Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Bardenoki!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Contents

COM:OVERCATEdit

Bitte beachten COM:OVERCAT, Buildings in Osnabrück ist logischerweise bereits in Osnabrück drin. --A.Savin 19:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Zu jeder Themenkategorie gehört mind. die Überkategorie zu WAS und WO (zB bei Category:Water towers in Kreis Pinneberg, habe ich hinzugefügt). Solange Sie sich nicht mit Help:Categories vertraut gemacht haben, sollten Sie nicht im grossen Stil Kategorien anlegen, das schadet der Struktur und Transparenz. Thanks --A.Savin 20:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Danke, ich werde es soweit ergänzen --Bardenoki (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 AnnouncementEdit

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!Edit

 
2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Denkmäler/KategorisierungEdit

Hallo Bardenoki,

ich habe gesehen, dass Du bei vielen Dateien die Kategorie Cultural heritage monuments hinzufügst. Dateien mit einer Denkmalvorlage werden automatisch in der jeweiligen Ortskategorie als Denkmal eingetragen. Beispiel hierfür ist diese Grabstätte in Iserlohn. Die Denkmal-Vorlage findest Du hier. Da nicht jeder weiß, dass ein Grabstein denkmalgeschützt ist, wurde der Grabstein auch noch in der allgemeinen Kategorie Iserlohn belassen. Gruß --Asio 21:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Asio,
danke für den Hinweis. jetzt versteht ich auch, woher die Kategorie Cultural heritage monuments... kommt, obwohl sie nicht explizit eingetragen ist. Allerdings stellt sich mir dann die Frage, ob man durch die zusätzliche Angabe der Kategorie Iserlohn nicht bei COM:OVERCAT landet, da Iserlohn schon in Culutural heriatage monuments in Iserlohn enthalten ist. Gruß Bardenoki (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Bardenoki, Du hast recht. In Iserlohn gehört es nicht nochmal rein. Das obige Beispielbild ist auch in der Kategorie Friedhof und wird somit gefunden. Gruß --Asio 22:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results AnnouncementEdit

Picture of the Year 2013 ResultsEdit

 
The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Bardenoki,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cornelis Steenbergh and Categories about MedemblikEdit

Dear Bardenoki,

I think you made a mistake by deleting Category:Cornelis Steenbergh on a number of photographs by CS and putting whole categories about Medemblik in Category:Cornelis Steenbergh. Why?

  1. single photographs made by CS must logically be in Category:Cornelis Steenbergh, even when a house in Medemblik is depicted. Otherwise, the Category:Cornelis Steenbergh would not be complete.
  2. a category with photo's by various photographers cannot logically be a subcategory in the Category:Cornelis Steenbergh. Otherwise, any category containing just 1 photo by CS would be a subcategory of Category:Cornelis Steenbergh.

I hope that you agree with me changing the categories back. Kind regards, Hansmuller (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Hansmuller,
of course your are right. Sorry, that was my mistake. I guess I thought that "Cornelis Steenberg" was the architect. I will take care in future on this. Thanks for changing the categories and pictures back. Regards, Bardenoki (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Amazing workEdit

Hello Bardenoki,

I want to thank you for all your amazing work with the categorization of the Rijksmonumenten. Thanks!

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Basvb,
thanks a lot. It's something like a treasure hunt ;O) Kind regards Bardenoki (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Yesterday I've uploaded around 4000 images of mills. The images can be found in Category:Mills in the Netherlands. I saw that you were categorizing some already, which is wonderful. I found that the easiest way to categorize those is to go to the Rijksmonumenten in XXX category, and move them with cat-a-lot to their relevant mill (which is mostly mentioned in the first line). I leave them in Category:Mills in the Netherlands because it is possible to remove them from this category using "perform batch task" (I can do this in 10 minutes for the whole category (see the regex if you're familiar with the perform batch task)). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Basvb, great! I will help to categorize the mills. A short holiday from possible rijksmonumenten in Zierikzee ;O) Realy great, especially because they are all tagged with their monument id. So it is easy to find the category for most of the mills. In stead of working in teh category "Rijksmonumenten in XXX" I prefer to search for (e.g.) "12345 rijksmonumenten mills". This should deliver all the new pictures and the category. Then I will add the category by cat-a-lot. Finally I open all the new pictures and remove the rijksmonumentaten category and the mill in NL category. Maybe there is a more efficient way do the last step, but I find it hard to identify a mill only by its picture ("working in Rijksmonumenten in XXX") and I would like to start in "Mills in the Netherlands" as the category containing all the mills that have to be categorized, so I have to remove the "Mills in ..." category too. Regards, Norbert Bardenoki (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bardenoki, nice! I think your way is better for accuracy. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing historical imagesEdit

