat och nationalparker, biosfärområden och naturminnen i tävlingen! Tävlingen började 1 maj, och pågår under hela maj månad. Om du har varit ute i världen och rest kan du även se om resorna sammanfaller med övriga internationella deltävlingar, och i så fall vara med och tävla även där. Även om fortsatt försiktighet är att rekommendera går det bra att ge sig ut på fotosafari och fotografera naturen i ditt närområde – eller varför inte damma av fotoalbumen och tävla med bilder du har tagit tidigare?

Välkommen till tävlingen, och lycka till! /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi Hjart, thank you for renaming my files. Could you please next time add the name at the end of the filename instead of the beginning? Ailura (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I could do that if I remember your particular wish the next time. I would also recommend that you follow Commons:File naming and properly include the names of depicted persons in your uploads. I find it rather annoying to see someone add some non-descriptive filename to some infobox (as in i.e. https://da.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kjetil_Borch&curid=1006795&diff=11231059&oldid=10870545&diffmode=source). Hjart (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Please quote the part of Commons:File naming where it is demanded, that the depicted persons must include in file name. And please explain how to do that on pics which shows 10 persons or more. Stepro (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Please see Commons:File_naming#Naming, which says (file)Names should be "descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray". To me that clearly is a requirement that in the case of (particularly) portraits of individuals their names should be included. In case of several persons try to describe the group. Hjart (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

To you it is. To me not. When the event is described properly, there is no need to add the names of the persons in the filename. Your renaming is in my opinion a violation of the renaming rules. Stepro (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stepro BS. No one, but a very small minority will have any idea who the individual depicted in File:20220813 ECM22 Rowing 7056.jpg is from the filename alone. Yes, the name of the individual is in the description, but I've seen enough images without even that. So your stance is basically a slippery slope. Hjart (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Storegade

Hej!

Vil høre hvordan gør man at der kommer et billede til at være i infoboxen ?

vil gerne sætte https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Storegade_(Esbjerg)#/media/File:StoregadeStreetEsbjergDanmark.jpg til som billede foor https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Storegade_(Esbjerg)

Greetings Kent Madsen. (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Designermadsen Det ser ud til at du fandt ud af det :-) Hjart (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Er det et spørgsmål om tid før at man ser ændringen ?

Greetings Kent Madsen. (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Designermadsen Det ser rigtigt ud her. Jeg tænker der kan være en cache et sted der lige skal have et spark. Hvis det er på Commons det er galt, bruger jeg tit Indstillinger->gadgets->Page Purge til det formål, . Hjart (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Tak. Det virkede :D Greetings Kent Madsen. (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Pilestræde 41-45

Bare nysgerrig, må jeg spørge hvorfor du har valgt at skabe dette billede ud fra en eksisterende fil? Det optræder alene i kategorien Pilestræde 41-45, men man ser disse bygninger temmelig dårligt og billedet er 12 år gammelt. Jeg er med på at "historiske billeder" også også er vigtige at bevare, men der er ikke rigtig noget på det her billede som gør det interessant i den sammenhæng. Herunder kan det vel næppe siges at være historisk interessant eller relevant at der er et stillads på en nabobygningen og det gør jo ikke ligefrem billedet bedre. Mange bygnings- og gadekategorier svømmer over i ofte ret dårlige billeder, så jeg forstår ikke rigtig ønsket om at bidrage yderligere til dette med beskårne billeder, som kun dårligt viser det "dokumenterede" og hvor det ville nemt blot at tage et bedre (eller at få andre til det). Jeg er med på at det vil være nyttigt med et billede som viser hele bygningskomplekset (hvis det var motivationen), men jeg valgte med vilje at vente til der er bedre lysforhold med mere (da jeg tog lidt ekstra billeder af de individuelle bygninger i går) netop for ikke at oversvømme kategorien/commons med dårlige billeder uden leksikal interesse som det er tilfældet med så mange andre kategorier. Det står selvfølgelig alle frit for at uploade hvad end de har lyst til, men jeg undrer mig bare.Ramblersen2 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ramblersen2 Det var simpelthen det eneste jeg kunne finde der omfattede alle 3 adresser. Du er velkommen til at finde et bedre. Hjart (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ramblersen2 Også når man tager i betragtning hvor ofte du har uploadet hele serier af fotos der praktisk taget er identiske, kan jeg ikke se hvordan du kan have et problem med det her. Hjart (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair nok: Jeg vil prøve at tage mogle bedre billede når forholdene er til det, men da det er så stort et bygningskompleks (15 fag langt) og dagen er så smal er det temmelig svært at få nogle hæderlige billeder (hvor man rent faktisk kan se det man ønsker at vise). Jeg er sådan set enig med dig i at jeg nogle gange får uploaded lidt for mange lidt for ens billeder, men da der som sagt hele tiden bliver uploaded så mange dårlige billeder ender jeg nogle gange med at resignere når jeg sidder og uploader og ikke rigtig kan bestemme mig for hvilke der er bedst. Jeg tilstræber dog ikke at uploade alt for dårlige billeder helt uden historisk eller arkiteknonisk interesse. Der er sikkert smuttere imellem.Ramblersen2 (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

