User talk:Blue Elf

Velkommen til Commons, Blue Elf!

Hjelp til å ta de første skrittene Vår hjelpefil for nybegynnere og vår OSS (ofte stilte spørsmål) vil være til god hjelp etter at du har registrert deg. Disse sidene forklarer hvordan du skal endre på utseendet (for eksempel språk), hvordan du skal laste opp filer, og vår grunnleggende lisensieringspolitikk. Du trenger ingen tekniske ferdigheter for å bidra her. Vær modig i dine bidrag, og anta det beste i andres intensjoner. Dette er en wiki – det er virkelig enkelt. Få hjelp Mer informasjon er tilgjengelig på brukerportalen. Du kan be om hjelp på Tinget eller på IRC-kanalen #wikimedia-commons. Du kan også kontakte administratorer på deres diskusjonssider. Hvis du har spesifikke spørsmål om opphavsrett, spør på Commons:License questions.		Godsaker, tips og triks Sett inn Babel-bokser på brukersiden din slik at andre vet hvilke språk du snakker Alle dine opplastinger er lagret i ditt personlige galleri Vær så snill å signer dine innlegg på diskusjonssider ved å skrive ~~~~ Bruk CommonSense verktøyet for å finne kategorier til dine filer (slik at andre kan finne dem også!) For å lenke til en bildeside må du skrive [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], det blir slik: Image:Foo.jpg Hvis du kopierer filer fra andre prosjekter, bruk CommonsHelper Gjort en feil? Ønsker du å endre navnet på en fil, eller flytte den? Du kan ganske enkelt laste opp filen på nytt, og merke den gamle slik: {{bad name|Korrekt navn}} For mer informasjon kan du lese hele retningslinjen for sletting av sider
(P.S. Ønsker du å gi tilbakemeldinger om denne beskjeden?)

Kategorier

Hei Blue Elf, jeg ser du har lastet opp en del som ikke er kategorisert ([1]). Tar du en kikk på Commons:Categories? Jeg puttet f.eks. Image:IMG 1146a - Bø kirke.jpg i Category:Churches of Nordland. Hilsen Kjetil_r 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeg har vært sløv med kategoriseringa ja. Skal skjerpe meg med det. --Blue Elf 17:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fishing boats/ships

Hi Blue Elf. I notice you have a tag on Category:Fishing boats and Category:Fishing ships, suggesting they be merged. However, you don't seems to have given your reasons for this. In my view, as an editor who writes a lot of the articles on fishing vessels on the English wiki, the merger would not be a good idea. Most fishing vessels are boats, that is, small vessels which are definitely not ships. Similarly, it is not really appropriate to refer to large blue water factory ships as "boats". If the categories are to be changed at all, it would be better if they were both replaced with Category:Fishing vessels. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Blue Elf!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 08:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Rhubarb - Rheum rhabarbarum.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

File:Mývatn11.jpg

I was working on cleaning up some of the Commons maintenance backlog and came across the above file was just wondering why you placed a No Source {{Nsd}} template on the image. The information template has Own Work by uploaded, the image seems full size and has EXIF data. Do you have some reason to believe that the image was not taken by the uploader? Thanks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember why I placed the No Source template on it - when I look at it now it seems as strange to me as it did to you. So I have removed the template again. Sorry for that. Blue Elf (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem and thanks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Romanian Parliament Palace colorfully lit at night.jpg

File:Romanian Parliament Palace colorfully lit at night.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.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 47a7a029cac212dcae6e3a68cbd38b3d

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! 47a7a029cac212dcae6e3a68cbd38b3d

File:Vestfold Holmestrand, Breimyrbakkene (2)Wcr.JPG

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 21:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Cc-by-sa-3.0-dk

Hej! Licensen Cc-by-sa-3.0-dk findes ikke - se http://creativecommons.org/international/dk/. Derfor bør vi ikke have {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-dk}}. Men vi kan derimod godt have en dansk oversættelse. Jeg har derfor slettet skabelonen og kategorien. --MGA73 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Jeg var visst litt for rask i vendingen der, beklager. Bra du har ryddet opp. Blue Elf (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

ski jump

Hi Blue Elf,

I'm wondering if you can give me any further information on the ski jump picture you posted?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Snowflake_ski_jump_%28January_23,_2010%29.JPG

I've written a novel about ski jumping in the 1930's and I'm wondering how close this is.

Thanks! Rachel from Wisconsin, USA

Hi Rachel. I see you found the photographer, Farmercarlos on English Wikipedia. I think the best I can do, is to point you to the English Wikipedia article about the ski jumping hill, and to the article about it on the site Skisprungschanzen-Archiv (in English). Both of them have coordinates / map reference. I believe Snowflake is the sixth biggest ski jumping hill in the US, after the ski flying hill in Ironwood, Michigan (which isn't used anymore) and the big hills in Iron Mountain (also in Michigan), Park City, Lake Placid and Steamboat Springs. It would be interesting to read your novel! Blue Elf (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Frozen Lake Huron- icebreakers and commercial vessels.jpg

Hello!

Why did you remove Category:Lakers (ships) from the image? --High Contrast (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I removed it because the ship Canadian Transport was in it, and I thought the ship was already categorized as a laker, so this picture didn't need to have that category as well. It turns out that it wasn't (I should have checked!), but I have now added the laker category to the ship. But you can of course put Category:Lakers (ships) back on for this image. Blue Elf (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 2f644c86f521357eb1d784da2f79616b

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Oslobilder

Hei, god jobb du gjør med å overføre bilder fra oslobilder.no! Jeg var inne og tittet litt på siden, men hvordan får du egentlig lastet de ned? Må du putte de i handlekurven og trille den ut? – Danmichaelo (δ) 23:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Takk. Jeg laster ned bildene på vanlig måte (høyreklikke, "Lagre bilde som") og lagrer dem på min egen PC. Museet har jo versjoner med høyere oppløsning, men dem må man bestille og betale for. Men den versjonen som ligger på nettet (Oslobilder og/eller Digitalt Museum) med denne lisensen er til fri bruk. Når jeg laster opp, liker jeg det gamle skjemaet best, så da velger jeg "Tilbake til det gamle skjemaet" i opplastingsveiviseren, og deretter "It is from somewhere else".

Jeg hadde plukket ut en god del interessante bilder alt i forrige uke, men jeg så at det kunne bli mange etter hvert, så jeg ville maile Oslo Museum for sikkerhets skyld før jeg tok altfor mange, som jeg skrev på Torget. Nå når svaret er klart og positivt, så kjører jeg i gang og laster opp flere. Blue Elf (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Flott at du sjekket opp, og takk for tipset om siden! Egentlig kunne man jo ønsket seg at institusjoner drevet hovedsaklig på statlig/kommunale tilskudd gjorde full oppløsning tilgjengelig når de først har gjort arbeidet med å klarere rettighetene, men dette er selvfølgelig et stort steg å ta. Oppløsningen på bildene er jo heller slett ikke så værst, og tydeligvis bedre enn før :) Mye interessante bilder – og hele 48 829 med CC-BY-SA! Skal se om jeg får lastet opp litt jeg også etterhvert. – Danmichaelo (δ) 07:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hei igjen, jeg har visst ikke fått lastet opp noe særlig, men har ryddet litt og tenkt litt på hvordan vi kan unngå duplikater fra oslobilder.no etterhvert som det blir mange bilder, og også hvordan vi generelt kan holde oversikt, og har i den forbindelse snekret sammen et verktøy som jeg tror kan være nyttig, basert på sider merket med {{Oslobilder}}. Det er ikke alt som virker helt enda (miniatyrbilder for bilder med æøå i filnavnet f.eks.), men prøv det gjerne ut, og si fra hvis du kommer på noe lurt som mangler :) Hvis jeg får tid, kunne jeg også tenkt meg å lage et verktøy for assistert overføring, ála flickr2commons. – Danmichaelo (δ) 16:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Kjempebra. Førsteinntrykket er at det fungerer greit og gir en god oversikt. Det er en stund siden jeg lastet opp bilder fra Oslobilder nå, men det kommer nok mer etter hvert. Et verktøy for assistert overføring ville være veldig praktisk hvis du får anledning til å lage det, for selv om det går greit å legge inn det som bør være med når man laster opp bilder fra Oslobilder, så tar det tid å få med alt. Det verktøyet jeg har brukt når jeg har hentet bilder fra Flickr er Flinfo, som jeg synes fungerer veldig bra. Blue Elf (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2012 (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:Ljubljana - 3.jpg

Eleassar (t/p) 12:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Takker for hjelp med kategorisering

Jeg har en tendens til å være litt sløv med det :-) TommyG (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Bare hyggelig. :-) Blue Elf (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Forvirra!

