User talk:Stunteltje

Category:Police_motorcycles_in_Colombia

Police motorcycles in Colombia 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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 ∙ +/−

Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO 5375008

Thanks for your message, this was an unconcious HotCat. I undid this change. Thanks Upior polnocy (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Außenhafen Eckernförde

Dear Stunteltje, I would be glad if you could help me categorizing some watercraft (particularly Capella, Freedom, Herta, Jachara and Schwalbe/ECKE15) I saw at Außenhafen Eckernförde. Many thanks in advance! -- Ies (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Stunteltje (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, again! -- Ies (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy II

Dear Stunteltje, again I need some assistance in categorizing watercraft. It's the glass-bottom catamaran Fancy II of File:Puerto de Tazacorte Fancy 2014-10 01.JPG and File:Puerto de Tazacorte Fancy 2014-10 02.JPG I took more images of and from. See also Fancy II Can you help? -- Ies (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult, indeed. Found no information on the ship herself on the internet. So Category:Fancy II (ship) is possible, and according the number on the bow Category:Fishing boats of Spain and Category:Glass bottom boats. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Ies (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:MS REGINA DELLA PACE.jpg

Beste Stunteltje,

Ik kwam dit bestand tegen tijdens het verwerken van OTRS-mails. Zou jij hem misschien in de juiste categorie kunnen stoppen? Ik heb de ballen verstand van schepen. Natuur12 (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:4ing was me al voor. Prima opgelost. --Stunteltje (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harriet_E_(ship,_1945)

Harriet E (ship, 1945) 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 ∙ +/−

86.45.79.154 13:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ENI 06002897

Hallo Stunteltje, ich finde in allen Quellen die mir zur Verfügung stehen bei diesem Schiff nur das Baujahr 1996. [1] [2] [3]. Woher stammt die Information über das Baujahr 1991? Viele Grüße --Rolf H. (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nach mein Ferien suche ich who es zu finden ist. Dass Schiff ist 2x fertig gestellt, denke ich. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gefunden [4]] suche mit 23.31349 und 60.02897 letzte foto's. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:A264 Trossö (ship, 1984)

Category:A264 Trossö (ship, 1984) 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 category, 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.

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） ∙ +/−

Saftgurka (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:R131 Norrköping (ship, 1973)

Category:R131 Norrköping (ship, 1973) 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 category, 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.

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） ∙ +/−

~~

Shipyard category

Hej Stunteltje, a couple of days ago I had a discussion with a Bavarian user about the Category:Ship built at … His opinion is, that the shipyard category belongs to the ships name category and not to the IMO rsp. ENI category. My reasons and examples were not accepted and unfortunately I couldn’t find a corresponding regulation. Please let me know, if there is any (written) recommendation or policy. Greetings --Ein Dahmer (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there isn't a formal rule. It is just a matter of efficiency to add the shipyard category to the categories of IMO and ENI numbers. I myself always add the yard category to these numbers only, much easier and less confusing. The yard only builds one ship, that sometimes gets different names during her lifetime. The same reason to add only IMO and ENI numbers to scrapping categories. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your statement and I agree with you. However, the reasonable application is no compensation for a written regulation and so far, we will not reach a uniform usage for these categories. Bedankt --Ein Dahmer (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction ferry

Hi Stunteltje, please rethink this and this your edit. Reaction ferry article says: "A reaction ferry is a cable ferry that uses the reaction of the current of a river against a fixed tether to propel the vessel across the river." I have no idea how the reaction ferry would work without cables (or chains). The distinction is only in the fact that reaction ferry enables to set the angle of the ship (pram, boat) towards the stream. Technically, both types - the reaction ferry as well as the simple cable ferry can have overhead cable as well as underwater or floating cable. --ŠJů (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I was confused by the fact that we here in the Netherlands - as far as I found with my ship on our rivers - only have reaction ferries with an anchor and a chain with supporting small boats to move the ferries. And reacted too fast. Regret inconvenience caused. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:San Francisco Belle (sternwheeler)

Any chance you can give this category the IMO treatment, please? Sadly, it doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article yet. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

doppelte Kategorie

Moin Stunteltje, folgende Frage, ist es ok, das es zwei Kategorien für ein und dasselbe Schiff gibt? Siehe bitte [5] + [6] Gruß von der Havel -- Biberbaer (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ist OK. Dasselbe Schiff, aber mit andere Name, hat mehrere Category:Ships by name, aber nur 1 Category:Ships by IMO number. Sehe auch Category:IMO 5014123. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok, bedankt -- Biberbaer (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I like to learn more Mdsaifhassanee58 (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grote_Sluis,_Hoorn

Grote Sluis, Hoorn 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 ∙ +/−

Achim (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My "documentation gives only: "Kleine Oostsluis (dv opening 1)", but: User:Dqfn13 lives in Hoorn. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POTY error

Hi Stunteltje, sorry for the inconveniences you experienced at this year's Picture of the Year. Since the error you reported is a server error, I suggest you simply re-try it. Thanks. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I did. --Stunteltje (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't work and bring up the same error message? -- Rillke^(q?) 14:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It worked and I saw no new error up till now. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:T101 Perseus (ship, 1950)

Category:T101 Perseus (ship, 1950) 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 category, 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.

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） ∙ +/−

Saftgurka (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:T51 Lysekil (ship, 1959)

Category:T51 Lysekil (ship, 1959) 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 category, 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.

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） ∙ +/−

Saftgurka (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patria (ship, 1999)

Hoi Stunteltje, I have relocated these images to Category:Patria (ship, 1995). Please see the IMO number visible in File:PATRIA 4.JPG and DNV GL's registry. De728631 (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. See also: Shipspotting and Equasis. Thanks.--Stunteltje (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you

please have a look at two new categroies: Category:IMO 9723136 & Category:Ultra Jaguar (ship, 2016)? Thanks for your time! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found different countries for registration. Shipspotting and Maritime-Connector give Panama, but Marine Traffic and Equasis give the Marshall Islands.

IMO number : 9723136
Name of ship : ULTRA JAGUAR (since 01/01/2016)
Call Sign : V7QK4
MMSI : 538006707
Gross tonnage : 43036 (since 01/01/2016)
DWT : 81922
Type of ship : Bulk Carrier (since 01/01/2016)
Year of build : 2016
Flag : Marshall Islands (since 01/01/2016)
Status of ship : In Service/Commission (since 07/01/2016)
Last update : 10/01/2017

So I assume it has to be Marshall Islands, as this is information from the AIS transponder system of the ship herself. Not allowed to send out of date information. Equasis is a government supported site, that makes the argument stronger. Last but not least:

http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2501317

On the stern: Majuro and that leads to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majuro

The name found in Maritime-Connector might come from the owner:

0232570 Ship manager/Commercial manager KAMBARA KISEN CO LTD 1083, Tsuneishi, Numakuma-cho, Fukuyama-shi, Hiroshima-ken, 720-0396, Japan. since 07/01/2016 detail 1199587 Registered owner CHIJIN SHIPPING SA Care of Kambara Kisen Co Ltd , 1083, Tsuneishi, Numakuma-cho, Fukuyama-shi, Hiroshima-ken, 720-0396, Japan. since 07/01/2016 detail

Is this where you were looking for? --Stunteltje (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. I was hoping you could have a look and check if I missed something in creating the categories. You are the ship expert.

--Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 19:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I missed Category:Ships of ...... by country, so that is what attracted my attention. I'll add Category:Ships of the Marshall Islands now. By the way, I am no expert, just own a barge. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Owning a barge makes you more of an expert than me. I only own a rubber duck. And three life vests are collecting dust in the garage.. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-empty redirected categories

Hi :-)

1) You are still creating non-empty redirected categories, such as:

Empty them, please.

Done Did not realise that categories were left in renaming process. Just transferred files.

2) I think a category name "F830 Hr.Ms. Tjerk Hiddes (ship, 1993)" is not correct: it should be comma there: "Hr. Ms.", isn't it?