again file moves

once again: Please refrain from renaming correct and rule-compliant files! Stepro (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Stepro Once again, please properly include the name of the depicted person in your photo. Hjart (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

No, for the umpteenth time: This is neither required nor practicable, and if there are several people in one photo, it is also not possible at all. Stepro (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Stepro Please note that everyone else, but you and some inexperienced newbies takes care to properly describe their uploads. Hjart (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Stepro And if practically everyone else can do it, you can do it too (unless of course if you prefer to be sloppy). Hjart (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That is simply a lie, and your allegations are an insolence beyond compare. At this point I will break off the conversation with you. If you repeatedly misuse the right to move files, I will apply for the right to be revoked. --Stepro (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Stepro Claiming that it is "not practicable" is definitely a lie. Hjart (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

People do have preferences on how they name their files, and regardless of whether they are well-described or not, they shouldn't be renamed other than as laid out in Commons:File renaming. People should be free to complain about that regardless of whether they themselves keep to best practices. I agree that the filenames you have chosen are better than the previous names in many cases, but that is explicitly not a grounds for renaming. –LPfi (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@LPfi Please see rule #2 of Commons:File renaming: "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image particularly displays". A lot of i.e. Stepros filenames are exactly that (unnecessarily ambiguous) and puts unnecessary load on those of us who tries to figure out who's in those images or fights vandalism in i.e. Wikidata. I see no reason why certain individuals should use particularly inflexible filenaming schemes. Hjart (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The file move i saw was Denmark-Odense Airport.jpg → Odense Lufthavn 2008.jpg. That one detail (the year) is absent doesn't render the name "meaningless or ambiguous". There are a thousand details that also aren't included, such as in this case the fact that it is the entrance that is depicted. The guideline says "leave all files with generally valid names", which the former name was. I also very much dislike your changing the name's language when moving it. The uploader should be allowed to choose language – otherwise we might soon only have names in American English.

I haven't checked the other user's contributions, but this is about how you use a tool given to you trusting that you will use it in accordance with community consensus. With such powers comes responsibility. I understand that some users can irritate you (we are only human, and some users are tiring), but in those cases you should step back. Either count to ten and try to reset your mind, or let somebody else handle that user's files (perhaps marking them for renaming instead).

–LPfi (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@LPfi I did that move partly to harmonize the filenames in the category (rule #4), which would make it sort correctly (in other cases I chose to just add a DEFAULTSORT template) and also to make it reflect the sign on the building better. I have also found that adding the year the photo was taken is often helpful. I also had a look at the history of the file and determined that the uploader would be unlikely to have any problem with the change (He speaks Danish too). Also considering the changes I see other filemovers do all the time, I really can't see a problem with this one. Hjart (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@LPfi I also think that making people aware that this is an old image that doesn't really reflect the current situation isn't necessarily a bad idea. Hjart (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Those are aspects that are good to take into account when naming or renaming a file, but they are not grounds for the renaming. The criterion 4 is for files that are to be used by templates or the like, see the footnote for the criterion: "Just because images share a category does not mean that they are part of a set. There are two scenarios that this criterion is designed for [...]". –LPfi (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@LPfi Ok, I must admit that it's been a few years since I really looked at those rules. I'm still convinced though that this particular move is actually helpful, not just to me but also other contributors. Hjart (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It might be, and some borderline cases are no big deal, but I hope your are not making a routine out of it, factually enforcing your preferences on file names (which is abuse of power). Foremost, I was very disturbed by your using ad hominem arguments in this discussion and at least one above (them not sharing your view on good filenames is no reason for your not respecting their wishes). If you get complaints from good-faith users, you should be more conservative in applying your powers, and any complaint, well-founded or not, by a newbie, respected user or problem user, should get a polite answer. Rather than answering with a counterpoint, you should answer the complaint itself respectfully; you might tell why you felt it necessary to change the name. As it by no means is clear that names or years are necessary parts of these filenames, you should be open to a discussion or back off. If you have had enough of a specific user or issue, just politely point to a venue where they can take the disagreement for others to arbitrate. –LPfi (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Ferran-torres.jpg

