Good questions, Eddaido. It appears that the Chrysler Imperial Parade Phaeton (see its English Wikipedia article) was a car that predated the Imperial marque, so it should probably be moved to the Chrysler categories and removed from the Imperial ones. The fact they were rebuilt in the mid 1950s muddies this a bit, however. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the C69 Series was an Imperial make (not a Chrysler one; see here and here), so I'd recommend renaming the category to Category:Imperial Series C69 and keeping it in the Imperial category hierarchy, and removing it from any Chrysler ones. Hopefully this is helpful to you. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Always nice to hear from you. We agree about the C69 its just that I've no idea what the Wikipedia article is on about but that white car and the black car are Imperials, check the trunk lid, and I'll move those photos to Imperial. I'll make it clear they are nothing to do with "1952". Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm. Now I understand about 1952. Are you content with what I've done? If so I would say any photos of their 1952 guise should go under that category. I notice there was also a similar car made in 1939 but there are no free photos of it that I can find. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I hope I'm not overwhelming your watchlist (although I don't use that function, so I'm not totally sure how it works). When I decided to go through the Michigan categories, I really underestimated how much work there would be for Ann Arbor (and eventually, Detroit). Thanks for all the quality photos. kennethaw88 • talk05:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Italy report: Libraries of 1602 and 2016, science museum new home for wikimedians
Netherlands report: Image donation Specilla circularia; Glass negatives by photographer Jan Goedeljee; Pattypan training for GLAMs; 1500 historical images from the Peace Palace Library
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!
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Michael: You weren't wrong to tag that photo, please don't be offended that it was sent to Deletion Nomination. There is a practice of sending art to Deletion Nominations because it leaves a stronger trail than a speedy does as well as giving the full week to attempt to make contact with the person who can give the COM:OTRS. Never hesitate to mark files you find, if an admin feels it needs the week, they will (as was done in this case) just change it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
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!
Netherlands report: Netherlands and the World Exchange Platform; photohunt Egmond aan Zee; Iconographia Zoologica
Spain report: Wikipedia course at La Yutera Library
Sweden report: Art+Feminism 2017; Connected Open Heritage; Digikult; Art on Wikipedia; Writing about Gothenburg's history; Updating image description with new research results
UK report: Wicipop project in Wales; Wikimedia UK's impact report
I appreciate your perspective, but I would also like these photos (in this example) to be in a subcategory of Category:April 2017 photographs, not just the parent date category. In fact, many of my photos were originally categorized in such month/year photograph categories before the individual date photograph categories were created, and I want to keep them in that hierarchy. Furthermore, all of my photos are systematically categorized by date, and I would really like to keep them as such. Michael Barera (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but it is not included in a photographs by month category per your edits. I would really, really like to avoid losing that information from my categorization. Michael Barera (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Netherlands report: The Netherlands and the World: Photo hunt Chinsurah; Photohunt public library Tilburg; Wikipedian in Residence for UNESCO's Memory of the World programme in the Netherlands; Picture books from Koninklijke Bibliotheek
Spain report: Management and dissemination of cultural heritage
Sweden report: GLAM-EduWiki collaboration awarded Pedagogy Award of the year at Swedish museums; Connected Open Heritage
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Michael, if you are not pleased with something I am doing its best if you tell me and I will stop making that mistake. (or talk about it with you!). Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for not explaining my logic. The various Studebaker carriage categories should be lower case (except for the proper noun "Studebaker") because they aren't proper names; they are simply generic vehicle terms appended to the manufacturer's name. It is the same reason why the capitalization is as it is for Category:Studebaker trucks and Category:Studebaker vehicles. Does that make sense? Thanks for all your hard work, and happy editing! Michael Barera (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
And now more advice please. We have a category about trucks called International made by International Harvester Company or IHC. The category and most of its sub category are named International Harvester. This is so odd I suspect there must once have been a discussion about this probably because someone declared International alone to be confusing (nonsense in these cases it always has truck or trucks beside it doesn't it?). Hmmm but I realise that International AL110 is totally meaningful for me but maybe not others. I'd rather be obliged to name it International AL110 truck and not International Harvester AL110. Where might I find the old discussion (if any) and so know if my guess is correct otherwise I want to change it to the correct name but would like your suggestions as to the best way to go about that to avoid the change bringing me too much attention - if you see what I mean. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
No Harvester visible but see file name and then have a look at this link
I'm asking because the images are in a muddle categorywise if you follow what I mean. I am planning to add (quite a lot) to the categories and sort out the images already there. I'll put it on hold for the moment. I think I had better write on the Trucks Wikiproject page and ask the experts..