Bardenoki, I have seen that you removed the Category:Historical images of Arnhem in File:Arnhem willemsplein 1963.jpg. This is a photo of (a part of) the Willemsplein in 1963. The category Historical images specifies clearly that historical means more than about 40 years old. 2015-1963= 52 years. That the photo is in colour was special in that time as black and white was the usual type of photo. I reverted your change. Regards, Wouter (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wouter, yes I saw that you reverted my edit. Ok, if you think so. Let me explain why I removed the category: there are tons of "historical images" of Arnhem in the sense, that they are older than 40 years. Most of the RCE pictures fulfill this criterion. See e.g. category Category:Possible Rijksmonumenten in Arnhem of not identified "possible rijksmonumenten". Or all the other images showing rijksmonumenten taken by RCE. Would you like to categorize all of those images as "historical images"? For me the image was "only" one of all those old pictures. But I agree that a colour picture of 1963 is something special. Kind regards, Bardenoki (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Klarenbeek Stenen Tafel watertoren.jpgEdit

Beste Bardenoki Waarom moets bij dit bestand de categorie Rijksmonumenten in Arnhem verdwijnen? Haagschebluf (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Haagschebluf, auch hier gibt es die neue Kategorie Category:De Steenen Tafel (Arnhem). Die ist als Rijksmonument in Arnhem kategorisiert und fasst alle Bilder zur "Steenen Tafel" zusammen. Sonst haben wir hier COM:OVERCAT. Gruß Bardenoki (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

BotsEdit


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I see that you're still going strong identifying thousands of images of Rijksmonumenten a week. I recently took a look again at Category:Possible Rijksmonumenten and saw that it was quite a bit more empty. A few days ago I found an easy way to count the number of Possible Rijksmonumenten using this search. 4 days ago it was at 78.900 now it is at 77.800. Sadly I did not find this out much earlier, but I believe we started with between 200 and 300.000. The fact that lowering this number for the most part has been done by you and Rudolphous is truly amazing. I saw that the RCE currently lists 750.000 images at their site. Time for me to upload some more soon? Basvb (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bas, thank you for the honour! It is a pleasure for me to work on this topic :O) And there is still work for some years left. Concerning a new upload: Do whatever you want. Kind regards, Norbert. Bardenoki (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of categories from Amsterdam statue page?Edit

Hi, could you explain why you removed these categories from File:Thorbecke statue - amsterdam nl.jpg? Thanks! -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 13:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the categories from file File:Thorbecke statue - amsterdam nl.jpg because category Category:Thorbeckemonument, Amsterdam already has these categories too. Regards Bardenoki (talk)
Ahh, got it! -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 11:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

About the rename of File:Haarlemmerdijk 21.jpgEdit

Hi Bardenoki,

I have checked your request to change the name of that file, File:Haarlemmerdijk 21.jpg, to Haarlemmerdijk 25.jpg, and I have doubts with which is the correct name. Checking the monument information] I have read Haarlemmerdijk 23B 1013 KA te Amsterdam, Amsterdam (NH). I don't know what it's the correct but, could you confirm the correct name? Haarlemmerdijk 25.jpg or Haarlemmerdijk 23B.jpg?

Thanks in advance and excuse me for the inconvenience.

Regards, Ivanhercaz | Discusión   18:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Please, if you reply me in your talk page, {{Ping}} me.

Hi Ivanhercaz, you may be right (you may be wrong). It is a little bit confusing here. The detailed monument information says 23B and 25B. But if you look to the house left of it you have the same house numbers. On Street View you can see that the house on the right side is 27, on the left side we have 21, 25a, 23 a-e (the house under discussion itself has no number...).
To be in line with the monument register rename it to 23B (.. but there are two houses listed under this address in the monument register...). No 21 is definitely false. Regards Bardenoki (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanhercaz: Please check Bardenoki (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, yes it is a bit confusing. Well, no problem. Besides, I have checked that Wieralee has made the change, so no problem. Thank you for the clarification Bardenoki, and again, excuse me the inconvenience. Regards, Ivanhercaz | Discusión   19:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanhercaz: I have to say "Thank You". You are the one who helped me ;O) Regards Bardenoki (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

subcat & monument id'sEdit

Hi Bardenoki,

You recently reverted my edit on the Algemene Begraafplaats Almelo. The begraafplaats is a monument complex, which has been identified as such - which already includes the individual monuments which are also identified. I removed the individual monument identifier, because this particular one also has a subcategory (the others don't) where it has also been identified. I don't see why it would be helpful to identify the monuments once the complex has been identified - although I can't really object when there are no better suitable categories (such as in this case).

A specific problem this causes, is that with semi-automated category addition, this results in a clash: it recognizes two commons categories that should contain images of that monument. Could we either only identify on the most suitable category, or identify without using the template? Or do you perhaps have a better solution in mind?