File:Ferran-torres.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 has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: https://www.fcbarcelonanoticias.com/en/champions-league/ferran-torres-had-to-callar-mouths-in-the-farewell_286072_102.html Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Mattythewhite (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Gammel Lerje

Hello, why did you undo my edit? Gammel Lerje was in correct category, because it is in category Lerje Museum, which is in Gammel Lerje category. The policy is that we should avoiding doubling categories. Gower (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gower Correct. I have now created a new category for buildings in the village. Hjart (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2022! Please help with this survey

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Dear Hjart,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2022, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again for a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 150K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 35 countries around the world.

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). 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 and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2022.

Kind regards, Wiki Loves Monuments team, 09:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Gammel Kongsgård

Kopieret fra taklm pagen: Hvor er det dog super barnligt og ukonstruktivt, at du vælger (uden antydning af argumenter), at flytte kategorien til et andet navn end det helt uproblematiske og konstruktive kompromis som jeg foreslog selvom jeg har forklaret dig hvorfor det navn du vælger er mindst lige så tvetydigt som det oprindelige. Nu har jeg så valgt at flytte kategorien tilbage til det oprindelige og helt legitime navn. Med mindre du kan påpege hvilke andre bygninger som har det samme navn bedes du respektere det navn og at undlade at flytte den igen. I betragtning af, at du tidligere har givet udtryk for, at andre ikke skal ændre på de kategorinavne som DU har valgt tænker jeg at du kan se fornuften i dette. Trist at det ikke kan lade sig gøre at tage den her slags diskussioner med dig på en konstruktiv måde og komme frem til fornuftige kompromiser som alle kan se fornuften i og først og fremmest tjener Wikipedia Commons brugere bedst. Ramblersen2 (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hvad er lige præcis din grund til ikke at flytte kategorien til det helt uroblematiske kompromisforslag som jeg kom med? Jeg har allerede forklaret dig, hvorfor deet navn du vælger er misvisende. Og hvad er lige præcis grunden til at du ikke føler at Wikipedias guidelines om at undgå edit wars og gennem diskussuiner at tilstræbe at opnå enighed og kompromisforslag ikke gælder for dig?

File tagging File:Rasmus Overby 1.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Rasmus Overby 1.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:Rasmus Overby 1.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Didym (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Søndre Skald, luftfoto.png

File:Søndre Skald, luftfoto.png 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 has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: This photo is not own work as claimed and it is not from 2023 as claimed. It is in air photo collection of the Danish Royal Library (url:https://www.kb.dk/danmarksetfraluften/images/luftfo/2011/maj/luftfoto/object1362166). It may be used and republished with proper crediting (not done!) but it may not be modified, so it is not acceptabele for Commons. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Forkert billede

Hej Hjart. Kan du slette denne fil, da jeg kan se at jeg er kommet til at uploade den helt forkerte fil?Ramblersen2 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ramblersen2 Nej, det kan jeg ikke. Du kan forsøge dig med en "nominate for deletion" i sideboksen. Hjart (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Det ville jeg også men jeg kunne ikke lige finde det sted hvor der stpr hvordan man gør det. Véd du det uden videre eller har du et link=Ramblersen2 (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Jeg tror man får den option, når man tilføjer gadgetten "AjaxQuickDelete". Hjart (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Lagoons of the Denmark