Har lastet over File:Gunstein Bakke.jpg og tatt med all info. Fikk noe bot-vrøvl fra en som ikke greide lese source code'n. Kan du se på dette for meg? Noorse (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Ski_jumping_in_Hampstead_Heath_1950

Sorry noone's got to this sooner. I've just responded. I think there's an issue with Scope that needs dealt with, however. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I came across your reaction here, and opposed your vote as I think this is important documentation of little known skijumping history. I'm by no means an expert, but I've come across these events in USA due to information on Norwegian immigrants. BR Noorse (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 08:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Kyrkje eller kirke

Hei! Commons er er jo et flerspråklig prosjekt og det er like riktig at en kategori heter kirke som at den heter noe med kyrkje. Jeg ser ikke helt hensikten med forslagene dine. Jeg kommer til å ta det opp på nynorsk-utgaven av WP. Mvh.--Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeg synes det kan være naturlig å ha kategorinavn med kyrkje for kirkene i de delene av landet der nynorsk brukes, altså hovedsakelig på Vestlandet. Jeg har ikke tenkt å foreslå flytting av kategorier for de kirkene, eller der det kan være usikkert hva som bør velges. Men det er ikke logisk å bruke kyrkje om kirker i Nord-Norge eller i Vestfold der ingen lokale bruker den formen. Det finnes ingen lokale som snakker om Sortland kyrkje, man sier Sortland kjerke (eller Sortlandskjerka) og skriver Sortland kirke. Vi bør vel holde oss til enten bokmål eller nynorsk, og da er bokmålsformen den eneste som faktisk brukes skriftlig. Tilsvarende gjelder for kirker i mange andre fylker.

Dette med nynorsk og bokmål kan være en utfordring når vi har kategorier med norske navn, og jeg synes vi godt kan foretrekke former som i størst mulig grad fungerer på begge målformene, f.eks. veg selv om jeg egentlig liker vei best. For slikt som kirker blir det vanskeligere. Slik det er nå, er det ikke konsekvent og logisk i det hele tatt. Kirkekategoriene i f.eks. Nordland og Vestfold finnes med navn både på bokmål, nynorsk og engelsk. Det trengs å ryddes opp i. Jeg mener vi bør bruke den norske formen (kirke eller kyrkje) som kirkefolket selv bruker. Blue Elf (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeg tok det for øvrig opp på Commons-Tinget i april i fjor, men fikk liten respons. Det er fremdeles behov for å få ryddet opp i disse kategorinavnene. Blue Elf (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Vil bare legge til at jeg ikke hadde tenkt å starte noen klassisk språkdiskusjon, for de fører nesten aldri til noe konstruktivt. Poenget var å gjøre kategorinavnene logiske og konsekvente. Vi har vel som prinsipp at oppslagsord og kategorinavn skal være på en form som flest mulig forventer å finne dem. Blue Elf (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Eg voner at Anne-Sophie då og vil nemne den totale mangelen på respekt for andre sitt valg som Jorunn viste då ho henta bilete frå lokalhistoriewiki.no. Ho døypte om filer frå bokmålsområde i mellom anna Østfold til landsmål, noko som ikkje gjer det lettare å finne att bileta. Eg såg i haust at det framleis ligg merknader på bilete på lokalhistoriewiki.no som seier noko liknande "Jorunn, vennligst respekter mitt målvalg". Eg kan ikkje seie anna enn at Blue Elf gjer vel når han freister å få eit skikkeleg system som og respekterar kyrkjene sine rette namn. Noorse (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Til Blue Elf. Jeg har ganske god oversikt over kirkekategoriene her på Commons ettersom jeg bl.a. har laget kategorier og ryddet i mange av bildene som kom inn til WLM sist og første gang det ble arrangert; jeg er derfor klar over at det er mangel på konsistens her. Beklager om jeg virket brå i henvendelsen min, fikk nok litt hakeslepp ved første øyekast. Nei, regner ikke med at du ønsker noen språkstrid og jeg ser jo at hensikten er god i tillegg til at det må ryddes opp i. Du skriver at du har tatt det opp på Commons-Tinget og det så jeg for ikke så lenge siden, jeg var inntil ganske nylig ikke klar over at vi har eget Ting her og det tror jeg gjelder flere av bidragsyterne fra nb og nn.

Til Noorse; det må du nesten ta opp med henne, jeg aner ikke noe om hvem hun er eller hva hun har gjort, har bare sett navnet hennes her på Commons, tror jeg. Mvh.--Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeg aner heller ikke noe om henne, annet enn det jeg viser til mht manglende respekt og hvordan andre reagerer på det. Dermed kan jeg ikke si annet enn at du er hjertelig velkommen til å ta det dersom veiene deres krysses senere. Noorse (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Guvåg 02.JPG

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 16:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I was just waiting for that mistake to happen... Blue Elf (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bjørnskinn kirke 02.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Bjørnskinn kirke 02.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

–⁠moogsi (blah) 13:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Another photo I had forgotten to put a license on. A stupid mistake, but I have added the license now. Blue Elf (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Buksnesfjorden Andøy 02.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Buksnesfjorden Andøy 02.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Dang, another one. I must have been sleeping when I uploaded these photos. But if nothing else, it shows that it is quite possible even for experienced users to forget the license. Blue Elf (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kvitbrygga Rødbrygga Sortland 02.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kvitbrygga Rødbrygga Sortland 02.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kvitbrygga Rødbrygga Sortland 01.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kvitbrygga Rødbrygga Sortland 01.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Again? Oh dear. Blue Elf (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ler – Danmichaelo (δ) 15:59, 15 June 2013 (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:Cape Town Stadium.jpg

Yours sincerely, LGA _talk^edits 23:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hásteinsvöllur í Vestmannaeyjum.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Kreuzschnabel 14:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drying Stockfish Lofoten 2009 2.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 11:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Centa San Nicolò-Valico della Fricca-old tunnel 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, though slight overexposure. --Smial 14:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

You removed Category:Metis (ship, 1956) from File:Cement carrier and cement silos in the Keating Channel, 2013 06 20 -a.JPG. The Metis is the smaller vessel on the right. Geo Swan (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously a mistake on my part, sorry for that. I didn't notice that there was another ship in the photo, but if I had checked the Metis category, I would of course have seen what it looked like and that it's actually there. Blue Elf (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Midthordland IMO 5234539 Bergen.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 10:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Suomen Joutsen at night 2005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I think it's the masts that are tilted (other pictures of the ship also show them tilted). Bahnfrend 08:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Suomen Joutsen at night 2005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I think it's the masts that are tilted (other pictures of the ship also show them tilted). Bahnfrend 08:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Vidar Lande acr gimp.jpg

File:Vidar Lande acr gimp.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!

Siri Johannessen (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hurtigruten by location

Hi Blue Elf; greetings from Switzerland and thanks for your "Hurtigruten by location" categorization, I think that's a really good idea! Just a quick question on how you envision this category... I think there are two possible approaches. Either one could list only ships there which were in Hurtigruten service when the picture was taken, or all Hurtigruten ships, also former ones. For example, when I took File:Nordstjernen-fjordsteam-01.jpg at the Fjordsteam festival in Bergen in August, the Nordstjernen was already no longer a Hurtigruten ship (sold to new owners, renovated in Poland etc. - probably, as you are Norwegian, you know her story). You added her to the "Hurtigruten in Bergen" category, and if we want to follow the second approach, this is fine. However, then we would also have to categorize e.g. appearances of National Geographic Explorer (ship, 1982) (as this is the former Hurtigruten ship Midnatsol / Lyngen), or of Sjøkurs (ship, 1956), the former Ragnvald Jarl in this structure, to be consistent. What do you think? Gestumblindi (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My plan is to only list the ships which were in Hurtigruten service when the photo was taken. I have checked about it for the oldest ships, which may in some cases only have been in Hurtigruten service for a shorter while, but I didn't think of it when I added the categories to the photos of Nordstjernen. Thank you for making me aware of it. I'll probably take those photos out of the "Hurtigruten in Bergen" category, but add a hidden message to them, explaining why those few photos shouldn't be in that category. I should probably also add a short explanation at the top of all the "Hurtigruten by location" categories, explaining that they are only meant for photos from the time when the ships were in Hurtigruten service. Does that sound ok? Blue Elf (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, sounds like a good approach :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Blue Elf⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

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 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en 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) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Blue Elf,

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)

Bañaderos

Hei, skal ikke ñ sorteres sammen med n? Denne endringen gjør at Bañaderos sorteres etter f.eks. Bayard. - mvh 4ing (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Tror ñ skal regnes som egen bokstav i sorteringen. Skal ikke tviholde på det, men... Blue Elf (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

