User talk:Ies/Archive 2019-1

so please remove the deletion tag thank you--Ghjklopui (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can's see any evidence that the production house permits a publishing of their posters under a free license. Please show me the evidence if you can. -- Ies (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ies. I thank you for removing my copyrighted images. This has happened to me many times before. Could you please tell me where I could get images that are not copyrighted. I would help me out a bunch. EDG 543 15:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EDG 543, there are several ways to get and upload free images.

1. Take your own photographs. Useful cameras are not so expensive anymore.
2. Only upload images that are explicitly published under a free license accepted by Commons. (Don't ask me for reliable sources. I only upload my own photographs.) Avoid any image published under another or unknown license.
3. Ask the copyright owner (frequently difficult or not to identify) whether he permits a publishing of his non-free image under a free license. Prove that permission by using the Open-source Ticket Request System.

-- Ies (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ies,

Have you considered being an admin? You seem to have the knowledge to be one. -- 1989 (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bei der Datei waren wir beide gleichzeitig am Werk. :) De728631 (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Da läuft mal wieder so ein Massenupload ohne Sinn und Verstand. Schlechte Bilder, keines davon kategorisiert und auch noch viele Copyvios dazwischen.

File:3qg6 zgp6rI.jpg

-- Ies (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not Nonsense categories, they are user categories, they will eventually be stacked under my personal category hierarchy, as done now. And if you feel they be deleted, do so. I don't fight with Commons admins.--Vinayaraj (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vinayaraj, user categories like Category:Photographs Vinayaraj and its subcategories are ok. A user category for each and every location you visited, however, is greatly overdone. Please collect your travel photos together in Category:Travel photos Vinayaraj. Feel free to make some subcategories for different countries or so, but don't make parallel categories for each and every location. Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find this very handy to manage my photos, and if you find it is against the rules, enlighten me and delete them--Vinayaraj (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear les; the photograph in this book cover (File:Carlos Silveira 1995 2.jpg) is my work; I uploaded it in Wikimedia and used it in Carlos Silveira's page in Portuuguese Wikipedia (in the book cover a symmetrical version was used, but the photo is the same); I believe this is the only relevant item in the book cover and there is no reason for it to be deleted.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manuelvbotelho, you might be right. But unfortunately there are many copyvios uploaded every day and frequently the uploaders claim like you that they have the copyright. Actually they don't. Therefore please prove that you (and not the publishing house!) have the copyright of this book cover by using the Open-source Ticket Request System. Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Les; actually, although I am the author of the photo, the copyright of the book belongs to "Ordem dos Farmacêuticos" (I just looked it up). I could easily get their permission since I provided all the book's images, but I can't waste any more time with this unimportant question. So, please apply the rules. Greetings.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not resore the first version. Can you just delete it?

Unfortunately it turns out that the first version is from a video that is actually an enactment in part, and not the actual scene of Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu awaiting execution. I tried to delete it, but could not find out the mechanism to do that. I then tried to replace the image by an image from an actual video clip. I tried to grab the most descriptive frame, but unfortunately it is too fuzzy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaiya (talk • contribs) 18:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malaiya, do I understand right that both versions are taken from a video? Who actually is copyright owner of this video and under what license was it published? -- Ies (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph of the cover page of the Revue has been taken by myself and is not copyrighted. The editor himself (Mr Marc William Debono) wishes it to be published. Please cancel the deletion note (copyvio tag). Many thanks - Reagards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emi21701 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emi21701, as the Plastir magazine isn't published under a free licence its publishing at Commons is not permitted. This is valid for derivative works like photographs of the Plastir magazine as well. See Commons:Derivative works. Moreover there isn't any trace of evidence that the true copyright holders (Publishing house and photographer and maybe but certainly not only the editor of the cover page) permit a publishing under a free license. If there is actually a valid permission please use the Open-source Ticket Request System to prove that. -- Ies (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Les,

The image of Dr.Beth Shubin Stein is from her website and she asked me to help her create a Wikipedia page for herself since she is not familiar with the platform. Could you kindly let me know why the image cannot be accepted in this case?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doinashalaru (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doinashalaru, this image is taken from a website that unmistakeable says "All rights reserved". That means that any content of this website is NOT published under a free license and therefore NOT allowed to be published at Commons. This is a very clear and simple case. If your story is true and Dr. Beth Shubin Stein wants you to upload her image, she

• either has to alter the copyright note on her website from "All rights reserved" to a free license accepted by Commons
• or serve with another image of her. Note that before you upload this image (not taken by you) you have to prove that you have the permission to upload this image under a free license by using the Open-source Ticket Request System.