Hello. Faroes are currently an autonomous part of Denmark, so until Category:Lagoons of the Faroe Islands is founded, the lagoons from these islands belong to Category:Lagoons of Denmark. Feel free to found such a category, but for now I am going to revert your edit. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek The Faroe Islands are part of the Kingdom of Denmark, not Denmark, so you can expect me to revert your reverts. Hjart (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Now I see your point. However, if you wanted to take it this way, the whole system would have to be reworked. Currently, if you go to Category:Lagoons of Europe by country, you can see there Lagoons of Denmark, but if the Lagoons of the Faroes were founded too, they could not be listed here, as the Faroes are generally not considered an independent country (which is also the reason why they are not listed in Category:Countries of Europe. So if the category Lagoons of Faroes were founded, 1) it would have to be a subcategory of the Lagoons of Denmark anyway, similarly as Category:Landforms of the Faroe Islands are a subcategory of Category:Landforms of Denmark, or 2) "Denmark" would have to be replaced by the "Kingdom of Denmark" in all the various categories "...by country". Leaving pictures from the Faroes in less precise categories still enables them to be found by many people for whom "Denmark" is a synonym of "Kingdom od Denmark", while removing them from this part of the category tree completely is the worst of solutions. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek "Denmark" in this context is not synonymous with "Kingdom of Denmark". There's an important difference here and being someone who has spend a fair amount of effort with the Danish category system, I find it rather annoying to find Faroese or Greenlandish files in here. The Faroese islands while not an independent country as such, is actually considered a country. Personally I consider Category:Landforms of the Faroe Islands being a subcat of Category:Landforms of Denmark an error, which I just haven't had the time to fix yet. Hjart (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I support your effort to fix such issues, but just removing the images from that part of the category tree is not fixing. I believe they should stay in less precise categories until somebody really fixes the categories. So please do not fix Category:Landforms of the Faroe Islands just by removing them from Category:Landforms of Denmark, that would do much more harm than good. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek I would find putting those files in Category:Lakes of the Faroe Islands much more appropriate. Hjart (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

File tagging File:Peter Seier Christensen 2022 (cropped).jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Peter Seier Christensen 2022 (cropped).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:Peter Seier Christensen 2022 (cropped).jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

File tagging File:Kim Edberg Andersen 2022 (cropped).jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kim Edberg Andersen 2022 (cropped).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:Kim Edberg Andersen 2022 (cropped).jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Overwriting files

Hey, I saw that you overwrote some files with cropped versions of them, but then you were subsenquently reverted by Tm. Now you overwrote them once again. Is there any reason to do so instead of simply uploading the new version separetely? I’m asking you that because you’re certainly a more experienced user than me, and also because I want to avoid edit wars and polluting file histories. Best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I could create new files, but I think that would be rather silly, because the originals would then be rather useless. i think what I'm doing here are in the "minor improvements" category. What I'm cropping is basically just empty space. Hjart (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If the originals would be useful for anything after the crops, then it would make sense to create new files. I can't imagine that to be the case with the files I cropped here though. Hjart (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

As soon as the overwritten file is contested and the change reverted though, Commons:Overwriting existing files#Controversial or contested changes is pretty clear that “[o]nce a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename”. So please do that, and do not revert again. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not overwrite files

---

I noticed that you uploaded a file using the name File:Poul Andersen mf 2010.jpg. A file by this name already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its previous version. If the file that you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name. Thank you. For more information, please see Commons:Overwriting files.

Final warning, also for similar edit wars. If you insist, you'll be blocked. Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

File tagging File:Poul Andersen mf 2010.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Poul Andersen mf 2010.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:Poul Andersen mf 2010.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Why am I seeing this message? I am not the original uploader (just as I'm not the original uploader of most of the files above).--Hjart (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the notification is automatic as part of the script. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Baileybro/Mabeybro ved Ribe

Hello, Are you going to rename this category? 2A02:21B4:3A94:6300:294D:C4C7:EC0F:EC2D 08:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Once the new category is deleted. Hjart (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

So thanks a lot and keep cool! Best regards --2A02:21B4:3A94:6300:294D:C4C7:EC0F:EC2D 08:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Also please note that I spend a fair amount time fighting vandalism in primarily dawiki, and when I see IP-accounts making weird unreferenced changes, I'm often quick to just revert it. Hjart (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Filip Lundgren.jpg

File:Filip Lundgren.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!

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hvilken kirke?

Har du ,pm nogen erfaring med billedsøgninger for at identificere steder/bygninger? Jeg vil gerne identificere denne kirke, da billedet let kunne være bedre end hvad vi har i forvejen, men jeg kan ikke lige finde ud af hvad det er for én. Uploaderen tager nnormalt billeder nede fra Lolland-Falster, men jeg kan ikke lige spotte den på de relevante lister. Og jeg er ikke så meget for at uploade billeder af uidentificerede bygninger, da de jo er ret værdiløse fra et leksikalt synspunkt og er svære at placere i relevante kategorier.Ramblersen2 (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ramblersen2 Det jeg ofte gør når jeg forsøge at identificere en kirke i et nogenlunde veldefineret område er at køre en wikidatasøgning a la:

SELECT ?kirke ?kirkeLabel ?billede WHERE {
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
?kirke wdt:P31 wd:Q16970.
?kirke wdt:P131 wd:Q670153.
OPTIONAL { ?kirke wdt:P18 ?billede. }

Try it!