På norsk skal ñ sortere under n, jfr no:Hjelp:Defaultsort. Det ser ut til at det samme gjelder på engelsk, jfr. en:Wikipedia:SORTKEY#Sort_keys, der også ø skal sorteres under o. - 4ing (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MV Victor Hugo R01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Some slight red fringes, but admissible. Overall good enough for QI --Cccefalon 06:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rostbollen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A tiny bit of noise, but an overall QI for me. --Lewis Hulbert 22:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

my photos from Oslo

Excuse my bad english. Thank you very much for your editing in the pictures! I dont knew all the buildings and thinks, who i have photographed. --Ralf Roleček 19:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's ok. :-) I like categorizing them. I don't know everything there either, but I know some of the buildings and other things fairly well. Don't hesitate to revert edits if you notice that I have made any mistakes. Blue Elf (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Beadnell MMB 04 Beach and "Horizon".jpg

Just curious as to why you chose to nominate this particular photo of mine. If you want, I have a list of images to nominate... I expect to be done roughly never! -mattbuck (Talk) 19:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It was mostly accidental, really. Some time ago I noticed the bot-created page User:OgreBot/Watercraft and thought it was a good place to look for new photos of boats and ships, including some that haven't been categorized properly. Your photos (here) of course had the categories they needed, but I liked the two photos of the boat with the tractor. So I decided to nominate the biggest and possibly best of the two. Blue Elf (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beadnell MMB 04 Beach and "Horizon".jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very nice! --Ralf Roletschek 17:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Re-making mistakes

If anyone wonders what I am doing, I am making automated mistakes, undoing them manually, and then making new mistakes. Grrr... Blue Elf (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Catamaran & -39;Tidebris& -39; - Leirvik, Norway.jpg

File:Catamaran & -39;Tidebris& -39; - Leirvik, Norway.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!

1989 23:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Of all strange things I have seen on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, this deletion request must be one of the strangest. Blue Elf (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Justøybro 01.jpg

File:Justøybro 01.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!

1989 20:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Justøybro 02.jpg

File:Justøybro 02.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!

1989 20:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:The Culture Center.jpg

File:The Culture Center.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!

1989 20:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, this deletion request is stranger... Blue Elf (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	For the picture of the Läckö Slott! Aarp65 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

1947

You uploaded this, dating it 1948

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vidar_Lindboe-Hansen_Arne_Hoel_1022.jpeg

if you take a closer look at the signs, it seems to say "Svenska skidspelen 1947" J 1982 (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted! It seems a little strange, though, because the Svenska skidspelen were in Östersund in 1948, like the source text at Digitalt Museum says. So I wonder, could the photo actually be from Svenska skidspelen in Sundsvall in 1947, or did they get the year wrong on the sign in 1948? Blue Elf (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

church categories

Did you forget about User talk:FDMS4/archive/2015/II#Torvastad kirke / church? Again, do not change such category names to non-English variants, this is clearly against to-be-followed policy.    FDMS  4    23:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please show me exactly where in the language policy it is stated that church names should be in English. I have now checked what seems to be the actual policy (practice) for church names in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Germany, Spain, Italy, France, Russia, Hungary, Poland. Most church category names seem to be in English in Finland, Russia, Hungary, Poland. Church names of Spain seem to vary, some are in English, some in Spanish. For Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Germany, Italy, France, most church names seem to be in these countries' local languages. I have only looked into it quickly now, so I can't give any proper statistics about it, but this is how it looks to me.

The standard practice for naming of categories for things like roads, bridges, tunnels, buildings in Norway is also to keep them in Norwegian. Of course, always category names like "Bridges in XXX" or "Sports venues in YYY", but the actual name, in Norwegian, for the category for each object.

If the category naming policy for things in Norway needs to be changed, then it also needs to be changed for categories of other countries where the same naming practice is used. I am of course not against standardization, and different languages are among those things that can make it difficult to find what we are looking for on Wikimedia Commons. Maybe it would be wise to change the actual category naming language standard so that English is used absolutely everywhere. But that would be quite a big change, and it should be brought up for principal discussion, rather than trying to force a change for a relatively limited number of categories and keep many other categories of the same kind unchanged. Blue Elf (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response! We have to assume that the two relevant policies, COM:LP and COM:CAT, were created and adapted as a result of community-wide consensus. Both of them apply globally. However, some users did not follow them (or created categories before these policies were written), and later other users (like you) considered the scheme the wrong names followed to be the norm. Often, there were not even a handful of users who have consciously decided to use non-English names. The only way to leave this vicious cycle is to show users that non-English category names are not the norm, by having at least some English object category names. I have manually renamed (and updated sortkeys and Commonscat links from other projects) "selected" categories of Austrian train stations for ~1,5 years now, and despite still being far from having given all categories English names, I don't remember anyone having voiced substantial objections so far. (On a side note, unlike German or Austrian churches, the English and local category names of Norwegian churches fortunately both start with the name of the respective church.)    FDMS  4    03:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Magerøya Midsund P1000540.jpg

File:Magerøya Midsund P1000540.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!

Plassekongen (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Lighthouse big.jpg

File:Lighthouse big.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!

De728631 (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hafrsfjord IMG 5997.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 17:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Fortepan

Hi, can you give me some help how to upload pictures from fortepan.hu easily? I mean is there some tool as for Flickr? Thanks for any advice. --RomanM82 (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately I don't know of a tool for it. When I upload pictures from Fortepan to Commons, I copy the file description from a similar picture and then fill in the right description, year, categories and so on. It is easy to make mistakes that way, but I try to be careful and check after I have uploaded the picture, so I can correct the mistakes if I have made any. Blue Elf (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ikke fredet bygninger

Vennligst se på tinget, takk --Sjokolade (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Aha. Dette med status for kulturminner er litt uklart for meg, derfor har jeg ikke gjort noe spesielt med de ulike "Cultural heritage"-kategoriene. Kanskje det bare er fordi jeg ikke har satt meg spesielt inn i det. Jeg har ikke noen spesiell mening om det du tar opp, dessverre, men hvis du finner ut noe lurt, så har jeg slett ikke noe imot om du flytter eller justerer litt på kategoriene det gjelder. Blue Elf (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

ok :) har en fin dag --Sjokolade (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Langenes kirke 20060731 1723.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Langenes kirke 20060731 1723.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:Nykvåg 20060729 1545.jpg

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It was pretty much bound to happen for one or more files. I have corrected it now. Blue Elf (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Østfold

Hello Blue Elf, what is the aim of these [2] [3] changes? --Hydro (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus that names beginning with Ø should be sorted under O. Blue Elf (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

My first reply to you was both too sharp and too short. Sorry for that. Also sorry for taking this long to reply properly.

After this issue came up, I tried to look for a guideline about sorting and alphabetization, but I couldn't find anything. The best I could find was this help page, where it says: "The sort key system should be obvious, otherwise the order seems random and items are hard to find." But what is obvious, then, isn't necessarily... well, obvious.

I suppose a lot boils down to what language we speak and are used to. The main language on Commons is English, which is natural and makes sense. But that doesn't mean that all such preferences need to follow those of (most of) the people with English as their first language. In practice, it doesn't.

I see that you have set this kind of defaultsort on several categories starting with the letters Ø, Ö and Å. I'll avoid the issue from now on (I know better than to get involved in edit wars), but I'll still argue that there is no consensus for this, and that it makes the sorting unpredictable and confusing. In general, I think we should be careful not to overdo defaultsort or sort keys, except in obvious cases like sorting categories for people on last names and so on. Blue Elf (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

File:2014-09-15 - Aerials of Devils Lake.jpg

File:2014-09-15 - Aerials of Devils Lake.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!

Leoboudv (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Tiger outside Oslo sentralstation.jpg

File:Tiger outside Oslo sentralstation.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!

Kjetil_r 17:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Tigerstaden.jpg

File:Tigerstaden.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!

Kjetil_r 17:48, 22 July 2016 (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:
Sortland - Strand ferry connection 1957.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment it would be useful to add the year of the taking of the photograph on the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support The scope is well defined according to Commons:VISC, no need for year in it. Useful image.--Grtek (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose For a historical value image request to the date in the scope is not unreasonable. Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Define where starts "historical" value and where ends any other kind of value. Second ago? Year ago? Decade ago? And again, please propose it to rules. In the moment there isnt anything anywhere written about that black and white images are valuable just because historical value and that images with historical value must have year in scope (and not just in description). --Grtek (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Archaeodontosaurus. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment We live in a world in 4 dimensions. For the first 3 we geocoding. If today I go to this place it is very probable that I will see things very different. I would be right in saying that this image mischaracterized the scope. This point is provided in the rules. Yet this difference is very interesting and the image must have a label VI. The only thing is to put 1957 in the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I have added the year to the scope now. Blue Elf (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Flere norske skisportsutøvere

Hei Blue Elf. Ser at Bruker:Materialscientist (listfiles) har lastet opp flere bilder fra digitalt museum av flere skisportsutøvere både norske og utenlandske. Er dette noe du vil ta deg av for innlegging av bilde og kategori på wikidata slik at bilde dukker opp i en wikidata-henterbilde infoboks på NO:WP. Jeg har fikset noen skøyteløpere som han lastet opp. I tillegg lastet han også opp en del boksere og brytere også fra digitalt museum ? Med vennlig hilsen Migrant (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Beklager at jeg ikke har svart deg før. Det kan hende at jeg pusler litt på Wikidata senere, men akkurat nå konsentrerer jeg meg mest om Commons. Blue Elf (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