Have a nice day :-) Wieralee (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The naming is correct, as Hr.Ms. and Zr.Ms. (Her and His Majesty in Dutch) are part of the names of naval vessels, as long as they have a commanding officer from the Royal Dutch Navy. The same system as HMS British naval ships have. Thank you very much for your attention. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military_of_the_Bahamas

Military of the Bahamas 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 ∙ +/−

Geo Swan (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:M909_Bovesse_(ship,_1957)

M909 Bovesse (ship, 1957) 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 ∙ +/−

2A02:A03F:607F:C500:AA:49A:7A4D:DF5D 14:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:ENI 02331761 ALIE-JAN (01).JPG

Copyright status: File:ENI 02331761 ALIE-JAN (01).JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:ENI 02331761 ALIE-JAN (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.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No license nominaties

Hoi, dit kleine syntax foutje trok de aandacht van onze systemen. Jcb (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Met dank. Kennelijk misgegaan toen ik op een andere computer Commonnist installeerde. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Batavia 03.JPG en File:Batavia 02.JPG

Hallo Stunteltje, bedankt voor het recente aanpassen. Moeten deze files ook hernoemd worden? Klaarblijkelijk heeft men het op de nl.wikipedia nog steeds niet door. Een afbeelding zegt meer dan duizend woorden. Het zijn nu net de foutieve gegevens hier en overal waar ik ze tegen het virtuele lijf loop, die ik in de kijker wil zetten zodat diegenen die er wél verstand van hebben... als het ware met de neus op de feiten worden gedrukt. Het krioelt nog (jammer genoeg) van de foutieve informatie in de encyclopedie. Die eruit halen is een titanenwerk. Maar, I keep going en all hands on deck zou ik zeggen. Lotje (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

De foto's betreffen kennelijk de Batavia, die nu even tijdelijk als "Nieuw Hoorn" in de vaart was, zoals blijkt uit naam op de spiegel. Dat komt wel meer voor, als schepen onder charter varen doen ze dat nogal eens onder een andere naam. Ik heb dat opgevangen door onder de nieuwe naam een andere category aan te maken. Maar dat maakt het schip nog steeds geen replica van de Nieuw Hoorn, het is een op het oog nagebouwd schip met veel kenmerken van een schip uit die tijd. Niet meer en niet minder. Dus de naam van de afbeeldingen kan beter, ik heb er niet aan geknutseld omdat het via de category al terug te vinden is. Maar "Replica van de Nieuwe Hoorn" is dus geen juiste naam. Ik zal het nu ook aanpassen. --Stunteltje (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vertrouwen (ship, 1910)

Hallo Stunteltje, net maakte ik de datalink naar Vertrouwen, blijkt nu echter dat het bij de afbeelding op de sv.wikipedia de Category:Vertrouwen (ship, 1954) zou betreffen. Weet jij hier raad mee? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weinig. Als ik de tweede link volg kom ik bij een foto van een klipper Vertrouwen. De foto in Commons geeft ook een klipper. Maar bij de Scheepsmetingsdienst vind ik bij die werf nergens een schip van die lengte en al helemaal niet in dat jaar 1910 gebouwd. Er zijn heel veel Vertrouwens in de vaart (geweest), dus zonder aanvullende gegevens kan ik er niets mee. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ENI-nummer

Hallo Stunteltje, only me again! Op dit lemma staat geen enkele afbeelding waarop het ENI-nummer duidelijk zichtbaar is. Dank je dat deze afbeelding geschikt is om er bovenaan te plaatsen? Lotje (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er staan al twee schepen met een duidelijk ENI-nummer. Het zou dus best kunnen, maar er zijn ook heel veel andere tankers mogelijk. Die gebruiken zo'n bord vaak. Mijn plaatjes waar een ENI-nummer op voorkomt schiet ik altijd om thuis het schip snel te kunnen vinden en de gegevens te kunnen controleren. --Stunteltje (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schooner Touch-Me-Not

Hallo Stunteltje, zegt jou dit iets? :)

Als ik dit volg: schooner ZOE TREFFRY ... TOUCH ME NOT TORFREY, 443/1900, Fowey No.4 SS Co, Fowey-reg (L/Lr) detained on river Elbe outbreak ww1 1919 transferred to Guernsey register. 1930 renamed YORKRIVER and transferred to London register. 167'9 x25'1 x 9'4 steel kom ik uit op ZOE TREFFRY 19277 schooner Sunderland G. W. & W. J. Hall 1857 71 1868 E.J.Treffry, Place Fowey 1870 Samuel Moss Par1876 Joseph Thomas Treffry, 1880 Samuel Moss, Par 1861 census 1871 census, en dan zou het een vissende schoener uit 1857 kunnen zijn, maar ik heb geen idee of dat overeenkomt. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bengkalis

Hallo Stunteltje, dit zijn, meen ik, 1, 2 3 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 afbeeldingen m.b.t. het Gouvernementsmarineschip Bengkalis. Kan je daar iets mee aanvangen? Lotje (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bremerhaven (tugboat, 1993) vs. Category:VB Bremerhaven (tugboat, 1993)

Hi Stunteltje, could you please check these categories? I think they're for the same tugboat and should be merged. Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same ship, but with a different name and the categories are not to be merged. The coupling is via Category:IMO 9045871. Different names for ships result in different categories. Many ships get another name, the IMO number stays the same for the ship. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:MS FLUKS (01).JPG

Hallo Stunteltje, heb jij er enig idee van waar in Leeuwarden dit kan zijn? Ik zou graag de afbeelding fine-tuning. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ik heb mijn journaals er op nageslagen en het moet in het Somerrak zijn geweest. Het vervelende is dat ik op de satellietbeelden daar geen woonschepen meer zie, in 2011 lagen ze er op rij. Ik ben toen rondgelopen en heb van alle schepen foto's gemaakt. Ik zie nu dat ik er nog veel kan uploaden. Zal ik een dezer dagen proberen en dan zie je meer huizen in de omgeving. Ik denk dat je voor je oriëntatie wel iets hebt aan deze foto. Daar zie je het grote gebouw op de achtergrond en dat is herkenbaar. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atlas_(ship)

Atlas (ship) 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 ∙ +/−

Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Years of completion found, categories renamed, problem solved. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schip Lydia

Hallo Stunteltje,

Ik heb wat informatie toegevoegd aan File:Busy shiptraffic at the Amsterdam-Rhine canal at Houten Schalkwijk - panoramio.jpg, maar omdat ik geen deskundige ben, vind ik het prettig als er iemand meekijkt. In het bijzonder het schip op de voorgrond: ziet jouw kennersoog daar ook de Lydia uit 1967? Of toch eerder een gelijknamig vaartuig? — bertux 16:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geen kennersoog, maar gewoon waarnemen. Er staat een box voor de roef en die is ook goed herkenbaar hier op de foto uit 2007. Prima gedaan! --Stunteltje (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Stunteltje,

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 11:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ships_by_name

Ships by name 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 ∙ +/−

De728631 (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there are now, in "Categories by name (flat list)" 95 sub categories from 1 in a little over a week. Only one of these is named "flat list" in brackets. This creation of "Category:Ships by name (flat list)" solves nothing, in fact its added a level, which I assume is the last thing we want. I don't know about you, but I'm fed up by being railroaded in this manner on like topics, by people gaming the system bulldozing through unwanted changes. This is a major cat and a heavily used one, we don't need its name to be lengthened, it needs to be as short as possible.. Broichmore (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But you have to address administrator User:Themightyquill, who did the work. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have done. The debate is getting silly now. He's not for compromising and unable to logically justify what his changes. He's not even a player in "Ships" either, which makes this annoying. How do we end it? --Broichmore (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. He is administrator and has more privileges (tools) to push through. I see a lot of new categories upkoming in Category:Ships by name and have no intention to move them myself to the "flat list" category. So I think that move to a flat list wasn't a good idea. Obviously a lot of users misses it. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned to Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:Ships by name (flat list). I would be grateful for your weight in backing me up here. This guy might be an Admin, but this intervention is destructive and misguided. He has shown no interest in shipping before, it's just interference he's running here, and out of hubris won't let it go... --Broichmore (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our interfering Admin is studiously ignoring us and consensus, in the hope this is going to go away. Well he's wrong. I've uploaded a ship to our cat and await him taking it it out and placing it elsewhere. Can we now reverse his actions and restore Ships_by_name with its sub cats? -Broichmore (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already discussed it at User talk:Themightyquill. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the 24th of October he moved 38 Ships cats from "Ships by name" to his flat list. Not all are mine, I doubt 10 at the most. [See here]Broichmore (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a Dutch moderator to have a look. Unfortunately he also has problems with this administrator.--Stunteltje (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked around for a Moderator myself and await reply. This may have to be taken to the "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard", unless common sense prevails. This is difficult for me as I'm in Thailand till 3rd week January, and internet connection is problematic at best. -Broichmore (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The debate Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:Ships by name (flat list) has entered a new phase. I would appreciate to hear your current views there. Somehow we need to also invite Huntster, and Rmhermen to put in their pounds worth too. You do realize that all these changes are being proposed by people with no previous experience in "Ships" as such., and their voices are drowning me out. Best regards. - Broichmore (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have to go out. Will look to it --Stunteltje (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oceanco_Y712_(ship,_2017)

