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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!
India report: Wikimedian-in-Residence program initiated at the Research Institute of World's Ancient Traditions, Cultures and Heritage in Arunachal Pradesh
Italy report: The growth of sharing on Wikimedia projects
Netherlands report: Letters from Sierra Leone: the Sjoerd Hofstra photo collection in a new light
New Zealand report: Forming Wikimedia Aotearoa and the Aotearoa New Zealand Theses Project
Serbia report: News in Wikipedian in residence projects
Sweden report: Training at the National Archives of Sweden; Training at the Stockholm City Museum; Training at the Swedish National Museum of Science and Technology; Improved images from Swedish Performing Arts Agency
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your thanks, but I was grateful for the opportunity to talk with you about my experience. When I see myself making over 600,000 edits, the follow-up question is, "why don't I get anything?" If a person does not grow, it is like living in the past, then 600,000 edits is equal to 0 (everything goes to zero). I feel useless on my own. I've seen that you made over 400,000 edits already. Would you like to share your experience and tell me just what I must do to get rid of the dejection like "no growth"?--Kai3952 (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Kai3952: Every single edit I make improves Wikimedia Commons, although most of them are small improvements. A lot of the edits I make are improving categorization, often making categories slightly more specific or accurate. I see Commons itself as a giant sorting project, and every little improvement I can make gets us closer to ideal organization. So every edit I make makes searching and browsing on Commons a little bit easier for our fellow editors and our users.
Does that help? Hopefully it makes sense. Thanks for everything you've done for Commons. 600,000 edits is incredibly impressive! Happy editing, Kai3952! Michael Barera (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
I am not sure what do you means by small improvements. I'm trying to use the time I have right now to move Wikipedia Commons forward. For example, I create the category for people sitting on railing. Despite this, I still feel that I haven't gained or learned anything and like an inexperienced newbie editor. People say that most editors will grow with experience over time. If so, why didn't I gain or learn anything?--Kai3952 (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Have you tried branching into either uploading your own photography to Commons or creating articles on Wikipedia? I've been quite involved in both of those areas, and I feel that the impact I make in those areas is more than what I can do improving categorization on Commons. But my last point about "small improvements" is that those categorization improvements are important, too, even though each one is probably less important (on its own) than uploading photos or creating articles. But the cumulative impact of all those small categorization improvements is really large. Michael Barera (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Kosovo report: Cooperation with the National Gallery of Kosova and Summer of Wikivoyage 2022
Malaysia report: WikiGap Malaysia 2022 @ Kuala Lumpur Library
New Zealand report: Pacific Arts Aotearoa Wikiproject, Auckland Museum's Exploratory Study and Report back on #1Lib1Ref
Poland report: Wikipedian in residence in the National Museum in Cracow; Training at the Wawel Royal Castle National Art Collection; How can we make GLAM’s digital resources more reusable in education?; The International Museum Day 2022 Wikidata Competition
Sweden report: Rembrandt and others – drawings from the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm; Stockholm Museum of Women’s History; The map book of Heinrich Thome; Sörmland Museum; Wikidata competition – International Museum Day 2022
Italy report: Opening and closing projects in June
Kosovo report: Edit-a-thon with Kino Lumbardhi; DokuTech; CEE Spring 2022 in Albania and Kosovo
New Zealand report: West Coast Wikipedian at Large and Auckland Museum updates
Poland report: Wikipedian in residence in the National Museum in Cracow; The next online meeting within the cycle of monthly editing GLAM meetings; Steps to communicate GLAM partnerships better and involve the Wikimedian community
Sweden report: 100 000 memories from the Nordic Museum; Report from the Swedish National Archives
USA report: Fifty Women Sculptors; Juneteenth Edit-a-thon; Juneteenth Photobooths 2022; Wiknic June 2022; New York Botanical Garden June 2022; LGBT Pride Month
Poland report: The summary of GLAM editing contest and the end of residency at the National Museum in Cracow; Cooperation with Wawel Royal Castle; Hack(art)hon for Zachęta
Serbia report: Contemporary Art Edit-a-thon and Wikipedian in residence at the Historical Archive of Negotin
Sweden report: 100 000 Bildminnen; Uniforms, images from New Sweden, colonial officers, the map book of Fryderyk Getkant, and more!; Swedish general election 2022
Australia report: Behind the scenes with Australia's Wiki Loves Earth 2022 winner
Austria report: A Börthday present for Wikidata - the DACH Culture Contest
Brazil report: Reopening of Museu Paulista and other news
France report: Meeting with Prime minister cultural adviser; Residence at the Brittany Museum
India report: Digitisation of O Bharat, a bilingual biweekly published in Goa from 1912 to 1949
Indonesia report: GLAM Socialization; Wikistories for GLAM Competition
Italy report: September month of results and planning
Netherlands report: Wiki Loves Monuments Suriname first edition: 554 photos
New Zealand report: New Zealand Thesis Project and Te Papa Forget-me-nots
Poland report: The results of GLAM editing contest; GLAM Coordinators Meeting
Serbia report: External projects, great results and high level of independence
Sweden report: Bookfair back on site; Cultural history in High Schools; More identifiers from National Historical Museums of Sweden on Wikidata; Swedish general election 2022
USA report: Advocacy and Invention; New Smithsonian WiR; Called to Create; DC Statehood and Home Rule; Annual meeting; Wikipedian in Residence Opportunity at the Pérez Art Museum Miami
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, I just was informed that you reverted my edit respecting the categorization of File:Stuttgart Jul 2012 20 (Porsche Museum - 1964 Porsche 911 2.0 Coupe).JPG. Please let me explain why I changed the category from 1964 Porsche automobiles to 1965 Porsche automobiles:
The WikiCommons categories regarding a certain year with respect to vehicles generally relate to the "model year". For proof please check: "1964 Porsche automobiles" is a sub-category of "Porsche automobiles by model year". But the model year isn't the same as the year of production. Any model year normally starts in late summer / early fall of the preceding calendaric year. This is because normally it is the factory holidays in summer when the production lines become set up for the new model year. So e.g. the model year 1965 started around September 1964. And this is what counts for the categorization of vehicles on WikiCommons because the aim is to bundle the decisive design features of any model year in one category.