Thanks for your efforts and thinking along! Effeietsanders (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Effeietsanders, in my opinion all monument ids should be listed in case of a monument complex (of course, sometimes there may be too much ids). Leaving out one or more ids could be misinterpreted in the way that the complex only has these "limited" range of monuments. And it would be good if the template is used because we directly get the link to the RCE description. That is the reason why I reverted your edit. On the other hand, if we have a separate category for a single monument the template with the id should be present too (link, ...).
Usually this would work but as you mentioned there occur problems with the semi-automated category addition in the monument lists of the Dutch Wikipedia. I don't know anything about the mechanism of the semi-automated category addition but would it be a possibility to
  1. temporary remove the template from the complex category in case of duplicates and restore it after the category additions has been done. I guess once the job has been done there are no further problems with the duplicates
  2. or is it possible to adapt the mechanism to use the "deapest" category in case of duplicates (hoping that there are no cirles)
I do not really know what is the best way to handle the problem. Is it ok for you if I don't use the template in the complex category when I create such category (only list the monument id) in case of subcats with monument ids. But I will mark this complex categories (for me) and restore the template after I have seen that the subcat has been added to the monument lists?
You do a great job adding the commonscat links to the monument lists. Regards Bardenoki (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking along! I'm afraid that temporary solutions won't cut it: the suggestion will pop up any time I run the tool through the page, which is every time that some commonscat is added/changed for a monument on the list.
Could you explain why you think that mentioning all individual monument ID's is important? The complex covers in the Dutch definition a combination of unique monuments - so basically is equivalent to listing them.
Adapting the mechanism of the tool would definitely be the best option - I'm using AddCommonsCatLinks from Dudemanfellabra, but unfortunately it seems he's inactive since July.
I don't see an obvious perfect solution either. The situation is not unworkable on my end - it requires a bunch more clicking and paying close attention, so it's mostly annoying. Effeietsanders (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
If we present a list of ids if should be complete. Otherwise a reader may interpret the (incomplete) list as 'complete' but it isn't. This may be misleading (Yes, he can follow the monumentcomplex link to the RCE and see the correct list, but he will not do that because he has an alleged reference here).
Listing the ids without the template looks very poor and some users will "correct" this "error" in the future. For sure. So that seems to be no good idea. Regards Bardenoki (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons Conference projectEdit

Hello Bardenoki,

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--MB-one (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Foto's die ik recent gemaakt heb in FrieslandEdit

Hallo Bardenoki, Allereerst heel hartelijk bedankt voor het categoriseren van de foto's die ik recent gemaakt heb in Friesland; er komt echter nog veel meer binnenkort (zie mijn commons userpage). De meeste foto's die ik maak nomineer ik ook voor Q1; ik weet dat het voor een succesvolle nominatie ook van belang is dat de foto's goed gecategoriseerd zijn, maar ik kan natuurlijk niet alles tegelijk. Nogmaals hartelijk bedankt want je neemt toch wel wat werk van mij uit handen. --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Michielverbeek, it is a pleasure to me if I can help. If I can do more to support you, please let me know. I think it is a great job that all the people are doing by documenting the monuments of the Netherlands. Especially the growing number of recent pictures of the gemeentelijke monumenten helps so much to identify and categories buildings on the old pictures of the RCE. We are all working together on the same project. Regards Bardenoki (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!Edit

  Thank you for all your work ordering panoramio pictures
Vera (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmm lekker :O) Thank you Bardenoki (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Please do not change a meaningful category to a not so relevant categoryEdit

Hello, I have seen that you changed in File:Apeldoorn Paleis het Loo B.jpg the category "Het Loo Palace" in two steps to "Fountains in Apeldoorn". This is an image of the Loo Palace and not just a fountain in Apeldoorn. In the distance there is a fountain but if you want to categorise that as well, it should be "Fountains of Het Loo Palace". Regards, Wouter (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, oh, sorry. That was a mistake. I intended to use Category:Fountains of Het Loo Palace instead. I will correct this for the other pictures. Regards Bardenoki (talk)
Thanks. I have indeed seen in Category:Fountains in Apeldoorn many images of the "Fountains of Het Loo Palace". Wouter (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Error in categorization?Edit

Hi!
Why did you categorize this file into the (nonexistent) "6AutoRAI 1963" category although the description gives the file a 1966 date? Shouldn't this picture be gathered with the other pictures taken during the 1966 AutoRAI? Regards. -- BarnCas (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi BarnCas, of course your are right. 'Category' "6AutoRAI 1963" must be a typo or something like that. I updated the categories of the file (and 3 other files). Thanks for the hint. Regards Bardenoki (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this quick correction. For the record, the file is now also as categorized as "Volvo N84". I categorized it as a "Volvo Brage/Starke/Raske" at first, but on second thought, as the N84 was "unveiled" in 1965 (in fact, it was mainly just the same 1954+ truck with a bigger engine), such a truck in a 1966 motor show is most probably the last available version. Tschüss! -- BarnCas (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Bardenoki".