Oceanco Y712 (ship, 2017) 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 ∙ +/−

Gillfoto 22:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ships_of_Holland_America_Line

Ships of Holland America Line 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 ∙ +/−

Gillfoto 18:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on Wikipedia

Hi, yet again there is a discussion on Wikipedia on the subject of naming ship articles and by extension ship categories. Can you please join in. I feel it's important that both Wikipedia and Commons sing from the same hymn sheet on this matter . Link: en: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#SS Mary Luckenbach (1918). As a separate issue I feel we need our own Commons Talk page; or even better amalgamate it with the Wikipedia one... Your thoughts appreciated. Regards. Broichmore (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Juist_(ship,_1993)

Juist (ship, 1993) 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 ∙ +/−

129.13.72.197 08:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiducia (ship, 1965)

Hi Stunteltje, I recently took images of this ship and saw that its ENI number is 04009830 (not 04503100 as categorized by you). Please check and compare to https://www.binnenschifferforum.de:7081/showthread.php?8868-Fiducia-GMS-04009830/page1. Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here on nr. 4, click on the camera symbol and find the second image in the series. The windows in that schip confirm the windows of the vessel on the Rhine. The windows from the ship as found in the Binnenschifferforum ar sqare windows. So I assume it is one of the at least other 20 Fiducia's. [7]. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dordrechts Museum aan de Haven

Beste Stunteltje,

Je werkte destijds aan deze categorie, weet je waarom deze "Dordrechts Museum aan de Haven" heet? Heeft iets te maken met Huis de Gijn? Bij het museum zelf en Rijksmonumenten vind ik deze lange benaming niet, te wijzigen tot "Dordrechts Museum"? Welbedankt, Hansmuller (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geen idee. Ik heb niet meer gedaan dan in de category naar Dordrecht te verwijzen. Als je een betere naam hebt, ga je gang. Jouw suggestie komt overeen met hun homepage. --Stunteltje (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:HD54 Oberon (ship, 1884)

Hallo Stunteltje, wil je eens naar de category kijken? Er schot iets aan {{nl:HD 54 "Oberon". Greets Lotje (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inderdaad. Een : waar een | had moeten staan. Nu verbeterd.--Stunteltje (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LST-2_(ship,_1943)

LST-2 (ship, 1943) 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 ∙ +/−

Robby (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LST-21_(ship,_1943)

LST-21 (ship, 1943) 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 ∙ +/−

Robby (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LST-3_(ship,_1943)

LST-3 (ship, 1943) 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 ∙ +/−

Robby (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LST-4_(ship,_1943)

LST-4 (ship, 1943) 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 ∙ +/−

Robby (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LST-22_(ship,_1943)

LST-22 (ship, 1943) 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 ∙ +/−

Robby (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LST-31_Addison_County_(ship,_1943)

LST-31 Addison County (ship, 1943) 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 ∙ +/−

Robby (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Askold (ship, 1900)

I'm not convinced that the image in the center of this page is the Askold (ship, 1900). Can you please take a look? Broichmore (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. It looks more the Tsesarevich (ship, 1900). --Stunteltje (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you translate the caption under the image? Broichmore (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the caption says Russian battleship Tsesarevich too, I arrived at that after studying the Gothic Alphabet, but it sure was painful. Are we agreed? Our articles seem to bear this out as the Tsesarevich was damaged and the Askold not. Broichmore (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:TSMS Lakonia.JPG

File:TSMS Lakonia.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） ∙ +/−

Jcb (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Education_in_the_Netherlands_by_city

Education in the Netherlands by city 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 ∙ +/−

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Project chat

There is a discussion on "Wikidata:Project chat" about the Wikidata Infobox as seen at Commons ship categories. Can you please look at it and give your opinions and corrections. I would be grateful for that before I make another push for some positive action to be made on it. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Ships Broichmore (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ships of the Blue Star Line

Ships of the Blue Star Line is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD GA1 (gallery without images or other media files)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

BevinKacon (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:O'Mega_(ship,_1985)

O'Mega (ship, 1985) 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 ∙ +/−

112.205.148.142 08:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template for the ENI

Hello Stunteltje, regarding your recent changes of ENI categories, I have another idea. The European Number of Identification has the same signification as the IMO number. From my point of view it should be useful, to initiate a template for ENIcats like the Template:IMOcat. Such template could also replace the bad category «Vessels by ENI number», long title «Vessels by European Number of Identification number» with a double word. Groets --Ein Dahmer (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very good idea. The long version, I wonder. Because everyone in the European inland waterway business uses just the ENI term. If it can be done by bot, OK. But then we also have to change to the long version of the IMO number.

By the way, I follow your way of working now by putting the categories ships built by year to the IMO categories. Not the ships by country, as sold ships can have different home ports in different countries. Perhaps the categories of ships by country have to be moved to the homeport categories.--Stunteltje (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is done, see Template:ENIcat. A Template:ENI (analogous to Template:IMO) is already ordered. Groets --Ein Dahmer (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very good!! Now another image for the vessel e.g.

or

.--Stunteltje (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
To perform file name swaps.
When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A850?

Dag Stunteltje, ter informatie en wat deze bewerking betreft: dat moet een vergissing zijn. Hoe kan een filmpje dat in 1979 is gemaakt een schip laten zien dat in 1989 werd gebouwd? In het filmpje zelf lijkt het om de A891 Soemba te gaan, een schip uit de Floresklasse. Groet, Wutsje 19:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Je hebt volstrekt gelijk. Gewoon geblunderd indertijd. Met mijn dank voor het opmerken. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NDSM

NDSM 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 ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IJstroom

Dag Stunteltje, enig idee welke IJstroom te zien is in File:Zeeschip door het Winschoterdiep-515461.ogv? Groet, Wutsje 23:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volgens mij de IJstroom (ship, 1950), zie de bron bij het IMO nummer. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dank! Wutsje 13:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nog twee vragen

Dag Stunteltje, daar was ik alweer. Weet je ook om welke Rian het gaat op File:Mislukte tewaterlating van de "Rian".webm

Zie Rian (ship, 1948)

en welke Magna Pete wordt getoond in File:'Magna Pete' tewatergelaten-511502.ogv en File:'Magna Pete' tewatergelaten-Launching of the 'Magna Pete'-511502.webm? Groet, Wutsje 05:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zie Magna Pete (ship, 1948) --Stunteltje (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ook dank! Wutsje 13:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presidente Juscelino

Dag Stunteltje, de bestanden File:Supertanker Presidente Juscelino op de helling bij Verolme, Bestanddeelnr 909-8962.jpg, File:Precisie tewaterlating van reuzentanker-525763.ogv en File:Technische proefvaart van supertanker op de Noordzee-517794.ogv horen bij elkaar, maar het aanmaken van een categorie wilde ik maar aan jou overlaten. Ik heb er geen andere plaatjes of filmpjes van gevonden. Groet, Wutsje 16:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aanvulling: als ik het goed heb, gaat het hier om IMO 5284211. Wutsje 17:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helemaal goed.