(Klik på den blå ikon i venstre side for at køre søgningen og derefter "image grid" i drop down tingen lige under.)

Din kirke er at finde blandt de fremkomne fotos.--Hjart (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Tak for tippet. Det med Google billedsøgninger viste sig at være nåde nemt og effektict (selvfølgelig). Så det kan godt anbefales hvis den anden fremgangsmåde skulle svigte.Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ramblersen2 Nu er Nøbbet Kirke jo lidt særegent konstrueret. Det gør det forholdsvist nemt for Google. Det er ikke altid tilfældet og så er det godt at kunne tricks som ovenstående :-).--Hjart (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Det vil jeg huske.Ramblersen2 (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop !

messing my system up, especially as I am still loading up many more photos. Please remove Skivild back as soon as possible. --Nicola (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nicola Please include the names of the portrayed people in the filenames. Otherwise you're basically putting the workload on other users. Hjart (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not. I use this system also according to other photographers since many years. I am the one who did all the work today and you are the one only sitting at your desk and computer and now put workload on me. Please remove the file back immediately. You owe respect to the work of photographers. And remove this Commonsdelinker aswell. Thank you. --Nicola (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nicola Yes, you are putting extra workload on other users, by what you're doing. I've spent a lot of time fighting vandalism primarily in dawiki and wikidata and have often seen vandals change images of people. When filenames do not include the name of the depicted person, that's a lot more likely to succeed. Hjart (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nicola Please understand that many of those other photographers also do not understand that their rigid filenaming systems actually are suboptimal here. Hjart (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

May be. But I was out today many hours to make all these photos and I am still loading up and it is more than suboptimal to mess around until the upload is finished. This is disrespectful and puts workload on me. And I am NOT putting extra workload, because I did the work, not you. --Nicola (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nicola I personally take a lot of care to properly name/describe my uploads. I very much recommend that you do too. Hjart (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Me too take a lot of care ot properly name/describe my uploads. Just take a look on my files - but this is not the question. I am still uploading - and I ask you to keep your fingers off the names of my files. I had a long day, I am tired and now I am very angry. I do not need people like you in my life who make it more complicated. Thank you, --Nicola (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

There are no rules here on including specific info in filenames. It seems very useful to include the name of the depicted person, but as long as the filename contains some sensible information, it is up to the uploader to include what they want. Hjart: you can ask Nicola to do that, but you have no right to demand anything, much less actually change names because they don't follow your preferred scheme. –LPfi (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi Please see Commons:File naming. In my opinion filenames like File:Rund um Köln 2023 040.jpg are not at all descriptive. Hjart (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is your opinion. But you have already been told by many different users that your opinion is not consensual. Stepro (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Stepro Some of you obviously likes to ignore and twist that rule into oblivion. Hjart (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No, the thing is, that you understand the rule very wrong and do not accept, that your opinion is wrong. Stepro (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Stepro Your idea of the rule definitely is not in line with the intention of it. Hjart (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

correction: with your interpretation of it Stepro (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Stepro Well, maybe it's you who understands the rule very wrong and do not accept, that your opinion is wrong. Hjart (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

reality check: Several different users have told you, that you are wrong. You are the only one who takes your position. Which is more likely: that you are wrong, or that everyone else is wrong?

As far as I'm concerned, that says it all, you can repeat your point of view as often as you like, it doesn't make it any more true. Stepro (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Stepro Doesn't matter how many you are. If you are wrong, you are simply wrong. Hjart (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

perseverative Stepro (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Commons:File naming is a proposed guideline, while Commons:File renaming is an official guideline. The latter's criterion 2, which I believe you use says "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image particularly displays". An image that names the Rund um Köln 2023 isn't meaningless, and not ambiguous in the guideline's sense. A name including the person's name is better, but that's not a renaming criterion. Please discuss with the uploader (they are here, so not uncontactable) and get a consensus on a good naming scheme. –LPfi (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Renamed file