IMO-nummer

Hei, jeg ser du har lagt inn IMO-nummer på Category:Roald Amundsen (ship, 1904). Hvor har du funnet dette nummeret? IMO-nummer ble innført på 1960-tallet, lenge etter at «Roald Amundsen» ble hugget. Jeg vet at Miramar Ship Index har operert med fiktive IMO-numre, muligens for å koble sammen ulike navn på et skip. - 4ing (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hei. Jeg fant nummeret i Skipshistorie, der det står under "Off.no". Jeg stusset også på det, for jeg er jo klar over at IMO-numrene ble innført senere. Ta det gjerne ut igjen, så skal jeg være mer kritisk til numrene som er oppgitt på det nettstedet heretter. Blue Elf (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Takk, jeg fant det også der etter å ha lett litt rundt. Vanskelig å vite hva de mener med "Off.no", men jeg ser for nyere fartøy at det spesifieres "IMO no". Da fjerner jeg nummeret. Commons håndterer uansett skifte av fartøynavn ved å kategorisere eldre navn under nyeste navn i de tilfelle IMO-nummer ikke eksisterer. - 4ing (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Another item on IMO numbers, for your information: I categorise ships with IMO numbers always by name as Category:Ships built in a certain country and by IMO number as Ships built at a certain shipyard. It has the advantage that in the IMO category for a shipyard only 1 built ship is mentioned, by that IMO number with different names. That is why I moved ships you already categorised by shipyard. It has another advantage, but less important: Categories by shipname direct always to the countries where the ships have been built, even when the yard not is given. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I see your point. It makes sense to connect the categories for ships by shipyard or ships built in X country to the IMO number, which is unique for each ship, and not to the ship names. The reason why I hadn't done it like that, is that I think the IMO numbers in the categories look quite "anonymous" - a name says more than just a number. I've had to think through this again today and get used to the idea, but I'll start doing it the way you prefer it from now on. Blue Elf (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I am considering categorizing ships by their home port (port of registration). There hasn't been a lot of that so far, only for a few countries. I have no better reason for it, I suppose, than that it can be an interesting way of grouping the ships, when that information is available. Do you think that sounds okay, or would it be rather pointless? Blue Elf (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Very good to add the home port categories. I did it for some Category:Ships registered in Rotterdam. It takes a lot of extra work for many ships to find the place of registration and the maintenance, that's all. I'll support it by adding more ship categories that way myself. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

categories for ships by home port

Hi, Blue Elf. When you place the metacat template for a category for ships by home port (for example, Category:Ships of Italy by home port), please use "home port" for the sort criterion instead of just "port". The documentation for Template:MetaCat explains this more. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Understood. I had just copied the metacat template that 4ing had put in one of the other categories, I hadn't thought of that. I'll remember the "home port" in there from now on. Blue Elf (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Earlier I checked all the ones that existed at that time and changed the ones that needed it. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Rheinland (ship, 1964)

Please have a check at the bow of the ship for her name. Then you will understand why I chose to categorise her with M/S. I alway use the name that has been painted on the ship. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I saw that, but I also saw that the M/S part was not included at the stern of the ship. But you can change the category name back, of course. Blue Elf (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Did not realise that. We'll keep the category as it is now. Thanks. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Both you and I could be right here. And I could have kept my fingers off it anyway. Blue Elf (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

IMO 8871297 (international)

Hi, Blue Elf. Please use for ships category name maritime English letters only! No multi-culti please, thanks,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, "multi-culti" is what Wikimedia Commons is about, and we should use the correct spelling of names. Blue Elf (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The category name follows the official policy described on Commons:Categories: Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which do not have an established English variant are not translated ad hoc but use the original form – Latin alphabets are used in original form including diacritics and derived letters, non-Latin alphabets are transcribed to the English Latin script. In this specific case, the ship name includes a diacritic letter, but it is written in the Latin alphabet. See also User_talk:4ing#SKANDI_ACU. - 4ing (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

For a couple of names of Japanese ship names I used an ō, which I am not absolutely certain that English transcription of Japanese uses. I'll avoid that if it turns out that I made a mistake there. And my knowledge of Latvian spelling is next to nothing. Some such letters in place names can be avoided because different name forms are used in English, like Munich for München or Copenhagen for København. I do use the English forms when I am aware of them and they seem to be used elsewhere on Commons. But avoiding letters like æ, ø, å, ä, ö completely isn't possible. For instance, the Norwegian town Tønsberg is called just that, not Tonsberg or Toensberg - and so on. Blue Elf (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• You don't understand me. Category:Liepāja (city) or Category:Krišjāņa Barona iela (Riga) is o.k. if you want. But I told you: Please use for ships category name maritime English letters only! Like here LIEPAJA and in international data base, this is an official name for international shipping, do not use the originally はやしお型潜水艦 (ship, 20xx) or Åǔŕųŵø (ship, 20xx), please avoid det (that), regards,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I could be wrong (that is always possible, of course), but I believe the official name is painted on the ship, and not necessarily to be found in one of many databases that may or may not be absolutely correct. Also, take a look at the picture on the page you linked to. Blue Elf (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• • Well, all right. The “File:Liepaja Riga Sign Riga 8 July 2016.jpg” is my file (own work), with description en : Sign ‘ Liepāja Riga’, Riga 8 July 2016, but in the file name and in the category name I avoid Non-English letters. By national registers the names of ships are in the languages of these countries and below the Russian name the name in English like here for example, Category name AKADEMIK SHOKALSKIY. In Poland or in the Baltic provinces of Russia, what was the name of this country? are the same rules. Are you from Poland? Ship Solidarność by Polish register changed to Solidarnosc in Vanuatu Category:Solidarnosc_(ship,_1991). Please do not change the category name!--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Russian Shipping, direct access from Wikimedia denied!--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree a little with you. As well as the name painted on the ship, the official spelling is probably the one used in the particular register that the ship is in. I don't know what the Latvian ship register says about Liepāja. But if I may take a different example, again from my own country Norway: The ship Bjørnvåg has that spelling in the Norwegian ship register, which is the official register that that particular vessel is in. MarineTraffic, Shipspotting and similar websites are useful places to find data for ships, but they are not official registers. In most cases I'll believe that the spelling that is actually on the ship is the official one, unless a better, authoritative source can be found. Blue Elf (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• • • • LIEPĀJA is the official name of this ship and her English Transliteration is LIEPAJA for all Maritime services all over the world, for pilot stations and WTAs, port authorities, for equasis (the best website for ship names worldwide) and all international regulations, court etc. We had in Norway national register and NIS register. In DNV (Det Norske Veritas) I had seen the name with Ö - HÖEGH OSAKA or an other ship name but we make the "Ordnung" in DNV-GL HOEGH OSAKA now. We can allow ö, å, ø in official names for Norwegian small ferries for national service but it would be very bad for us, for one billion Wikimedia users from Non-Norge. LIEPĀJA is good for Russia but bad for Brits and international use, regards--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I am uncertain of the status of DNV GL, even though I see the Wikipedia articles about it. But at least for the example of Hoegh Osaka, it doesn't matter, because the spelling of that ship is Hoegh, without the diacritics. I may think it's silly, but that's the name, as can be seen here or here. On the other hand, consider Höegh Trapper, which can be found in DNV GL as... Höegh Trapper, with the diacritics. Blue Elf (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• A very good find, but not only this mistake in this register, there is often a lack of well-educated personnel in developing countries. I am sure that equasis will not accept this letter Ö. I am very sorry to say that,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Höegh Autoliners, Our Fleet, for national use, Höegh Osaka --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Bislett stadion A-10505 Ub 0001 182.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Bislett stadion A-10505 Ub 0001 182.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Bislett stadion A-10505 Ub 0001 182.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

lNeverCry 21:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ships registered in Wuppertal

Category:Ships registered in Wuppertal? No, very unlikely. Wuppertal is not on a waterway. What is the source of the registration? --Atamari (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The source is this photo. But I admit that I don't know the area. Corrections are welcome, of course. Blue Elf (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Wuppertal has no waterways, no harbor, no pier, no dock. This picture shows Frankfurt (am Main). --Atamari (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I was refering to the home port written on the aft of the barge, which does say Wuppertal. But that could still be wrong, of course. Blue Elf (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Home port Wuppertal? Fake News! Why is Magic (Town) not the home port? --Atamari (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Blue Elf, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Tagging copyvios

Hi, When tagging copyright violations, please inform the uploader. This is best done using the gagdet. See in your preferences to enable them, tab "Gadget", section "Maintenance tools" : "AjaxQuickDelete" and "Quick delete". These add links in the left column (or right column for Hebrew, Arabic, etc., language interface). Regards, Yann (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Aha, okay. I'll do that then. Blue Elf (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Tagging copyvios

Hi, When tagging copyright violations, please inform the uploader. This is best done using the gagdet. See in your preferences to enable them, tab "Gadget", section "Maintenance tools" : "AjaxQuickDelete" and "Quick delete". These add links in the left column (or right column for Hebrew, Arabic, etc., language interface). Regards, Yann (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hm, I thought I did that? Blue Elf (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

KW 121

You renamed Category:Thalassa_(ship,_1964) to Category:Thalassa_(ship,_1963). Please realise that we use the date of completion, see:

kotterspotter.jouwweb.nl

KW 221 Arie Jacob

in 1964 gebouwd bij Scheepswerf Metz in Urk b.nr. 14 en afgebouwd bij Machinefabriek Gebr. de Mol in Katwijk, ingebouwd met

een 530 pk. Stork uit 1964, 25-6-1964 geregistreerd als KW 221 Arie Jacob van H. Krijgsman uit Katwijk aan Zee, afm. 29,94 x

6,44 x 2,95, BRT 134,74, roepletters: PCTZ, 10-1972 verlengd nu loa. 34,44 en BRT 141,64, 5-1973 nieuwe 800 pk., 589 kw.