Done Zie Category:Presidente Juscelino (ship, 1959) en ook bij het IMO nummer.--Stunteltje (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proefvaarten en scheepstewaterlatingen

Ter informatie: nog meer niet specifiek gecategoriseerde Polygoonjournaals over scheepstewaterlatingen en proefvaarten:

Groet, Wutsje 17:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Stunteltje (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wederom dank! Wutsje 17:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nog drie

Van Niestern in Delfzijl:

File:Demonstratie onkantelbare reddingsboot-514796.ogv (de Insulinde? zie hier)
File:EEN DWARSE TEWATERLATING-PGM4011537.webm (Chaimite, zie hier)
File:Nieuwe reddingsboot-525129.ogv (Bernard van Leer)

Groet, Wutsje 03:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Stunteltje (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lion

You created a new category and marked the old name for deletion. I don't have an opinion about the right name for the category, but what you were doing creates linkrot: what you did is appropriate in the case of newly created categories with typos in the names, and in the case of duplicate categories, but never when there's a longstanding category that you wish to move due to naming conventions. Nyttend (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not realise the problems I created, being a simple user. What I did is answering by doing the question asked by the template placed by another user, completed by adding new categories and correcting the category of the year of built. What is left now is the question of a new tresferring of the category to the category I created. Is that possible? --Stunteltje (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mosques_in_the_Hague

Category:Mosques_in_the_Hague 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 ∙ +/−

51.37.66.61 16:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prinz Eitel Friedrich (ship, 1904)

Stunteltje, eeuwige toeverlaat, gestuntel van mijnentwege, en daarom vraag ik je om hulp. Kan je eens dubbelchecken? Thnks. :-) Lotje (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nou, nou, teveel eer. Met je aanpassing is niets mis. Het probleem hier zit eigenlijk in de bestanden. Bij moderne schepen is het gemakkelijk, die hebben een IMO-nummer en kan je ze op verschillende namen, maar met hetzelfde IMO-nummer, categoriseren. Dat kan hier niet, terwijl het om hetzelfde schip met drie namen gaat. Je zou die met verschillende namen Category:USS DeKalb (ship, 1914) en Category:Mount Clay (ship, 1904) in Category:Prinz Eitel Friedrich (ship, 1904) kunnen onderbrengen. Maar omdat we nog niet voor elkaar kregen dat het jaartal van indienststelling bij USS schepen wordt gebruikt kan dat dus ook Category:USS DeKalb (ID-3010) zijn. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fijn bedankt Stunteltje de creatie van dergelijke categories laat ik liever aan jou over. :-) Lotje (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help

Moin Stunteltje, in de:Wiki haben wir Artikel zu Schleusen wie [8]] + [9]. Die Category:Lock gates bietet ein heilloses Durcheinander von sehr verschiedenen Typen von Schleusentoren und anderen Toren. Ich würde das gerne sortieren. Meine Frage daher, wie nennt man ein Stemmtor und ein Klapptor richtig und offiziell in der englischen Sprache? Vielleicht kennst Du einen Muttersprachler der vom Fach ist? Grüße -- Biberbaer (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leiter kann ich Sie nicht helfen. Niederländisch: puntdeuren und roldeuren. Ich suche in mein kontakten, aber es kann dauern.--Stunteltje (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moin und bedankt. Grüße -- Biberbaer (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same ship?

Dag Stunteltje, please have a look to the Category:VD-172, Jonge Hendrik (ship, 1904) and Category:VD172 De Jonge Hendrik (ship, 1904). From my point of view it seems to be the same ship. Groet --Ein Dahmer (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. The right name is "De Jonge Jacob" as per Stichting Stamboek Ronde en Platbodemjachten and Register Varend Erfgoed Nederland. By the way: nice job you are doing. I preferred Category:Fishing vessels of the Netherlands by license number, but it is better to stay in line with the other ‎national categories. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt, but De Jonge Hendrik (instead of De Jonge Jacob) should be the right one. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right again. :=)) --Stunteltje (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hr.Ms. Bellatrix (ship, 1915)

Have a look at this image, do you think this is a Netherlands ship, rather than French? Broichmore (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not Hr.Ms. Bellatrix, built in 1915, but the French Arabis-class sloop Bellatrix, built by Henderson, launched 29 May 1916. Deleted 1933. Look at the caps with a ball. (Red, in my memory of sailors in Rotterdam.) --Stunteltje (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but i've not been able to get a date for the Frenchman, apparently she was in Sydney first in December 1929. Once I have that I'll fix the files. can you help with build details? Regards Broichmore (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the English Wikipedia: Six vessels were ordered in January 1916, and another two in September 1916, all to this design from British shipyards for the French Navy, and all were delivered to the French in 1916 or (the last pair) 1917: Bellatrix, built by Henderson, launched 29 May 1916. Deleted 1933.--Stunteltje (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i saw it and didn't think it woulld be that easy. LOL Broichmore (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dubbele categorie

Hallo Stunteltje, ik kom ergens niet helemaal uit. Ik vermoed dat dit dezelfde boot betreft: [10] en [11]. Ook zijn de bouwjaar en lengte me dan niet helemaal duidelijk. Ben benieuwd naar je inzicht. Met vriendelijke groeten, Rudolphous (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Je hebt helemaal gelijk, er is maar 1 loodsboot op dit moment met die naam in het Rotterdamse, voor zover ik weet. Indertijd heb ik 1997 gebruikt volgens [12], de lokale bron. Maar achteraf zie ik dat internationaal 1998 wordt gebruikt. [13] & [14] & [15]. Maar ook [16] en die haalt z'n gegevens van de AIS, is dus meestal wel correct, hoewel dat in dit geval niet zo hoeft te zijn. Het bouwjaar is niet iets wat je in je AIS programmeert. Ik ga nog wel even informeren bij de loodsen wat juist is. Lokaal zou de beste informatie moeten geven, maar dat is niet altijd zo. Ik kan regelmatig foutjes doorgeven aan De Binnenvaart, die dan meestal gelijk worden verwerkt.--Stunteltje (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oke, bedankt voor de geboden helderheid. Ik heb inmiddels het 1998 artikel laten wijzen naar 1997. Ook omdat het 1997 artikel eerder bestond. Rudolphous (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Port of Rotterdam

Hallo Stunteltje, ik heb de jaar in Port of Rotterdam wat aangevuld. Inmiddels staan er 10.214 photo's. Rudolphous (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Op zich prachtig, zeg ik als geboren Rotterdammer. Hopelijk staan alle daar in opgenomen schepen in een eigen category. Ik besteed zelf daar de meeste aandacht aan en de laatste tijd levert dat heel wat nieuwe schepen op. De foto's kunnen nog niet vaak in artikelen worden opgenomen. Helaas vindt men in de Nederlandse Wikipedia een schip niet snel encyclopediewaardig en moet voor een artikel vaak worden gewacht tot er een ramp mee met zo'n schip gebeurd is. Of het moet mensen kunnen doodschieten, dan is het wel E. Helaas. Ik beperk me dan ook meestal maar tot het beschrijven van het varend erfgoed, binnenschepen van 50 jaar en ouder. Als er tenminste wat details van bekend zijn. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

50 jaar en ouder voorkomt in ieder geval een hoop discussie. Nog bedankt voor de schip categorisaties. Rudolphous (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graag gedaan. Als je daar een tool voor hebt kan je zien hoeveel schepen ik al onder naam in een category heb gezet. Ik volg de Category:Ships al vele jaren en probeer hem zo leeg mogelijk te houden.--Stunteltje (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Je bedoelt Category:Ships by name (flat list) maar dan het aantal artikelen gesorteerd per aanmaker? Rudolphous (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, zoiets. Ik had zelf het wellicht hovaardige idee dat ik wel eens aan de 10.000 zou kunnen zitten. Doe het al zo lang. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ik kan dit wel voor je uitzoeken - kost wat programmeerwerk. Rudolphous (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leuk!! Als je dat zelf ook aardig vindt om te doen. Misschien vinden wel meer mensen het leuk om zoiets een keer te weten. En zoiets heeft nooit haast. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nog geen tijd voor gehad - staat wel op het todo lijstje. Rudolphous (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sailing yachts of Germany

Thanks for your message, with which I agree. I do a lot of categorising, but seldom receive much feedback about it. The point you have made had occurred to me before I had even made the change I made, but I decided to go ahead with it anyway.