Well, the Porsche 911 went into series production in September 1964 (in fact, it was only November 1964 that the first cars designated "911" were built; the specimen built before that point in time were called "Porsche 901", until Peugeot objected to this model name because they held the rights to any three-digit numeric code containing a zero in the middle). All those earliest Porsches 911 belong to the model year 1965. So this very vehicle surely was built in late 1964, but fact is that there is no such thing as a "Porsche 911 model year 1964" - it is a "1965 model year", as opposed to a "1966", which started production in fall 1965 and has subtle, but characteristic design features differentiating it from the preceding model year.
The sign in the museum clearly stated that it is a 1964 automobile. If you are certain that is wrong, then please change all instances of the year on the entire file (including the filename). Only one instance was changed, so I reverted that one instance to be consistent with all the other instances that still said 1964. Michael Barera (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your answer. I really understand the motivation behind your edit. The problem with this 1964/1965 conundrum is the following: The museum sign surely is correct (who should know better than the Porsche museum people themselves, when exactly this car left the assembly line?) - this car undoubtedly has been built in the calendar year 1964 (presumably November or December, as the whole production run of September / October wasn't yet designated "Porsche 911" but "Porsche 901"). Therefore, there also isn't anything wrong with the filename stating the year 1964. The creator of the pic read 1964 (= calendaric year of production) on the museum sign and named their file accordingly - that's perfectly fine IMHO.
But, as I tried to explain, a model year (and this is the "master category" used for motor vehicles on WikiCommons) is not congruent with the calendaric year of production. The model year 1965 started somewhen in late summer / early fall 1964 and ended in summer 1965, when the model year 1966 commenced. So in fact, there are many vehcile-related files on Commons that correctly state 1964 (or 1971, or 1996, or....) in their file names, but have to be categorized as 1965 (or 1972, or 1997, or....) models, because the shown vehicle already belongs to the "new model year".
This conundrum is present especially with European cars (or maybe better: with European Commons users). In the US, the model year is so common as a term regarding vehicles, that probably no US user would name a file of e.g. a 1959 Cadillac as containing "1958", regardless of the fact that the very car may have been built in November 1958. In fact, one probably wouldn't even know that the car left the assembly line already in late 1958, because probably no US car owner would state the calendaric year of production (=1958) instead of the model year (=1959) when describing their car (e.g. on a car show).
But not so in Europe. Here, the car owners (and also museums etc.) would normally state the exact calendaric year of production, not thinking so much in terms of model years. So it is only normal (and perfectly correct) that Porsche stated the (calendaric) year (of production) of this very car as "1964", but - as every book on Porsche model history tells - the 911's first model year was 1965 (beginning in fall 1964). That's it.
So, how to deal with that on WikiCommons, where the vehicle-related category structure is clearly designed along the lines of US terminology, using the model year as the decisive unit? Best regards --Purzelbier (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Poland report: Wiki Loves Monuments 2022 selection process in progress; GLAM online meeting on evaluation of ten editions Wiki Loves Monuments in Poland
Serbia report: GLAMorous October; Faculty of Dramatic Arts in Belgrade; CEE Meeting
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I would like to know if you are going to do more research on Nat King Cole. I understand he was adopted. I am hearing rumors that his paternal mother was from Charles County Maryland. 72.9.4.11702:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
New Zealand report: Integrating with the BHL, loading natural science specimens and data
Poland report: How Wiki helps to explore and enjoy art & culture; Wiki workshop for the National Museum in Krakow; GLAM online meeting on ideas for 2023; Wiki Loves Monuments 2022
Serbia report: Wikipedian in residence at Faculty of Dramatic Arts in Belgrade and National Museum of Zrenjanin
Sweden report: Wikipedian in Residence at Musikverket; Women and architecture; Gymnasiearbete; New uploads from the Swedish National Archives; WLM winners; Images of Äpplet
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Michael. I was doing research on a former store in San Angelo, Texas. The name of the store was "Hemphill-Wells". The store occupied 3 different buildings in downtown San Angelo during its existence. The first location was in a building that was built in 1903 by L. Schwartz & Co. on the northwest corner of Beauregard and Chadbourne. This building is now known as the "Chadwick Building" and is currently occupied by Myers Drug. The Chadwick Building is adjacent to a parking lot where the Montgomery Ward building used to stand until the Montgomery Ward building was demolished in 1988. It appears that somehow there was confusion between the Chadwick Building and the Montgomery Ward building, probably because they used to be side-by-side and were designed by the same architect, Oscar Ruffini. I've been working to rectify this confusion on Wikipedia. I've corrected the article about the Montgomery Ward building and renamed the picture of the Montgomery Ward building to reflect the fact that it is in fact the Chadwick Building. I wanted to let you know in case you want to edit the links to this picture on your pages. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:2C7:980:A660:7945:F864:C3B2:B948 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}