Deutz van 1973, 1-9-1989 opgave id nr. NLD196400323, 4-1990 gesaneerd, 21-5-19990 uitgeschreven, in 1991 bij Scheepswerf

Friesland in Harlingen verbouwd tot partyschip "Thalassa" van J. Roode uit Schoonhoven, latere eigenaars gebr. Hans en Eddy

Heymen uit Huissen, motor: 270 pk., 199 kw. Cummins,imo 6514819.

So please revert. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I chose to trust De Binnenvaart, but apparently that was a mistake then. I'll change it back. Thanks for correcting me. Blue Elf (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I informed De Binnenvaart too. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

IMO 7925297 TRELLEBORG

According [4], [5], Shipspotting and Equasis built in 1982. Where did you find 1981? --Stunteltje (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Færgelejet has 10 October 1981 as date of build. But it happens that they get it wrong. Maybe I was too quick with changing the year on this one. Blue Elf (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Pour vos dernières modifcations vers "ship" je ne suis pas d'accord.

Et si vous n'avez pas compris le français, c'est non, cette catégorie était parfaite. --H₂O^(talk) 19:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The general rule is that category names should be in English, although I admit that that isn't as simple as it may seem. I have been on the other side of discussions about that about some other kinds of categories. Also, generally, the type of watercraft is identified by category, except for submarines and tugboats. (See Category:Ships.) So a barque should be identified as a ship in the category name. Blue Elf (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Je ne vous comprend pas, merci de me parler en français. --H₂O^(talk) 19:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Pardon. Je ne parle pas français, mais je traduirai aussi bien que possible avec Google Translate. La règle générale est que les noms de catégorie devraient être en anglais, bien que j'admette que ce n'est pas aussi simple que cela puisse paraître. J'ai été de l'autre côté des discussions à ce sujet au sujet d'autres types de catégories. En outre, généralement, le type de motomarine est identifié par catégorie, sauf pour les sous-marins et les remorqueurs. (Voir Category:Ships.) Ainsi, une barque devrait être identifiée comme navire dans le nom de la catégorie. Blue Elf (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

"Barque" étant un terme propre à ce ce type de navire du Léman, la catégorie "ship" doit se faire à la catégorie supérieure. --H₂O^(talk) 19:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Assez juste, je ne changerai pas les noms de catégories similaires. Vous pouvez annuler le changement que j'ai fait. Blue Elf (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for your edits to my photo uploads. Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ships registered in Ballard, Washington

Ok, so I didn't make [[Category:Ships registered in Radiator Springs]].

Category:Ships registered in Ballard, Washington seems to me like a dubious category. Ballard hasn't had a legal existence as a formal entity since it was annexed by Seattle in 1907. There's a strong sense of neighborhood pride & all that, and someone might choose to write "Ballard" on their boat rather than "Seattle," but I don't see any way a present-day craft could be in any serious sense registered in a place that doesn't even have clear boundaries or a legal existence. - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That's definitely a valid point. Hm... I also see now that we/I should have startet off with "Watercraft registered in..." instead of "Ships...", because it seems kind of silly to have small boats in ship categories. Blue Elf (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I leave you to sort this out, but I strongly suggest that category be removed, and that any ships that may say "Ballard" as place of registration on their stern be listed as registered in Seattle. - Jmabel ! talk 14:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.

Dear Blue Elf,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth 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 (2017) 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. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.

Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Baltika (ship, 2015)

Hello, I noticed that you moved this page from Category:Baltika (ship, 2014). There are two issues with this edit. First of all, category pages should never be moved with the "move" button like regular pages. If you need a new category, please start a new page from scratch and recategorise the images. Second, your source seems to be wrong because this report claims that Baltika entered service in December 2014. So 2014 is the year of build. I am therefore inclined to restore the 2014 category. De728631 (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You are probably right about the date (year). My source says Date of completion: 2.15, but it could be wrong. Why is it that categories shouldn't be moved with the "move" button? Is it because when it's done that way, the history will follow the new category instead of the old one? I hadn't thought it was a problem, but I'll do as you say from now on. Thank you for correcting me. Blue Elf (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, these moving instructions are not a Commons guideline. In fact, the official recommendation is to use the "move" tab. The main problem with moving category pages, however, is that most people forget to sort the files into the new page and just walk away after moving the category page. Therefore I always recommend using the method above. In case of controversial names like this, it also makes reverting easier. You did recategorize the images though, so that's not much of an issue and I won't mind you going on like this. As to the year of build, I'm going to put the files back into "2014". De728631 (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. I definitely see your pont there, it's easy to forget to sort the files into the new page. I always try to be careful about that, but if I do forget, don't hesitate to remind me to do it. And it's fine that you put the files back in the "2014" category, it does seem to be the correct one. Blue Elf (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Hermina (ship, 2008)

The ship has been built at Santierul Naval Orsova SA, Orsova, Romania. The Dutch yard De Waal, Werkendam. did not more than the finishing touch. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Point taken. Blue Elf (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ships built in ...

Hi Blue Elf, please check, wether a ship category, is already a subcat of a "Category:Ships built in ..." before adding it ([6], [7], [8], [9] etc.). Many of those categories are overloaded as it is already and shouldn't be additionally filled through overcats. Cheers, --MB-one (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I was actually waiting for that. There have been discussions about having the "Ships built in..." categories as subcategories of the ships' IMO number, and I certainly see the point in that, because the IMO number is a unique identifier for the ships. But I also think that would make it more difficult to get a quick overview of the ships' most important data, because one would have to check the IMO number category as well as the category for the ship's name. (Does that make sense?) As far as I know, the discussions haven't lead to a consensus on changing the practice. Blue Elf (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The question whether the building location should be at the IMO No or ship name level seems to be a different issue to me. Because regardless of that, the ship name category, shouldn't be categorized in the build country category, if it is already in a more specific category (e.g. by state or shipyard). --MB-one (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hm, maybe I misunderstood you. I try to avoid overcategorization. But I have also noticed that some ship name categories have both "Ships built in XX country" and "Ships built in XX ship yard". Blue Elf (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I categorise the IMO number category in Category:Ships built at a certain shipyard and the ship name category in Category:Ships built in a certain country. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Stunteltje: Sorry for interposing but... what is the logic behind that? - Jmabel ! talk 00:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The logic is that the IMO number identifies the vessel by every name, flag and so on. So the IMO category contains the ship by every name the ship gets in her lifetime. Usually changing flag means changing name. E.G. Category:IMO 5282627. The yard built only the ship with her first name. Categorising by name in the Category:Ships built at gives a not correct idea about the number of ships built there. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That's absurd. So the ship, under it's second name, was still built in a certain country, but no longer in a certain yard? - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I repeat: "Categorising by name in the Category:Ships built at gives a not correct idea about the number of ships built there." One has to use the IMO number for that purpose. By name isn't the yard mentioned, only the country. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Fishing ships of Iceland

Hi Blue Elf, I'm wondering why you changed the positions of all the hull numbers in these category names. Last time I checked there was consensus to create fishing ship category names like "AB123 Neptunus (ship, 1998)" instead of "Neptunus AB123..." De728631 (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I know it is common to have the registry number first, and I started out doing it that way for the fishing vessels from Iceland as well. But it seems to be (more or less?) standard practice in Iceland to have the registry number at the end. Like for instance for the ship Heimaey, with the registry number VE 1, see its entry at the Icelandic Directorate of Fisheries or the unofficial ship search at Icelandic newspaper Morgunblaðið. I don't really have a very strong opinion about it, though, and we could change it back. I have no plans to change this for fishing vessels from other countries.