Categorising is a bit difficult when there's a category that fits generally, but not perfectly, into another category as a sub-category. I decided to include "Sailing yachts of [name of country - not just Germany]" as a sub-category of "Sailboats in [name of country]" for two reasons.

First, Category:Sailing yachts" is a sub-category of "Category:Sailboats", so there is clearly a link between the two topics, in a general sense.

Secondly, and more importantly, the sailing yachts of a particular country will usually spend most, if not all, of their time in that country. In that respect, sailing yachts are different from, eg, cargo ships - eg, a cargo ship of Liberia will often spend no time at all in, or anywhere near, Liberia. That's why there's, eg, a Category:Ships of Panama and also a Category:Ships in Panama - but the same often complete separation usually doesn't apply to sailing yachts.

Perhaps when there are more sailing yacht photos in Commons we could have a Category:Sailing yachts in Germany as a sub-cat of Category:Sailboats in Germany as well as a Category:Sailing yachts of Germany, which would then be a sub-cat of Category:Sailing ships of Germany instead of Category:Sailboats in Germany. In the case of European countries such as Germany, such "Sailing yachts in [name of country]" categories could possibly even be created now. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agreed. That is why I did not revert your categorising. I follow your suggestion to make a new category. I already had that in mind, but waited to make the category. It creates a lot of work. No problem. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was uploading an image of a Dutch sailing yacht I had photographed in Norway, so I decided to get started. See Category:Sailing yachts in Norway and Category:Sailing yachts by country of location. I also created Category:Sailing yachts in Germany and amended both Category:Sailing yachts of Norway and Category:Sailing yachts of Germany. These new and amended cats can be used as models for other new cats and amended cats. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. If you look for "Sailing yachts in" you will find a few other categories that can be connected. --Stunteltje (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categorie bij schip dat wordt gesloopt

Dag Stunteltje. Ik heb zojuist bij deze foto van een schip dat wordt gesloopt de categorie 'Shipbreaking' toegevoegd. Alleen ik weet niet of dit echt de meest toepasselijke categorie is; de omschrijving van die categorie op Wikidata is "type of ship disposal involving the breaking up of ships for scrap recycling", en louter op basis van wat je hier ziet en de beschrijving kun je niet vaststellen of recycling hier een doel is. Heb jij een idee? Groet, Apdency (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dat weet je nooit. Het doel is praktisch altijd geld verdienen en soms komt daar bij dat het milieu er bij gediend wordt. Bij de Ping An ging het er om dat het van het strand weg moest om reden van kustverdediging en teveel publiek. Maar ik vind het een prima toevoeging. Te overwegen valt om nog eens Category:Shipbreaking by country aan te maken, om de Nederlandse slopers in onder te brengen. Zou ie ook goed in passen --Stunteltje (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dank voor je antwoord! Die categorieën per land die je voorstelt is inderdaad ook geen gek idee, ik zal 's kijken of ik daar wat mee kan en wil. Groet, Apdency (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stunteltje/NoFacebook

User:Stunteltje/NoFacebook 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 user page, 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.

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） ∙ +/−

Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wie is deze meneer?

Ik ben bezig om categoriën toe te voegen aan foto's en kwam deze foto tegen. Weet jij wie dat is? Groeten, Wouter (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snik, neen. Het is een gids aan boord van de Rotterdam, die daar toen rondleidingen verzorgde. Ik heb hem gevraagd of hij er bezwaar tegen had dat zijn foto op het internet zou verschijnen - tussen de foto's van het schip - en daar had hij geen bezwaar tegen. Ik heb geen mailadres gekregen en dus ook geen mails teruggevonden in mijn mailarchief.--Stunteltje (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt. Ik heb de omschrijving veranderd in "Gids op het schip ROTTERDAM op haar ligplaats in de Maashaven te Rotterdam". Wouter (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

En ik heb ondertussen even op het schip naar zijn naam gevraagd. De vraag is of ze dat kunnen, mogen en willen zeggen.--Stunteltje (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:ENI 03270408 DE GOEDE VERWACHTING (13).JPG

Copyright status: File:ENI 03270408 DE GOEDE VERWACHTING (13).JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:ENI 03270408 DE GOEDE VERWACHTING (13).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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 14:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:ENI 03270408 DE GOEDE VERWACHTING (13).JPG

Copyright status: File:ENI 03270408 DE GOEDE VERWACHTING (13).JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:ENI 03270408 DE GOEDE VERWACHTING (13).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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 15:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A heads-up

We haven't interacted in years, but I think the last time, or one of the last times, I did say I respected your opinions on how ships with similar names should be disambiguated.

Recently there was a discussion, at w:User talk:Llammakey#naming conventions and redlinks where I wrote "I chose (HBC vessel, 1888) out of respect for the standard that Dutch guy set a dozen years ago on the commons." Sorry for referring to you as "that Dutch guy". I should have looked your name up.

I think you said you tried not to weigh in on en.wiki, but I thought I would give you a heads-up, anyway.

Thanks for all your excellent work! Geo Swan (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I am old enough (77) to forget names many, many times myself. (And other facts too, regretfully.)--Stunteltje (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

De Ruyter

Hi... I recently ran across Category:Zr.Ms. De Ruyter (ship, 1885) and Category:Hr.Ms. De Ruyter (ship, 1885) ... it looks like you created both categories, and they would appear to be the same ship. Was there a difference? Per navypedia.org, there was another ship of the same class originally named De Ruyter, possibly only during construction, before the 1885 ship was built. Were any of the photos of that other ship, or should these categories just be combined? And I would have no idea which of Zr.Ms. or Hr.Ms. is the "correct" prefix, if they should be combined... ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has another reason. 23 november 1890 king Willem III has been succeeded by queen Wilhelmina. King -> Queen. That means that by that date the names of the Dutch naval ships (the ones commanded by a naval officer) officially changed from "Zijner Majesteits" (his) to "Harer Majesteits" (her). Zr.Ms. to Hr.Ms. (No space after the first dot.) We had the same move, in opposite direction, when 30 april 2013 king Willem Alexander succeeded queen Beatrix. That's all. Monarchy is expensive, unfortunately. But that's another story. So no categories have to be combined. I'll copy (a part) of this text in both categories. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks. So just dependent the 1890 line. Should one then be a subcat of the other? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Unfortunately we cannot couple the categories via the IMO number, as for other ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hans Breukhoven.JPG

File:Hans Breukhoven.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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Hochlader offensichtlich nicht identisch mit Urheber / Rechteinhaber

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Lutheraner (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Papenburger Hafenfest 2018

Dear Stunteltje, once again I require some assistance. Please check the images I took during the Papenburger Hafenfest 2018 and help categorizing the images. I'm particularly uncertain how to categorize Category:ADA K-M 486 (ship), Category:Algena (ship), Category:Orca (ship), Category:Papenburg (ship) and Category:Dwarslooper (ship). Best regards, -- Ies (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:M.V._Great_Expectations_C.D._(ship,_1992)

M.V. Great Expectations C.D. (ship, 1992) 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 ∙ +/−

Motacilla (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Khoula_F_(ship,_1943)

Khoula F (ship, 1943) 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 ∙ +/−

Motacilla (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships_built_at_John_Elder_and_Co.,_Glasgow

Ships built at John Elder and Co., Glasgow 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 ∙ +/−

Motacilla (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

Hello Stunteltje, today I discovered two categories, that may be only one: Ships built at Haarlemsche Scheepsbouw Maatschappij, Haarlem and Ships built at Haarlemse Scheepsbouw Mij, Haarlem. From my point of view both categories refers to Category:Haarlemse Scheepsbouw Maatschappij. Is that correct? Greetings --Ein Dahmer (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The right name is Haarlemsche Scheepsbouw Maatschappij, Haarlemse Scheepsbouw Maatschappij is the new way of spelling in the Dutch language. Our National archive gives: de NV Haarlemsche Scheepsbouw Maatschappij te Haarlem, per 16 januari 1964 in liquidatie. So the best thing to do is renaming. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank u wel! Ik heb het afgehandeld. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geen dank. Ik ben blij met al je werk.--Stunteltje (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships of Svitzer Marine Ltd

Category:Ships of Svitzer Marine Ltd is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD C2 (unuseful empty category)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Palosirkka (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albatross (ship)

Category:Albatross (ship) is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD C2 (unuseful empty category)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Palosirkka (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FNH-1402_Gral._Fco._Morazán_(ship,_2013)

FNH-1402 Gral. Fco. Morazán (ship, 2013) 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 ∙ +/−

Geo Swan (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sternwheelers

I know this is ancient history, but why is Category:Sternwheelers a redirect to Category:Sternwheel riverboats? People have, of course, been putting all sternwheelers in the latter (because the former is a redirect) but at least here in the Pacific Northwest of North America most historic sternwheelers were not riverboats: they were heavily used throughout what is now often called the Salish Sea and I think some of them may even have gone farther north through the Inside Passage.