Yes, Navistar was once International Harvester Company. They began by making harvesters. When they began to make trucks they labelled the trucks (not the manufacturing enterprise) just International. It is simply incorrect to add in Harvester in the name or description of a truck until the point where you name their manufacturer. Take a look here (it is not named Navistar International Harvester is it) and here because there are misleading statements and I think WP / WM should try to get it right. I was really hoping to track down any discussion about the current names of the trucks categories. I hoped you just might have a means of making WP or WM find it for you / us.
This doesn't help. I'm waiting for the library to get me a copy so I can see if I can sort out the author's reason for the name of the book (which talks only of International Trucks, <aargh>). Regards. Eddaido (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Macedonia report: New collaboration of GLAM Macedonia user group with the City Library in Skopje
Netherlands report: Workshop children's books, Sharing is Caring Brussels, short WiR period at Utrecht University Library & Preparations medieval image donation
Russia report: WikiProjects of students of Petrozavodsk State University
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
to discover that there was a picture of the Texarkana monument, I don't think the sky looks as good in the new version but I do believe that the monument is more readable. Thanks for giving me something to work with. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad that you appreciate my photograph, Carptrash! I do certainly think that lightening the image and more specifically categorizing it are improvements. Thanks again, and all the best! Michael Barera (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Someone else did any categorizing, but as you probably know, Confederate monuments are in the news these days so a lot of editing is going on in and around the topic. Feel free to leap in. Carptrash (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Michael,
First, I want to apologize for accidentally writing on your user page before. Nevertheless, I want to invite you to have a look at the project page for the first ever Commons Conference. If you are interested in participation, sign up at the bottom. If you have any ideas or comments for the the program, please feel free to add it to the page.
Thank you.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't believe the Hopkins County Museum is a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark. It is not listed in the Texas Historic Sites Atlas as such, and there is no medallion on the building. The historical marker in front is not an RTHL plaque. I removed the RTHL category from the page. Regards Nv8200p (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Michael, can you tell me what I should do to help get this matter sorted out and done with? I can't close it off can I? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Wow, that is a lot of discussion for a couple of truck categories! I really feel that I'm over my head with this one, unfortunately. It looks like the participants in the thread are a lot more knowledgeable about this matter than I am, and I don't think I can add anything to the discussion. Sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes!! Just thought your greater experience in procedural matters might be able to help end the misery rather than meaning to ask for your participation or opinion on the topic under discussion. I guessed you may have experience in procedure, I've none. There will be happier times ahead! Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I have very little CfD experience. My only advice is to take a deep breath, maybe take a little time away from the RfC, and then (ultimately) respect the decision of the community, even if you disagree with it. I know it is hard to do, but I've done it before, and it is the best way to handle a situation like this. Regardless, have a wonderful day! Michael Barera (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you're interested in Texan cinemas, you might want to have a look here: Movie theaters in Texas in Wikidata or here: Map (click on the blue arrow icon to start the query). Much of it represents CinemaTreasures data, but I tried to include anything on Wikipedia and the Commons that is applicable. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am not certain this change is correct. While these are buildings housing U of M students, they are not owned or controlled by the University but by the individual societies. This makes them similar to the numerous rental houses and apartments surrounding the college unlike the college dorms and apartments. Rmhermen (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
They are certainly not "residence halls" at the university, but wouldn't they still qualify as "student housing"? Perhaps we need to take a look at the practice used in other university categorization hierarchies? Michael Barera (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
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!
Serbia report: Wikipedian in residence at Historical Archives of Subotica; Model of a grain of wheat exlusivly digitized for Wikimedia Commons; Cooperation of the Ministry of Culture and Information and Wikimedia Serbia - GLAM presentations and workshops for museums, archives and libraries
Thanks for uploading File:IBM 3277 Display.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:IBM 3277 Display.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your help with the pictures of Dallas!
I found that DISD moved into a new HQ at 9400 North Central Expressway, Dallas, TX, 75231. However the old 3700 Ross Avenue building is important too... it was going to be demoed but thankfully it will be preserved instead!
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
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!
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