Also, I am not absolutely certain whether there should be a space, a hyphen or nothing between the letters and the number, like VE 1, VE-1 or VE1. All of those seem to be used, but the space seems to be the most common, at least when the numbers are painted on the ships. Blue Elf (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, now I see your motivation. In this light we might just keep your new categories. Concerning the pennant numbers, I seem to remember that there was some sort of consensus here to not use any separation characters like hyphens or spaces at all. Ideally though, we want to go with the numbers as they come in any official registration documents. So, if Fiskistofa uses "VE-1" that should be our designation too. De728631 (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2018 (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:Gallio ski jump.jpg

Yours sincerely, BevinKacon (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

File:The Millau Viaduct 20140102 124231.jpg

File:The Millau Viaduct 20140102 124231.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!

68.193.211.254 02:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

File:The Millau Viaduct 20140102 124521.jpg

File:The Millau Viaduct 20140102 124521.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!

68.193.211.254 02:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Category Ships Bonn

Hi! You've created the Commons Cat "Category:Ships named Bonn", but there's already existing that one: "Category:Ships named after Bonn". Greets from Bonn - --Sir James (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, I hadn't noticed that. I have put the 'Ships named Bonn' into the category 'Ships named after Bonn' now. Blue Elf (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Glenorchy / Italia

Can you explain what's going on here? Why is it desired to change the category to use a later name of the same ship? And why now have two categories for this ship? - Jmabel ! talk

Ah yes. The photo was categorized under the original ship name Glenorchy, but in the file name and summary it is Italia, so I created a category for that name and moved the photo to it. However, according to the information here, the name of the ship would actually have been Fratelli Beverino in 1904... Blue Elf (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Title came from University of Washington Libraries, and we try to keep titles from institutions unless they are dead wrong, but I think if the category merited change at all it should be to the name at the time of the photo. FWIW, I went with Glenorchy because it is a much less common name for a ship, and much more likely to be useful for anyone searching for further info. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I could have left it as it was, fair enough. But as far as I know, we try to keep ship photos in categories of the name they have at the time, rather than just one category for each ship, regardless of the name they had at the time. (Obviously for newer ships that have IMO numbers and similar, but also for older ships.) Blue Elf (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Totara (ship, 1924)

You have added back category:Ships of Australia. Why?

This is not a trick question, I need you to follow my explanation why this is not a "ship of Australia" (and I doubt it is even in Australia). When your categorisation is explained then we can talk more. You may know more than I do. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There was a risk that that might be wrong, and I see now that it probably is. The thing is, lots of photos that were uploaded from the State Library of Queensland were put in the "Ships of Australia" category when they were uploaded to Commons, without any checking if they actually were from Australia. I am looking through many of the photos in that category now, and I have fixed the error for some of them, but for some, I have just moved the "Ships of Australia" category from the photo to the ship category without actually checking it. So sometimes the error persists, unfortunately. It seems that this happened with Totara. According to Miramar Ship Index (if it's the same ship, but it probably is), Totara was registered in New Zealand and for a short time in the UK. I'll fix the error. Miramar has the year of completition as 1925 - I guess 1924 could be the year it was launched. Would it be ok to change the building year to 1925? Blue Elf (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a very good chance that both Kiwi ships, owned by the ANCHOR SHIPPING & FOUNDRY CO. LTD. are in Wellington in this photo. The clincher would be the whereabouts of the SS Cape Verde. See here https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/s-s-cape-verde-2. Also the VW van is post 1949. Actually if you look at this photo, just behind the funnel of the Titoki see the side of the shed roof there are two sidewall windows, just the same as the shed in this photo. https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=320250&nojs=1 Broichmore (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the categories now, but kept the building year at 1924. Blue Elf (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

single-entry sub-categories

do not really serve any useful function and do obfuscate the parent category. Please avoid unless you have high confidence more images will appear chortly. Dankarl (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

In principle I agree with that. But there are some exceptions. I have made new sub-categories with just one entry for things like individual ships, ships by home port, ski jumping hills by country... But when I diffuse bigger categories, I usually avoid creating a sub-category unless I have at least 5 entries to put in it. Blue Elf (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sunrise (ship, 2016)

Hi, Talk me through me it, why is this a ship and not a yacht? I specifically changed ship to yacht, because this is one of those names that defies logical search patterns, and from memory I actually populated the cat with several stray images that had previously eluded others. That's why I changed it. Broichmore (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it was nitpicking from me. But in Category:Ships it is explained: 'Submarines use "<name> (submarine, <year>)" and tugs/towboats use "<name> (tugboat, <year>)". All other types are identified by category:Ships by type.' So according to that, all other watercraft should be named as ships. Blue Elf (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Mmmm Yes, well a yacht is closer to a boat than a ship isn't it. I'm constantly dismayed at how rules can be set in stone here, by people who know Jack about ships, or who have a prejudice that they should conform to the same classification system as a barge. Broichmore (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I see your point to some degree. I suppose it was set that way just to make it easy to show categories of watercraft, and without making much point in the category names of exactly what kind of watercraft, but leave that for the "Ships by type" categories. But then, they could have dropped the 'tugboat' and 'submarine' parts, too... Blue Elf (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I would promote the idea of moving yachts away from ships, from a catting viewpoint its a very messy area, unless they are involved in the Americas race, they are poorly documented and almost always virtually unrecognisable to a name or even an owner. Added to which they are very often named cheaply, there must be many thousands of Sunrises. The exception being, steam yachts which are are really ships despite their name. Broichmore (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Hurtigruten Geirangerfjorden.jpg

File:Hurtigruten Geirangerfjorden.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!

 — billinghurst sDrewth 11:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hurtigruten minutt for minutt

I copied all the images from the NRKbeta's Hurtigruten minutt for minutt album to the Commons. They are all in the Hurtigruten minutt for minutt category. Can you please add additional categories to these images (if applicable)? Many thanks -- Meisam (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I'm also trying to transcode and upload their free version of the Hurtigruten minutt for minutt to the Commons. The description pages with the missing files are there as the place-holder. -- Meisam (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Blue Elf (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ships of Liberia vs Ships registered in Monrovia

I've been reverting a couple of your changes, adding "Ships of Liberia" (and the like) to categories which are already a member of "Ships registered in Liberia", per COM:OVERCAT. Typically, the "registered in" categories are already subcats of the "ships of <country>", so it's redundant category to add. In particular, I think it's more appropriate for flags of convenience, as there is nothing besides paperwork linking the ship to the country -- there may be more of a case when a ship is built in a country and run by a company there, and spends a lot of its life there, even though it may still technically be an overcategorization. But for many international ships the "registered in" is the more accurate category, for me, and we don't need the other. Do you disagree? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Gruppe-G Brühl 2018.JPG

Hallo, weshalb änderten Sie an meinem in Brühl aufgenommenen Photo? Gibt es dafür einen Grund? Oder war es nur Vandalismus? --GFHund (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I removed the category for Carmen Voicu, because she isn't in the photo. (At least I don't think I can see her in that one?) Blue Elf (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Das Foto zeigt ihren Sohn! Weshalb soll die Familie getrennt werden? --GFHund (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be natural to just have her in that category. But it isn't important. Just put it back. I certainly didn't intend it as vandalism. Blue Elf (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Tugboats of the United Kingdom

Hi Blue Elf

You have removed the Category:Tugboats of the United Kingdom from a number of my photographs of tugboats of the United Kingdom. Could you explain why you thought this was necessary? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. The categories for those tugboats were already categorized as Tugboats of the United Kingdom, and they were the only such boats on those photographs, so it wasn't necessary to have the photographs as well in that category. Blue Elf (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the reponse. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Water_cannon_salutes_at_sea

Water cannon salutes at sea 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!

Geo Swan (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Kronprinsesse Märtha (ship, 1929)

According this source the ships name was also with an "Umlaut" in the year the image had been taken. So I grouped the images in one category. It is possible the move was not complete, according the categories. Please have a look and correct where nessecarry. Thanks in advance.--Stunteltje (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, when I moved those images to a separate category, I just thought that the Sjøhistorie entry for it was the least reliable one. It does seem from this image (from Færgelejet) that the name is without umlaut now. Blue Elf (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

That site gives her the name Kronprinsessan Martha and that name matches the images of 2018 and 2019. So your categorisation was right. I revert mij transfer of the images. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ships by year