Hello, it would have been appreciated if you contacted me before renaming the file File:Torvet 3-5, Ærøskøbing 2019.jpg in your convenience. I have uploaded thousands of works and name them in a specific system. There was no need to change the name completely. The only thing this does is messing up my uploading scheme (and those of other users as well, apparently). If possible, please consider renaming it and following my scheme. Thanks. wuppertaler _Post um 13:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how this messes up anyones uploading scheme. Please note that the new name tells other users exactly what the image represents, which I find quite valuable. Hjart (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It does, but you could have just added that information instead of changing the entire name. It seems that I am not the first user who does not appreciate this, so this may be something to consider in the future. wuppertaler _Post um 16:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Kaj Birksted, Churchillparken (cropped).jpg

File:Kaj Birksted, Churchillparken (cropped).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!

80.62.116.179 04:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Tinglev Kirke

Hej Hjart, jeg har planer om at skrive en artikel om Tinglev Kirke. Dine billeder er meget nyttige til det. Men har du måske endnu et nærbillede af alteret eller af prædikestolen, som du kan uploade? Mange tak i forvejen, Kliojünger (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kliojünger Det glæder mig at du kan bruge dem. Af kirkerne deromkring har jeg desværre kun dem, som jeg har uploadet her. Jeg kommer af og til i området, men har fundet ud af at jeg vist skal have hjælp til at finde ud af at lave nogle lidt lysere fotos, inden jeg laver flere. Hjart (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Tak for dit hurtige svar. Jeg var forresten ved kirken i Tinglev denne sommer, men den var desværre lukket. Jeg kunne kun tage billeder af ydersiden; jeg uploader dem snart. Det, du skriver om lysere billeder, er korrekt, men billeder kan også gøres lidt lysere gennem efterbehandling i computeren. Jeg har lige gjort to af dine interiørbilleder af Tinglev kirke lidt lysere med mit photoscape-program og vil også uploade dem om et øjeblik. Venligste hilsner, Kliojünger (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kliojünger Jeg kan ikke engang huske at have være inde i den kirke :-). En række af vores kirker (som f.eks. Løjt Kirke) er såkaldte "vejkirker": https://www.kirkefondet.dk/vejkirker.html File:Vejkirke Højrup.jpg, som typisk står åbne om dagen. Tinglev Kirke er ikke på den liste. Hjart (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kliojünger Du er iøvrigt velkommen til at overskrive mine fotos, når laver forbedringer på dem. Hjart (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Ja, jeg var også i Løjt denne sommer. Du har sikkert set mine billeder, og jeg har også lige oprettet den tyske Wikipedia-artikel om denne kirke (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B8jt_Kirke). (Selvom Løjt i øvrigt er en Vejkirke, måtte jeg gå derhen tre gange, før jeg kunne komme ind i kirken. På grund af bryllupsforberedelserne af Michael Immanuel Jebsen og Donata von Behr kunne man ikke komme ind i Løjt kirke for næsten en hel uge. Jeg er stadig lidt forarget nu. Er kirken for alle eller er den kun for milliardærerne? Når en "almindelig" person skal giftes, gør kirkens personale ikke så meget ud af det. Men jeg var omhyggelig med ikke at lade min vrede komme til udtryk i min artikel om Løjt Kirke.) For Tinglevs skyld: Jeg har lige uploadet to af dine Tinglev-billeder i en lysere form med en udvidet titel, jeg ønskede ikke at overskrive dine billeder. Hav en god nat! Kliojünger (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kliojünger Ja, jeg så dine billeder af Løjt Kirke og det ville overraske mig hvis du ikke har bemærket at jeg har flyttet lidt rundt på dem :-). For at præcisere; jeg vil sætte pris på hvis du overskriver mine fotos, når du aligner eller lavere dem lysere. Det andet virker for mig ret fjollet. Hjart (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2023 (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!