I'm not sure this is worth fixing, but I'm sure it's potentially confusing, at least in my part of the world. - Jmabel ! talk 23:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tank you very much for this question. Never realised this. I am Dutch and in the Netherlands we had these ships only on inland waters. So do not hesitate to fix it. In 2009 I did not have so much experience in categorising and hadn't found ships that belong in this category.--Stunteltje (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seven Seas (ship, 1941)

I see you moved Category:Seven Seas (ship, 1941) from being built in 1940 to being built in 1941. I'm not as sure... while ssmaritime.com claims the ship never saw service as a cargo ship, I do wonder about that. It was delivered to Moore-McCormack in May 1940. Per both www.microworks.net and uboat.net, it was not until October 1940 that the directive to create the escort carriers happened, and not until January 1941 that the two initial ships for conversion were actually selected. Seems rather unlikely to me that Moore-McCormack would not have used the ships in the intervening months. Indeed, the first photos on www.navsource.org show the hull painted with the Moore-McCormack name (and some rusting perhaps showing actual use); that seems unlikely to have happened if the ship was transferred to the Navy before completion. It is listed as one of the Moore-McCormack ships on www.theshipslist.com. Based on that, it would seem the 1940 completion year would be the most accurate. That page lists two other "Mormacmail" ships being built, both of which were also converted to escort carriers and I think both of those were transferred before completion; I wonder if that is the possible confusion for the ssmaritime.com statement. It was not until 1946 that Moore-McCormack actually got a replacement ship under the same name. What do you think? Did you have a different basis for choosing 1941 as the completion year? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a new article for the USS Long Island, to replace the text in the Dutch Wikipedia. As far as I can see the Mormacmail was not entirely completed as she was transferred to the US Navy in 1941. Completed and commissioned in 1941 but as USS Long Island. Commons uses the year of completion, the English Wikipedia the year of launching. In the referenses I did not find the ship as freighter for Moore-McCormack.

But if you are right, the move has to be reversed. --Stunteltje (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

shipbuildinghistory.com has the keel laid on 1939.08.01, launched on 1940.01.11 (sources seem to agree on that), and completed on 1940.05.29. That seems to be in line with how fast that yard was building that type ship; significantly longer would seem odd. The blurb on SS Mormacmail also gives the completion date, though no source. I did see a reference in a now-deleted board posting, just available in Google Cache here, which says: An American motorship named Mormacmail had plied a drab but respectable trade of cargo and livestock transport between north and south america during the 10 months following her completion in may 1940, then came the national emergency. the navy could not wait to build aircraft carriers from the keel up, so Mormacmail was acquired, a flight deck slapped on her topsides and a few guns mounted, and in June 1941 she was commissioned as the escort carrier Long Island, first of her kind in the US Navy. Ah... found a hit on Google Books for that quote; it is directly copied from page 73 of History of United States Naval Operations in World War II: The struggle for Guadalcanal, August 1942-February 1943, by Samuel Eliot Morison, ISBN 9780252069963 . There is also a reference here, as part of some U.S. Government hearings in 1941, that the Mormacmail was listed as being completed in May 1940. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did also find this NARA item, Crew lists v. 264, October 1940, image #97 in the list, which documents the Mormacmail stopping off in Hoboken (from Boston), where they swapped out 18 named members of the crew of 51 before leaving for South America. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar one on this item (image 680, here), which is for the previous trip starting in August 1940. Both trips were to "East Coast of South America". Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this item. Found more details than I did and you were right. Tried to reverse the categoryname to Category:Seven Seas (ship, 1940), but it did not work. Have to ask help or pehaps you can do the job.--Stunteltje (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I think I figured out a way to do it -- needed to move the redirect out of the way first to a temporary name (leaving no redirect on that step), then move the main category back. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated question... are Category:Ships built at Qingshan Shipyard, Wuhan and Category:Ships built at China Changjiang National Shipping Group Qingshan Shipyard, Wuhan the same shipyard? ship-db.de does list two separate shipyards[17][18], one ending in 2009 and the other starting in 2009, which probably indicates a name change of the yard that year. That might be a reasonable basis for keeping two separate categories, though our two categories both have ships before and after that date. Seems like they should be related one way or another, at the very least, if not merged. What do you think? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to study this, but unfortunately I leave for holliday tomorrow morning. It wil take time.--Stunteltje (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Way more important to enjoy your vacation ;) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excelsior (ship, 1987)

Hier ist genau numer ENI zu sehen. 46.148.165.250 21:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Viele Schiffe haben dort dass Nummer. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brug gw 102.

Beste stunteltje. Ik weet niet hoe dat zo gekomen is, maar die 2 foto's zijn niet gemaakt bij het Lorenzplein, want dat bestaat niet. En het LorenTzplein heeft nooit water gehad. Na enig speuren zag ik dat de locatie het Willem Witsenplein moet zijn. Bij gw 103 staat helemaal weinig, en is helemaal niet zien waar het is. Mvg, 83.86.149.118 16:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Je hebt gelijk met de spelling, die heb ik gelijk aangepast, ook in Commons. Typo. Maar de naam bij GW 102 komt van de publicatie "We moeten de brug weer laten zakken" Scheepvaart-routes dd/23-11-1998 Centrum Soestdijksekade Doorvaart-hoogten en -wijdten van bruggen van Koningskade naar Clingendael.

Brug GW 103 wordt daar niet in genoemd en ik kon er niet meer achter komen welke brug het nu precies was. De foto's zijn gemaakt op 11 juni 2013, bij een vaartocht met de Willemsvaart tussen het ministerie van OCW en het Louwman Museum. De originelen terugkijkende passeren we GW68, dan na een haakse bocht naar links USB327 en ook weer na een haakse bocht naar links USB68 en dan volgen USB103 en GW87. Bij een aantal bruggen kon ik onderweg de naambordjes niet (op tijd) traceren. Maar wellicht kun jij met deze gegevens wel vaststellen waar de brug ligt. (Ik ben geen Hagenaar of Hagenees.) Stunteltje (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Die publicatie kan ik nergens vinden. Maar het traject wat je aangeeft klopt met mijn onderzoek. De foto's = het Willem Witsenplein = bijna bij het Louwmanmuseum. Op de foto's is erg weinig herkenbaar, maar anderzijds is wat je ziet ook heel kenmerkend. Een weg zo naast een water, met 🚦, komt niet veel voor. En die blauw-witte hekken zijn ook typerend. Als je het vergelijkt met streetview klopt het ook; dezelfde 🚦en bord aan paal. Rechts is het Haagse Bos. Het kan dus eigenlijk niet missen. Ik wil het wel aanpassen, of wil jij dat doen? Gw 103 zal ik nog eens zoeken. Mvg, Straatspoor (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Ik had al een vermoeden; het ziet er naar uit dat gw 103 brug Neuhuyskade is. Die zwarte damwanden zijn kenmerkend, net als bij gw102, en het is op dezelfde route als gw102; het is 1 brug verderop/eerder dan gw102. Op streetview kun je dat nr. natuurlijk niet lezen, maar de situatie lijkt er wel op. Straatspoor (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pas alles rustig aan. Liefst ook de naamgeving van de bestanden. Dat je die publicatie niet kunt vinden kan goed kloppen. Die kreeg ik naar aanleiding van een verzoek aan de gemeente Den Haag van de Dienst Stadsbeheer. Een stukje, op een verzoek om de rest heb ik nooit antwoord gekregen. Vriendelijk verzoek: pas dan ook de Lijst van bruggen in Den Haag in Wikipedia aan. Stunteltje (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ik was al begonnen eigenlijk: De rechter foto bij gw49 hoort niet bij de locatie-omschrijving, maar is Rijswijkse Plein. Die foto zou dan verplaatst moeten worden, maar ik weet niet hoe dat moet. Ik kan er wel wat bij zetten natuurlijk. Tot daar ben ik nu gekomen. Straatspoor (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC) .[reply]