-- Ies (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've altered the copyright note and added the free license text to her page in Wordpress. Do I need to try submitting the image again in this case?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doinashalaru (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Les

Delete - I got myself very confused although I thought I knew what I was doing. They are paintings , of course but the information and representation came from the source mentioned by Hart-Davis. Only after I had put the media up did I read that any use of representations apart from family copyrights have to be cleared in writing. The publisher may no longer exist as I can't find them on the web Dorkinglad (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dear, Let me remind you there are few pictures of pre-ejaculatory fluid present directly on a human penis. Also, pictures of white cocks outnumber black ones. And I don't think the picture I uploaded is of a VERY low quality. Will be obliged if you return it to EACH of the categories I mentioned. Otherwise, that throbbing cock would be very happy to find its way up your mouth. Celeb slipper (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Ies, kannst Du bitte einmal hier im Abschnitt Fehler schauen. Es geht um dieses Bild und evtl. auch um die weiteren drei Bilder in der Category:Brenscheider Bach. Freundliche Grüße --Asio 21:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für den Hinweis, Asio! -- Ies (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Love 2019 has ended and team Wiki Loves Love sends you greetings and appreciation for joining us in spreading love around the globe and documents how love is expressed in different cultures. We hope to see you again in 2020. Till then stay tuned to know the results of WLL19 that will be out in this April. Please make sure that your email is enabled so we can communicate with you if you are one of our prize winners.(learn more how to do)

Best regards.

Wiki Loves Love International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Essen Werden - Sankt Lucius 13 ies.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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Martin Sg. (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murals in Frankfurt am Main 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Nadi2018 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

• File:Hagen - Spinngasse 04 ies.jpg

Yours sincerely, GMG^talk 10:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Ies, ich habe zufällig gerade gesehen, das Du kürzlich diese Kategorie zwischen zwischen der Oberkategorie Category:Culture of Frankfurt am Main und der Unterkategorie Category:Graffiti in Frankfurt am Main. Nun dürften derzeit die meisten Bilder in letzterer Auftragsarbeiten und damit kein Vandalismus sein. Wäre es daher nicht vielleicht sinnvoller, einzelne Bilder statt der kompletten Unterkategorie in Category:Vandalism in Frankfurt am Main einzuordnen? Zumal Vandalismus auch nicht unbedingt ein Kultur-Akt ist, oder :-) Viele Grüße --Zinnmann (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zinnmann: Wenn es Auftragsarbeiten sind, dann dürfe es kein Graffiti sein... die Unschärfe ist mir schon lange aufgefallen und mir fällt da kein schneller Weg ein dies auch zu flicken.

Lt. dem Artikel de:Graffiti zählt auch Scratching, Etching, Reverse Graffiti, Moos-Graffiti und selbst die Category:Knitted graffiti zählt zu den Graffiti. Also Graffiti ist ein meiner Meinung wie ich den Artikel verstehe ein "Graffiti" für nicht im Vorfeld gestattete Straßenkunst, egal welcher Technik. Ein Graffiti-Kunstwerk, das eine Auftragsarbeit ist, passt dann nicht in diesem Kategorieschema. Wenn ich mit meinen Rückschlüssen für die Kategorien falsch liege - muss der Artikel komplett neu geschrieben werden. Mit anderen Worten: wie Arbeit in dem Kategorie-Ast Street Art. Atamari (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atamari, das habe ich jetzt nicht verstanden. Wenn exakt das gleiche Bild (um es neutral auszudrücken) einmal "wild" und ohne Auftrag und einmal mit Auftrag erstellt wird, ist es im ersten Fall Graffiti und im zweiten Fall nicht? Bezahlte Graffitikünstler sind dann also keine Graffitikünstler, weil durch den Akt des Bezahlens ihre Kunst plötzlich nicht mehr zur Graffiti gehört? Am Bild selbst ist also gar nicht feststellbar, ob es sich um Graffiti handelt, denn man muss erst herausfinden, ob es im Vorfeld gestattet war, das Bild anzufertigen? -- Ies (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Der Begriff Graffiti (de:Graffiti ) steht für was anderes als das was umgangssprachlich dafür gehalten wird. Category:Knitted graffiti ist Teil der Graffiti - aber keine Malerei. Scratching ist Teil der Graffiti aber kein Malerei. Also, Graffiti = "Malerei mit der Technik der Spraydose" stimmt nicht. Ob Graffiti immer im Bezug zur illegalität hat - kann ich im Artikel nicht heraus lesen. Aber dieses Werk ist bestimmt nicht illegal und kein Graffiti. Die Kategorien, sind da noch sehr unheitlich und unstrukturiert. Entweder ist der Artikel falsch oder die Kategorien. Atamari (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Der Artikel bringt es doch gut auf den Punkt: "Werden nicht genehmigte Graffiti in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung, insbesondere in der westlichen Welt meist als Form des Vandalismus betrachtet, werden sie von anderer Seite auch als Form der Kunst anerkannt. Beides schließt sich jedoch nicht aus.".