Affected:

• File:JOSM Tile Info.png

Yours sincerely, 0x0a (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Reinhold Ludvig Trafvenfelt, (1853-1933) med text.png:

Varför lägger du hela tiden i militär under denna bild, han är ju inte militär. Janee (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Janee Det er fordi at når du lægger den i en ikke-eksisterende kategori, så kommer der før eller siden en bot forbi og markerer den som ukategoriseret. Jeg kigger næsten dagligt på ukategoriserede filer uploadet gennem dansk/norsk og svensk wiki og derfor kommer jeg på et tidspunkt alligevel til at skulle håndtere den. Derfor vil jeg opfordre dig til at lægge den i en eksisterende kategori. Hjart (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Janee Bemærk også at commonskategorien tilknyttet sv:Kategori:Svenska läkare kunne være passende. Hjart (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Tyrstrup Kirkegård i Christianfeld

Hej Hjart. Jeg har set at du af og til uploader billeder fra Sønderjylland. Hvis du skulle komme forbi Tyrstrup Kirkegård i Christianfeld, kan dansk Wikipedia godt bruge at gravstedsbillede til da:Alfred Jørgensen (skolebestyrer). Der er ufrie billeder på https://arkiv.dk/vis/2601266 og http://www.danskkgindex.dk/tyrstrup/tyrstrup_visbilled.php?img=/tyrstrup/pics/7280268.JPG. Mvh. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dipsacus fullonum Jeg kommer typisk forbi stedet en gang månedligt og forsøge at huske det næste gang. Indtil videre har jeg indsat et foto af en mindetavle på hans gamle skole. Hjart (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Super! Og tak for billedet af mindetavlen. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Region Syddanmark (Vejle)

Hejsa. I saw this. I haven't lived in Denmark in many, many years, since before they changed from "amter" to "regioner", but how is it a town hall? Surely, an entire region is not a town. Perhaps it is a false equivalence between "town hall" and "rådhus". If we use the US as a rough equivalence, a town (or city) would have a town (or city) hall. A state would have a state capitol or state house. Does Commons need a new category for Danish Region Halls? It just feels so counterintuitive to call it a "town hall". Cheers, SVTCobra 18:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@SVTCobra We still consider these buildings "rådhuse" -> "town halls". Our municipalities are also so geographically large now, so that by your definition we would hardly have any "town halls" left (see i.e. Tønder Kommune and Tønder Rådhus). Hjart (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it is Category:Town halls itself that needs to be renamed to reflect how it is used. Thoughts? SVTCobra 18:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@SVTCobra I wouldn't mind if new more appropriately named categories were created. I just didn't pay the issue much attention until now and I don't have any idea what more appropriate category names would be. Hjart (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, there's already Category:Municipal buildings as an option. SVTCobra 19:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@SVTCobra That's of course a good option. Appears the Swedes are already using that one, since their "rådhuse" are now almost all called "kommunhus", while here they're still just all "rådhuse" :-). Hjart (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Peter Seier Christensen 2022 (cropped).jpg

File:Peter Seier Christensen 2022 (cropped).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 has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: The source image that this was taken from has been deleted as a copyright violation. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Kim Edberg Andersen 2022 (cropped).jpg

File:Kim Edberg Andersen 2022 (cropped).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 has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: The source image that this was taken from has been deleted as a copyright violation. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Diocese of Zealand

Is it a former diocese? Is there an incumbent bishop of Zealand? I thought that the diocese was split into two dioceses. No? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged Sorry, I got confused for a moment. The Diocese of Zealand existed from 1537 until 1922 when it got replaced by 2 other dioceses. Hjart (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That's OK. Will you self-revert please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged I already did revert a few moments later. Hjart (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Wilhelm Dahlbom painting

Hej Hjart! Thank you for moving "File:B0005520.jpg" to File:Wilhelm Dahlbom - Månljus, Idö.jpg. Unfortunately I made an error just prior to your move, when I stated that the painting was betitled "Månljus, Idö". My error was partly due to a misunderstanding in the Swedish Wikipedia (where I first saw the picture) and partly because of the artist's signature found on the actual painting. I've since learned that the actual name of he work is Månsken över klipporna (i.e. English "Moonlight over the cliffs" and Danish "Måneskin over klipperne"). This information can be found for example on this page regarding a recent auction of the painting facilitated by Stockholms Auktionsverk in Helsingfors/Helsinki.

I've added a rename request to the file, and would be happy if you moved the media file again. Unless of course someone else beats you to it. :-)
Best regards and greetings from Uppsala, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist Det er sketǃ Hjart (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Tack så mycket! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC).

File:07-09-11-q2 Balling kirke (Skive) (cropped).jpg

File:07-09-11-q2 Balling kirke (Skive) (cropped).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!

Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

File:09-06-25-j5-Alrø edited-1 Alrø kirke (Odder) (cropped).jpg

File:09-06-25-j5-Alrø edited-1 Alrø kirke (Odder) (cropped).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!

Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)