GW 48 is de brug op de kop van het Zieken aan BB als je vanaf de Vliet komt. GW 49 is de brug naar SB. Het klopt wel dat de foto van die van het Rijswijkseplein daar fout is, het is nagenoeg dezelfde als die er links onder. Verplaatsen is wat lastig, omdat er meestal twee foto's per brug zijn gebruikt in het artikel. Wat wel kan is er deze er voor in de plaats zetten. Dat heb ik dus maar gedaan. Stunteltje (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, dat is een hele goede oplossing. Bedankt. Straatspoor (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maar bij nader inzien toont de vervangende foto de brug Zieken⬅️/Spui⬆️. Brug Uilebomen/Pletterijkade is rechts➡️ naast deze foto. Straatspoor (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daar heb ik naar gekeken. Mijn conclusie was: kijk naar de achtergrond en het feit dat de bloembakken aan de andere kant dan die aan het Zieken hangen. Ik kan het niet uit de volgorde van de originele foto's halen. Was voor deze plaatjes ook te voet. Ik ga nog een keer kijken als ik bij de Ooievaart ben. Stunteltje (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaja, máár die bloembakken zijn een instinker. Want die hangen óók aan de juiste brug. Op de vervangende foto kijk je zo⬆️ het Spui op; ↙️links is de rondvaart-opstapplaats (geweest?) ; de tramrails in het gras is net niet te zien, maar ⬆️ kun je wel de tramhalte Bierkade herkennen.(links abri, rechts bord "verboden voor alle verkeer") ⬅️Zieken, Uilebomen➡️. Je kunt de volgorde niet veranderen zeg je; daarom zal ik er "verwijzing" bijzetten. Straatspoor (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Als je op google Maps kijkt is het alleen maar verwarrender. Want de namen Spui en Uilebomen staan op dezelfde weg tussen die 2 bruggen in. Op streetview is echter maar één naambord te zien: Spui. Het Spui loopt dus tot aan Uilebomen/Pletterijkade. Straatspoor (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Stunteltje (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)== Overige brug~vragen. ==[reply]

Er zijn nog enkele locaties onduidelijk: - EZH-terrein? Waarschijnlijk is dit nabij de Van Boecopkade. - GW 203 Spoorbrug: welke spoorbrug? - DSB 103? De overige "raadsels" weet ik denk wel (ik ben "cartofiel") , maar heb ik nog niet verduidelijkt. Straatspoor (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daar had ik geen foto's van en ook geen idee waar ze liggen. De informatie is uit de genoemde publicatie. Stunteltje (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nou dat geeft niet hoor, ik vind ze toch wel. Tot nu toe althans. EZH moet daar wel zijn; er zijn maar 2 spoorbruggen dus da's ook niet moeilijk; DSB 87 herkende ik aan (wederom) de brugleuning (3 bruggen daar hebben dat, dat wel, maar het is toch dicht bij elkaar). DSB 103 is juist herkenbaar omdat er geen hekken/leuningen zijn. Er was nog een groot raadsel: met GW 70 "had je me bijna tuk". Doch na lang bestuderen van het weinige dat er te zien was heb ik de exacte locatie tòch achterhaald. Uiteraard zet ik de locatie er steeds bij. (Ik kwam bij toeval deze bruggen-lijst tegen toen ik keek of er lemma over de Laakbrug was). Straatspoor (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heel aardig dat er nu meer informatie bij de bruggen staat. Indertijd die lijst gemaakt, omdat azijnpissers hier vaak individuele bruggen niet encyclopedisch genoeg vinden. Dus al helemaal een simpel betonnen bruggetje over een sloot. Ik heb veel meer foto's, dus als je twijfelt is het handig als je via je OP een mailadres publiceert. Of via mijn OP een mailtje stuurt. Dan kan ik je desgevraagd aanvullende plaatjes sturen. Vaak verschillen die net een klein beetje en zijn ze daarom niet geupload. Stunteltje (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graag gedaan, en wellicht breid ik het nog een beetje uit. Hier uit moge blijken dat ik geen lemma als niet-encyclopedisch zal beoordelen. Ik geloof dat het nu wel duidelijk is; wellicht ga ik kijken bij de Neuhuyskade hoe de nummering nou precies zit. Dan kom ik ook bij DSB 103 in de buurt. Het is nu een flinke lijst, maar evengoed staan lang niet alle brugjes er op volgens mij. Klopt dat ? Dat verklaart allicht ook de grote "gaten" in de nummering. In de tekst bovenaan staat niet "deze lijst is niet compleet" ofzo iets. Dat wil ik wel vermelden. Ben je het daarmee eens? Ik ben niet van plan meer bruggen toe te voegen, want ik heb geen info daarvoor. Bij de gemeente vond ik helaas ook geen lijst. Straatspoor (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dat niet alle bruggen er in staan klopt. Prima om dat te vermelden. (Ik ben het artikel dan wel een keer gestart, maar dat maakt het niet mijn artikel. Doe wat je goeddunkt.) Ik ben begonnen met alle bruggen uit de publicatie en een paar die ik al varende een keer zag onderweg en van de meeste een foto had. Ik zie dat ik er nog meer van andere bruggen heb, maar dan heb ik er geen naam bij. Als ik daar een keer aan toe kom zal ik ze met een foto toevoegen op brugnummer. Rij geen motor meer, dus even door Den Haag crossen om plaatjes te schieten is lastiger. Stunteltje (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, prima, inmiddels heb ik dat er bij gezet, en nog wat aanvullingen bij diverse bruggen. Straatspoor (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandaag ben ik naar de stad geweest en heb enkele bruggen bekeken. GW 70 is inderdaad waar ik zei. Daarna liep ik naar de Neuhuyskade. De 'noordelijke' brug is GW 34. De coördinaten staan er al bij, maar voor de duidelijkheid zal ik er nog Wassenaarse weg bijzetten. Ik liep naar de middelste brug. Door al het groen kon ik het nr. niet lezen. En het zit vaak maar aan 1 kant. De 'zuidelijke' brug heeft wel aan 2 kanten, dus ik hoefde niet de drukke Benoordenhoutseweg over te steken. Er staat duidelijk DSB 103. Derhalve is de middelste brug dan GW 87. Ik zet de straatnamen er bij. De nummering lijkt 'enigzins' kris-kras door de stad te gaan. Straatspoor (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dat laatste was ook mijn ervaring Stunteltje (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ik ben gisteren voor de aardigheid nog even gaan kijken naar de brug die op de foto van GW 68 ook te zien is, verderop. Dat bleek GW 316 te zijn. Daarna liep ik langs dat water door het bos. De eerste houten brug bleek DSB 323 te zijn. En de volgende was warempel 323. Het was een keertje logisch. Ik liep verder langs de sloot achter de Bezuidenhoutse weg. Daar zijn 3 brugjes; 1 privé, 1 ruïne, en 1 openbare, allen ongenummerd. Het is daar smaller, maar varen kan nog in principe. Bij de Laan van Nieuw Oost Indië houd dat echter op. Daar is GW 90, wat meer een overkluizing/dam is. Ondoorvaarbaar dus. Daar stopte mijn wandeling. Ik heb e.e.a. toegevoegd, maar heb niet de bedoeling om alle nummers op te sporen. Straatspoor (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Komt nog wel een keer als ik een keer bij de gemeente iets te doen heb. Leuk om al die aanvullingen van het artikel te zien. Als ik tijd van leven heb ga ik ook elders in Den Haag nog wel eens op jacht met mijn fototoestel naar andere bruggen. En niemand houdt je tegen om dat zelf ook te doen. Stunteltje (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Als je geïnteresseerd bent in de techniek van bruggen, kan ik je de vele soorten in de haven van Antwerpen aanbevelen. Tenzij je die al kent natuurlijk. Op bruggenstichting.nl staat er een artikel over, en op Wiki is er een lijst. Bij div. daarvan heb ik al wat bijgedragen. Straatspoor (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daar voer ik lang geleden door en onderdoor. Had toen nog geen elektronische camera en wikipedia bestond nog niet, dus ik heb er zelf geen foto's van. Laat het met een gerust hart aan jou over.--Stunteltje (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt. Overigens heb ik alleen tekst toegevoegd of geactualiseerd. Foto's heb ik niet. Straatspoor (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Longship_(ship,_1917)