Wenn es also nicht genehmigte Graffiti gibt, dann gibt es auch genehmigte. Wenn ich ein Graffito anfertige (Bild spraye, Scheibe zerkratze, Baum bestricke ...), ob genehmigt oder nicht, ist es ein Graffito. Wenn ich jemand bitte oder beauftrage, ein gleichartiges Graffito anzufertigen, ob genehmigt oder nicht, ist das Ergebnis ebenfalls ein Graffito. Was bedeutet, dass auch Auftragsarbeiten Graffiti sein können.

Das Spektrum von Graffiti reicht von reinem Vandalismus über sämtliche Zwischenstufen bis zu reiner Kunst. Es ist deshalb nicht falsch, Graffiti auch als Vandalismus zu kategorisieren, selbst wenn in einer bestimmten Kategorie, wie in Frankfurt, überwiegend legale Graffiti zu sehen sind. Deshalb ist auch die Hauptkategorie Category:Graffiti mit Category:Vandalism versehen, owohl es etliche Unterkategorien gibt, in denen legale Graffiti zu sehen sind. -- Ies (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, und im hierarischen Kategoriesystem vererbt sich jede Eigenschaft. Eingeordnet in Category:Vandalism ist alles Unterhalb als Category:Vandalism eingeordnet. Atamari (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Das ist genau der Punkt, den ich meine: Eine Datei X zeigt ein Graffito und wird entsprechend in einer passenden Unterkategorie von Category:Graffiti eingeordnet. Wenn es obendrein ein Akt von Vandalismus ist, sollte die einzelne Datei mit Category:Vandalism markiert werden. Das macht evtl. ein bisschen mehr Arbeit, wäre aber präziser, als zahlreiche Bilder falsch zu kategorisieren. --Zinnmann (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zinnmann, das hast Du jetzt genau verkehrt herum verstanden. Jedes Graffito ist per Definition in der Hauptkategorie Category:Graffiti Vandalsismus, da das Spektrum von Graffiti eben so weit reicht und einzelnen Werken häufig nicht angesehen werden kann, ob sie legal oder illegal entstanden. Möglicherweise ist die Sachlage in Frankfurt mit den derzeit vorhandenen Fotos so, dass klar unterschieden werden kann, doch das kann sich mit dem nächsten hochgeladenen Foto schon ändern. Außerdem ist Frankfurt nicht maßgebend für den Rest der Welt. Denn konsequenterweise müsste im hierarischen Kategoriesystem von Commons schon die Hauptkategorie geändert werden und direkt unter ihr zwischen Vandalismus und Nicht-Vandalismus unterschieden werden. Und das dann auch in sämtlichen Unterkategorien. Das so entstehende Chaos möchte ich nicht verursachen! -- Ies (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ja, jetzt sehe ich's. Besonders sinnvoll erscheint mir das dort aber auch nicht, da bereits bei kurzer Durchsicht zahlreiche Auftragsarbeiten (z.B. Geschäftsfassaden) auftauchen. Auch wurde die Kategorie Vandalism erst hier im Sept. 2017 mit IMHO recht schwacher Begründung eingeführt. Mal schauen, ob ich das Problem dort anspreche. --Zinnmann (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am hoping to reprint your illustration of the Salmansweiler Hof (Ueberlingen) in an article on Kloster Salem and the editors require written permission from the copyright holder. Would you be willing to give me a brief, written assurance that you grant permission? This is my first time using a talk page so hopefully I've got it right. Thanks for your help! Katherine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbrunatmcndotorg (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Katherine, herewith I give you the written assurance that I'm the copyright holder of File:Überlingen - Franziskanerstraße 03 ies.jpg and grant the permission to use this image acc. to the mentioned license (CC-BY-SA-3.0). Please let me know if you prefer another one of the here valid licenses. That's no problem! Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergisch Gladbach - Herz-Jesu-Kirche 14 ies.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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Martin Sg. (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergisch Gladbach - Herz-Jesu-Kirche 15 ies.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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Martin Sg. (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but why delete all the Langholt categories, from what I can tell from this sign Langholt is an actual village, or isn't it a real village? I just find it odd because Ostrhauderfehn seemed to be the municipality rather than the village. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donald Trung 『徵國單』, Langholt is a tiny village in the municipality of Ostrhauderfehn. However, categories like "History of (tiny village name)" are totally unusual in Commons. Please stick with the usual category system and categorize municipalities like that! Please also respect the strict hierarchical structure of Commons and don't categorize buildings directly with the village or municipality name. Categorize buildings always with the certain street(s) of the municipality (what you avoid for some reason) and categorize this street with the village or municipality name, please.

Example: Category:Nightlife 61 → Category:Dorfstraße (Ostrhauderfehn) → Category:Streets in Ostrhauderfehn ...

and Category:Dorfstraße (Ostrhauderfehn) → Category:Langholt (Ostrhauderfehn) → Category:Districts of Ostrhauderfehn ...

Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will emulate that. Also I didn't know that Langhurst was only that tiny village, I thought that it was that big adjacent town. 😅 I looked it up on a map now. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]