Hej Blue Elf. Læs venligst beskrivelsen i Category:Ships by year of manufacture. På Commons har vi en regel om, at skibes årstal følger året for færdiggørelsen. Eksempel: HMS Magnificent, færdigt i 1895 og ikke i 1894. Ved godt, at man på engelsk Wikipedia følger årstallet for søsætning - men det her er altså Commons. Håber du kan forliges med dette. Venlig hilsen --Rsteen (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hei. Jeg vet jo det, og er i prinsippet enig med deg. Problemet er at det ser ut til at det også er ganske gjennomført at året for stabelavløpning brukes for "year of manufacture" for eldre britiske skip. Det burde definitivt vært samme praksis for alt, og at det skal følge året for ferdiggjørelsen, men jeg er redd noen andre vil protestere kraftig dersom jeg begynner å følge det slavisk. Blue Elf (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, så du kender problematikken. Det er til at leve med hvis kategorien for HMS Magnificent hedder noget med 1894 - så er der taget hensyn til englænderne - men den er nødt til at være sorteret som Category:Ships built in 1895 - ellers oplyser vi noget fejlagtigt til brugerne. Og jeg synes stadig det giver mest mening, hvis årstallene følges ad. Venlig hilsen --Rsteen (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rsteen: You may be right, but I find that dates by launch is correct. Yes, the encyclopaedia does it differently. Wikipedia is the first port of call for a reader researching a ship, we look at its disambiguation pages to know where to search in Commons. We should be compatible with it. Both wikis will grow exponentially, and it is accelerating, now is the time for us to be compatible with the goto site. Wikipedia should prevail, because it will. Wikipedia is destined to supplant the great majority of shipping sites on the net. Ships that always had the destiny to be notable ships have launch dates. In any case Wikidata is increasingly taking over search on Wikimedia, so I guess this as a subject doesn't really matter, even though Wikidata is a very poor at what it attempts to do. Broichmore (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Well Wikidata may not be perfect, but it is an attempt to merge the knowledge we have, so different sites do not give different information. Wasn't too keen on it myself at the start, but it kind of grows on you when you use it. The way I see it, you can have your stories and eloquence on Wikipedia, and the hard facts on Wikidata. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:HMS San Josef (ship, 1797)

The correct category name for this ship is "HMS San Josef (ship, 1797)" not Category:HMS San Josef (ship, 1783). The system disambiguator is the year of capture. Please revert your edits. While your at it please leave San José (ship, 1783) as it is.  Broichmore (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I have corrected it back already, any other similar examples you may have changed, please correct them. Thanks. Broichmore (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:HMS Fisgard (ship, 1797)

Category:HMS Fisgard (ship, 1797) is now incorrect. It is not HMS Fisgard (ship, 1795). The year of capture and commission into the RN is 1797. Please fix it. If you want to make such radical changes you should be contacting the original editor before proceeding. Regards Broichmore (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There is apparently some discussion about whether the building year should be when the ship was completed or when it was launched. But do we have a rule that the building year should be when the ship was captured? That really doesn't make any sense to me. Blue Elf (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In this particular case it is the year of commission into the Navy in question, that counts. That is a fixed, undeniable, date. It is also a date that a ship is named. Many captured and or bought ships into the navy have no known launch or build dates, so it's convenient.

In addition, Navies often repeat names, and bought in ships often have launch dates within the service period of the older ship. Additionally the RN would often keep the original name, even anglicize it, but it's not a rule. Wikipedia and other bodies follow this rule too.

Regarding launch dates, in a more general sense, they are preferred in Wikipedia because, again, there is only one launch date for a ship, the ship is named on that date, it is afloat, whereas there are several dates that are arguably build dates. Also, it has to be said the various build dates available tend to be poorly documented in the public domain.

The thing to emphasize here is that these two occurrences are naming dates, and a ship is a ship when it floats.

Where is the current discussion your referring to? - Broichmore (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, there is one explanation at Category:Ships by year of manufacture, where it says: "Subcategories include categories for specific ships (Category:Ships by name). These are named in the form "<shipname> (ship, <year built>)", sample: "Category:Queen Elizabeth (ship, 2010)". If the year of completion is not available or can't be found, use the year of the maiden voyage or the year of launching." I do agree with Rsteen that the different uses of the year of launching or completion can be confusing, but both ways are used here and it may be difficult to change into just one single practice. It still really doesn't make sense to me to use the year of capture in the category name, with the possible exception where that year is known and neither the year of launch or completion is known. Blue Elf (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is so wrong its just not funny. We should be following Wikipedia's lead not only on date of capture as in this case, but also on using date of launch. Where to discuss this, to get it changed?, we really need to revise this way of doing things.

Your in discussion elsewhere on the topic of en:HMS Decoy (H75). On Commons this is Category:HMS Decoy (ship, 1932) and also Category:HMCS Kootenay (ship, 1932) the same ship the same hull. It changed name and ownership in 1943. Ridiculous. Only 4 images and yet two categories. There only needed to be one, with a redirect. Are we a source for research or just a vanity filing exercise? I have to say if en:Zsa Zsa Gabor was married nine times are we supposed to have 9 categories for name changes, even though the chassis is unchanged. Broichmore (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Horns Rev (ship, 1914)

Is there a special reason why you changed te category? In Commons we use the name as painted on the ship, without any prefix. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You are right. I wasn't sure if just Horns Rev was the full, official name of the ship, that's why I made the redirect to the category that had the images. We should pronbably turn it around then, and make Motorfyrskibet Horns Rev (ship, 1914)‎ redirect to Horns Rev (ship, 1914). Blue Elf (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. Hope it works. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Useful websites

Hej Blue Elf, I didn't want to edit your user page, so I'm going to leave this here: Bureau Veritas Registers is also a convenient place to search for ship data. De728631 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A-ha. Thank you! Blue Elf (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

HMS Decoy (ship, 1933)

Hej Blue Elf. I Commons bruger vi "year of completion", og det er 1933 og ikke 1932. Du bruger selv Miramar som kilde, og de har 1933 som året. I en-wiki bruger man året for søsætning (1932), men ikke i Commons. Så tilbagefør venligst. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hei. Dette har vært diskutert før. Det er varierende praksis på dette, men det ser ut som at det særlig for britiske marineskip har vært vanlig å bruke året for sjøsetting, også her på Commons. For de fleste andre skip er det som du sier, slik at "year of completition" brukes. Dette er dermed ikke konsekvent. Miramar bruker derimot alltid "year of completition", der det er kjent. Blue Elf (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hej igen. Ja, det har været diskuteret, og der er kun en rigtig praksis på Commons. Se Category:Ships by year of manufacture og den tilhørende diskussion. Du har taget et skib, der var oprettet korrekt (med 1933) og rettet det til noget forkert (1932). Som skrevet på diskussionen er vi ligeglade med, hvad man gør på engelsk Wikipedia - dette er Commons. Venlig hilsen --Rsteen (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Jeg er enig i at det er inkonsekvent og at det ikke er helt godt. Men det er altså en praksis som i nokså stor grad også brukes her på Commons. Blue Elf (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hej igen. Når du er enig i, at det er inkonsekvent og at det ikke er helt godt, hvorfor opmuntrer du så en praksis, der er imod reglerne på Commons, ved tage et skib, der var oprettet korrekt (med 1933) og retter det til noget forkert (1932)? Venlig hilsen --Rsteen (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Rsteen He did that to be compatible with Wikipedia. That would be a good reason. A ship s birth is when it floats and is named, that happens on the same day, In this case 1932. This ship was built in 1931 and 1932. It was on trials commissioning in 1933. There is no evidence of any build as such in 1933, perhaps only the use of a spanner. Build is the most open ended poorly defined term on ships, a project with more imprecise terms than any other. People research ships on Wikipedia and then go to Commons for further information and they expect to see the same title here as there. Why is it you continue to think this project isolated from Wikipedia. You visited the other Wiki to research your answer, yet made no contribution there not even to put in a commons link. Why are you on this project if your not willing to make this category used or make its contents more accessible? Broichmore (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Broichmore. You are asking me why I am on this project. Really? To provide illustrations that can become part of our shared knowledge. Normally it works just fine. To secure that the illustrations are searchable we have a categorization system and that system has some rules. When we follow those rules things should run smoothly. When users depart from the rules it should be pointed out - and it has been - and that is really all there is to it. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Rsteen As usual you pick out the rhetorical part of the question, and fail to answer the rest of it. So please answer the question, which is why are you defending the wiki not being compatible with Wikipedia. A ship s birth is when it floats and is named, that happens on the same day, In this case 1932. This ship was built in 1931 and 1932. It was on trials commissioning in 1933. There is no evidence of any build as such in 1933, perhaps only the use of a spanner. Build is the most open ended poorly defined term on ships, a project with more imprecise terms than any other. People research ships on Wikipedia and then go to Commons for further information and they expect to see the same title here as there. Why must this project be isolated from Wikipedia? If there is an unwillingness to contribute even a commons link to Wikipedia, then it is blatantly not working.