Category:Longship_(ship,_1917) 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 ∙ +/−

Motacilla (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cat-a-lot

Hoi, wat betreft je verwijderde opmerking in De Kroeg: het is weldegelijk mogelijk om Cat-a-lot voor categorieën te gebruiken. Moet je alleen eerst in de preferences onderaan het Cat-a-lot ballonnetje instellen (allow categorizing pages that are not files). --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hartelijk dank. Ik had het probleem al anders opgelost. Maar nu weer wat geleerd. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please give images better names

العربية ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ עברית ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ magyar ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

I noticed you've uploaded File:ENI 03800059 P1 (09).jpg and I thought I should draw your attention to a common error. Please give uploaded files meaningful names. Otherwise they are difficult to track and it is hard to tell what the file is about without actually looking at it. I suggest you rename your image with an intuitive name that describes the file itself. Thanks, and happy editing!

modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 18:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Werf Gusto, Schiedam

Hello Stunteltje, at first best wishes for the new year and keep healthy! Now I need your local knowledge: At the moment we have the categories Ships built at Werf Gusto, Schiedam and Ships built at Scheepswerf en Machinefabriek Werf Gusto, Schiedam. I believe, that's the same shipyard and both categories should be merged. Groetjes -- Ein Dahmer (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes too. You are right, the same shipyard. Gusto, Schiedam (From 1905 Firma A.F. Smulders, named after his grandchildren August and Cato. From 1911 on legally N.V. Werf Gusto v/h A.F. Smulders, but in Rotterdam/Schiedam known as Werf Gusto). Merged with IHC and became IHC Gusto Schiedam, IHC Gusto Staalbouw Slikkerveer and IHC Gusto Staalbouw Geleen.--Stunteltje (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oki doki, I've moved all categories to Category:Ships built at Werf Gusto, Schiedam and redirected Category:Ships built at Scheepswerf en Machinefabriek Werf Gusto, Schiedam. Groetjes --Ein Dahmer (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth 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 (2022) 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 are all 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.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 1 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:El_Kantara_(ship,_1932)

Category:El_Kantara_(ship,_1932) 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 ∙ +/−

Motacilla (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships_built_at_Neptune_Shipyard,_Wallsend

Ships built at Neptune Shipyard, Wallsend 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 ∙ +/−

Motacilla (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Correcting typo in file name

Hi Stunteltje,

Could you please take out the extra "a" typo in this new file name from "County Halla Halla an Chontae" to "County Hall Halla on Chontae" instead?

I don't know how to and came across you posting on this before.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:County_Halla_Halla_an_Chontae_-_D%C3%BAn_Laoghaire-Rathdown_County_Council_(2023).jpg

Regards

Darren Darren J. Prior (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any idea about the the correct name, but looking at this article the name can be correct. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bitts

Bitts 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 ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category

When you want to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category, best practice is to mark it with {{SD|C2}} if it would be OK to re-create it in the future, given that appropriate content becomes available or {{SD|C1}} if it is an inappropriate category name that should not be reused. In particular, this is better practice than just blanking the category page, as you did at Category:Amigos (ship, 2007). ("C1" and "C2" come from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion). Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks. Added the link to the article to my favorites. Stunteltje (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military ship completion years

I've gotten in a bit of discussion at User talk:S. DÉNIEL#Category:Suchet_(ship,_1894), after he changed a ship category year from year of completion to year of launch. He did rightly point out that we have an awful lot of military ship categories which are listed under year of launch, not year of completion, so he assumed that was the policy for military ships at least. Was there ever a concerted effort to fix existing categories, once the naming standard using year of completion went in? Should we do one, or leave them alone? Maybe there is a better forum to ask this, and get more opinions, but you seemed to be involved in the original discussions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For military ships we don't use the year of completion, nor the year of launch. We use the year of the first commisioning. Especially for modern ships it sometimes takes years after launch and completion at the shipyard before first commissioning. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline at Category:Ships by year of manufacture does not mention commissioning -- though it does say to use year of maiden voyage if year of completion is not known, which is probably close enough to commissioning. I would think modern naval vessels are commissioned as soon as they are ready for use (i.e. completed), though that can be years after they are launched. In the age of sail, ships were sometimes completed but then only commissioned when there was a particular use in mind. Either way, we have loads of naval ship categories which are using year of launch instead of manufacture (completion). Should we make an effort to go through them and fix them? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Hope it will work. In my experience there was a lot of resistance, coming from the English language Wikipedia. There ships are categorised using the year of launch. The Dutch language and more Wikipedia's follow the categorising according Commons. Stunteltje (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2023 voting is open!

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2023 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighteenth 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 (2023) 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 are all 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.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 14 October 2024, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2022 Picture of the Year contest.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2023 voting is open!

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) 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.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2023.

Round 2 will end at 28 October 2024, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

If you have already voted for Round 2, please ignore this message.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hr.Ms. Gelderland (ship, 1900) en Niobe (ship, 1900)

Hoi Stunteltje, Category:Niobe (ship, 1900) is een subcategorie van Category:Hr.Ms. Gelderland (ship, 1900) maar op Wikidata is die subcategorie als 'Commons Category' ingesteld. Dat komt op mij als onlogisch over. Zeker omdat dat schip tientallen jaren gevaren heeft onder de naam Gelderland en maar enkele jaren als Niobe. Maar goed, misschien hoort het wel zo. Zijn daar regels voor? - Robotje (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niet dat ik weet. Maar ik ben helemaal niet los op Wikidata, kan het dus mis hebben. Bij moderne schepen speelt het minder, omdat die een IMO nummer hebben waaronder beide catagorieën kunnen gerangschikt. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ik heb het in Wikidata aangepast zodat het niet meer aan die subcategorie gelinkt is. Als dat problemen geeft merk ik het wel. - Robotje (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Stunteltje

IMO 5375008

Außenhafen Eckernförde

Fancy II

Shipyard category

Reaction ferry

doppelte Kategorie

A barnstar for you!

POTY error

Category:Patria (ship, 1999)

Could you

Non-empty redirected categories

Copyright status: File:ENI 02331761 ALIE-JAN (01).JPG

No license nominaties

File:Batavia 03.JPG en File:Batavia 02.JPG

Schooner Touch-Me-Not

Bengkalis

Category:Bremerhaven (tugboat, 1993) vs. Category:VB Bremerhaven (tugboat, 1993)

Schip Lydia

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open!

Discussion on Wikipedia

Askold (ship, 1900)

Wikidata:Project chat

Template for the ENI

Important message for file movers

IJstroom

Nog twee vragen

Presidente Juscelino

Proefvaarten en scheepstewaterlatingen

Nog drie

Lion

I need some help

Same ship?

Hr.Ms. Bellatrix (ship, 1915)

Dubbele categorie

Port of Rotterdam

Categorie bij schip dat wordt gesloopt

Wie is deze meneer?

Copyright status: File:ENI 03270408 DE GOEDE VERWACHTING (13).JPG

Copyright status: File:ENI 03270408 DE GOEDE VERWACHTING (13).JPG

A heads-up

De Ruyter

Confusion

Sternwheelers

Category:Seven Seas (ship, 1941)

Excelsior (ship, 1987)

Brug gw 102.

Cat-a-lot

Please give images better names

Werf Gusto, Schiedam

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

RE: Correcting typo in file name

How to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category

Military ship completion years

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2023 voting is open!

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2023 voting is open!

Hr.Ms. Gelderland (ship, 1900) en Niobe (ship, 1900)

Navigation menu

Search