Hi again Broichmore. This is Blue Elf's discussion page and you are heading out on a tangent. If you want to change the system of Category:Ships by year of manufacture, there are forums for proposing that. Have a nice evening --Rsteen (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Meteor (ship, 1869)

Hi Elf, May I ask why you ane changed this from yacht to ship. I had good reason to create is as a yacht. Broichmore (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. We use 'ship' in the category name for most watercraft, except for a few types like tugboats or submarines. It's a bit nitpicking on my part, I know that, but I think it's good to mostly use the standard ways of naming the categories. Blue Elf (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Meteor is one of the most common names for a yacht, That's why I created yacht. I have defended our use of ship before. However it can be arse stupid in some cases, I would argue that in the case of yachts in particular that they need to be disambiguated. There are just too many yachts out there not to. As it is, the policy talks about general format. It does not say that we cant be sensible and employ yacht. There are certain types that are way out there on their own, one is yacht, (and by extension, even, steam yacht?) the others are tugboat and submarine. We should only default to ship in cases where its some problem to differentiate between ship and boat. I don't get it, why have tugboat and submarine and not yacht or barge. Forgive me I see nothing in policy to prohibit this. It has become an important topic. Before I could justify ship because of the category Ships by name, but ever since a moron came onto the scene and changed it into a hidden cat called Ships by name (flat list) I cant. Grateful for your thoughts on this? Broichmore (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: , I have the same concerns with Blue Elf converting ferry to ship. They are ferries irrespective of whether they are ships or boats. Indeed I was a little shocked to see 100s of such changes to the Sydney Ferries categorisations. Now there's a mix of ships and ferries. And autofil of categories is now confusing.

I don't think "convention" is sufficient justification.--Merbabu (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

in Structured data, tagging. noticed a category you created.

tagging in Quito on lockdown. great job.!!!!!

Blue Elf   

what a cool name .....) oct. 18. 2020 (UTC)

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	For all the amazing work. Blue Elf what a cool name .....) oct. 18. 2020 (UTC)

Boats categories, need help

Hello Blue Elf,
have a look, please, at the categories Category:MZ-9 (tugboat, 1986) and Category:Sigurd (ship, 2015) and make additions if necessary.
Yours faithfully, George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow. Blue Elf (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I am understanding this little by little... So, it seems that MMSI 272003100 (FleetPhoto.ru) and MMSI 214182726 (FleetPhoto.ru) are probably the same tugboat, registered first in Odessa in Ukraine and then in Giurgiulesti in Moldova. According to FleetPhoto it was built in 1986. If I understand it right, the MMSI number was 272003100 when you photographed it. Does that sound correct to you? Blue Elf (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Sigurd was actually easier to find, at Fleetphoto again. I'll add the relevant categories to it. Blue Elf (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks.

I'm not a ship specialist, so i probably made a mistake with the MZ-9.

Indeed, if you use Google search with "mz-9 tug", you can find almost the same ship(s) with two different MMSIs. Fill in the details that you think are correct.

And also the flag: Moldova or Ukraine? There are two stripes drawn on the pipe: blue and yellow. I think this is an indication that now the flag of Ukraine should be considered.

All this is a bit like a detective investigation of secrets .

I use sites www.marinetraffic.com and www.vesseltracker.com to clarify details.

With best regards, George -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the MMSI number confused me a bit. But if I understand it right now, that number changes when a ship is registered in another country (unlike an IMO number). For the nationality of this tugboat, the registration place Odessa (actually Odesa-19) is painted on it, so it was definitely registered in Ukraine when you photographed it. Blue Elf (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, i will rename now this categories with added year. Wait fev minutes, please... --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You have already done this before me. OK, I suggest deleting the old categories, since they are not used by anyone except us and only exist for one day. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I did it for Sigurd, and I was about to do it for MZ-9, but I paused because I didn't want to interfere with what you did. Blue Elf (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Deleted both. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ship or ferry?

You have been changing Sydney ferry categories to "ships". I prefer "ferry" as that is more accurate in most of these cases than "ship", but it doesn't look like there is much point arguing the point with you. So, about 100 ferries are now categorised as "ships" and there remains another 100 remains as "ferries". I would suggest if you are not willing to revert back to "ferry' then you continue with the change for all Sydney ferries, then you will also need to delete the redundant ferry categories. I use the autofill when adding categories to new ferry pictures - this is going to be difficult if there is no consistency and both choices remain. --10:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The convention is that 'ship' is used for most watercraft, except tugboats and submarines. See "How to name the category" in Category:Ships. Blue Elf (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Overcats

Hello Blue Elf, regarding to your contributions, please let me know, what is your intention to create so many overcategorizations? All ships can be built once, so the shipyard and the year of completion should be subject of the respective IMO category. All shipyards are already subcategories of Category:Shipbuilding by country, therefore it’s an overcategorization in the ships name category. More overcategorizations are the Ships by home port. These ports are already subcategories of Category:Ships by country. For example: A ship registered in Bergen is already categorized as a ship of Norway. Best regards --Ein Dahmer (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, but it seems that there are a few users who have started removing categories without discussing that practice properly first and reaching a reasonable degree of consensus about it.

I understand very well the concept of overcategorization, and I try to avoid it as much as I can. But the way some users are now operating, it leaves very little basic information in the main ship categories. That makes it far less useful as an oversight, not least to less experienced users than you and me. Less experienced users will not know that they have to look into various other categories (often the categories for the IMO number) to find that information.

Take a look at the advice in Category:Ships.

D. More elements to add to the category description

The following can be added manually or in series by bot.

• Category for the ship's year of construction.

Sample: "Alexander von Humboldt II (ship, 2011)" uses "Ships built in 2011".

Remember, Commons and the categories were not created only for the most experienced users, but to be useful for everyone.

Blue Elf (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Advice

Hi. I'm not familiar with Commons at all, apart from uploading some images, but am just passing this on in case you have some further advice or wish to do an update yourself. Having created a set index page for ships of this name in Wikipedia, I discovered (via Google, I think) the Category:Lalla Rookh (ship, 1876), for which you seem to be one of the recent primary editors. My page in Wikipedia is here, and I'm not sure if it's possible or desirable to link the two somehow. At the moment, that ship is only in the set index article at the moment, but may be created as an article at some point in the future. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2021 (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:Approaching the Millau Viaduct 20140102 123012.jpg

And also:

• File:Approaching the Millau Viaduct 20140102 123019.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Category 'Europa (ship, 1953)'

Dear Blue Elf, you added 'Vlissingen' in the a.m. category. I think this does not make sense, as the other categories about the same ship under 'IMO 5197664' don't have this addition.--Wolfgang Fricke (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Ingrid Knutsen at Birkenhead.jpg

No idea what that means. Can you help me out? Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It was for the tugboat. But true, I could have just added the category for the name of it instead. I have done that now. Blue Elf (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I thought it was too incidental to mention. You certainly wouldn't use it to represent the tug. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

vessels info

Hi Blue Elf,
take a look at the Category:Australia (tugboat, 1986), please. Perhaps you can add some information, especially for the second file.
With best regards, George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I will take a look at it. Blue Elf (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Troms museum og Kystmuseene

Hei Blue Elf. Jeg landet på siden din etter å ha sett

• 

  Honningsvåg bilde til Commons fra 25. november 2012

Det er jo en god del år siden, dog stedet i Honningsvåg som er avbildet, ikke har endret seg radikalt siden.

Jeg ser du er tilknyttet Museum Nord. Jeg leter etter wikimedianere i nær-området og hvis du har noen pågående skrive-prosjekter tilknyttet Tromsø vil jeg gladelig være med på prosjektet. Det er forøvrig Tromsø jeg har base
NB: Jeg har drevet med wikipedia-relatert arbeid i vel et år siden 2020.
--Mathias -Ahoy (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Question about categorizing ships

Hello Blue Elf,

I know nothing about ships. I go though the files having no categories and many ships have a category that fits their name. However, when there is no existing category, what should I do? For example, for the USS Florida all the existing categories do not fit some of the images. Is there a general category where such images can be put to get them out of the massive "uncategorized" files? Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2021 (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:Wenche Foss i roser.jpg

Yours sincerely, 4ing (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Fishing vessel finder

Hi Blue Elf. Since you are keeping this huge list of ship-related websites on your user page, I wondered if you knew whatever happened to the FAO fishing vessel finder. Their online database search seems to have gone inactive a while ago, but it is still linked at https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/collection/fvf. De728631 (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately I don't. I can't remember using that one before, but I may have tried it once and not got it to work. Blue Elf (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Blue_Toon_(ship,_1994)

Category:Blue_Toon_(ship,_1994) 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!

Motacilla (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/Technical#File pages ask for confirmation when closing them, even when there are no unsaved changes (bug) screenshot

I added {{Clear}} below the screenshot to prevent it running into the next section (see the version where the screenshot had just been added). Also, the licensing on that screenshot is questionable. Brianjd (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes. The screenshot really isn't important, and I don't mind it at all if it gets deleted. I thought it would be okay as it's just a screenshot of the confirm message on the Commons page. Blue Elf (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I expect that the message itself would be below the threshold of originality (too simple to be copyrighted), but the screenshot also shows much of the Commons interface and the Commons file you had open. Brianjd (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Again, no problem if you or someone else nominates it for deletion. Blue Elf (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The easiest way to fix this would be for you to remove the image from the village pump, then tag it {{SD|G7}} (uploader requests deletion of recent unused upload). Brianjd (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. Blue Elf (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)