User talk:Ies/Archive 2008

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Image:Wuppertal Ottenbrucher Bahnhof 0005.jpg[edit]

Einzelne Bilder? Oder die ganze Kategorie als Restaurant? Nur nicht doppelt. --Atamari 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Da habe ich nicht aufgepasst. Lassen wir es bei der Kategorie! Danke für den Hinweis. -- Ies 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Erstmal - vielleicht gibt es dort ähnliche robleme wie bei der Bahnanlage Boltenberg (diese Bilder gehörten ja damals auch nicht alle zum Wuppertaler Zoo). Hier unter dem Kategorie-Name "Ottenbrucher Bahnhof" passt schon besser die Eigenschaft als Restaurant. Ist eigentlich der Bahnhof Zoo auch als Restaurant eingetragen? --Atamari 20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Penguin sculptures in Wuppertal[edit]

Ist denn nicht eine Category:Pinguinale besser? --Atamari 20:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Würde ich favoritisieren - als Kulturveranstaltung und Event. Passt aber auch in Skulptur. --Atamari 20:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, wie ordnen wir die jetzt über das ganze Stadtgebiet verteilten Pinguine am besten ein? Zur Pinguinale, der Veranstaltung im letzten Sommer, zählen die eigentlich nicht mehr, oder? -- Ies 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Indirekt schon, ohne die "Veranstaltung" gäbe es die Pinguine nicht im Wuppertaler Stadtbild. Die category:Penguin sculptures in Wuppertal sieht so aus als gäbe es "Penguin sculptures in Köln", "Penguin sculptures in Düsseldorf", "Penguin sculptures in Berlin"... usw. weitere "Penguin sculptures in xy" scheint aber unwarscheinlich zu sein. --Atamari 21:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Du hast recht, ich habe die Bilder in Category:Pinguinale gesetzt. Was in Wuppertal die Pinguine sind, habe ich in anderen Städten auch schon mit Kühen und Schweinen gesehen. Wie mögen die das jeweilige Event da wohl genannt haben: Kuhinale, Schweininale? Pinguinale klingt auf jeden Fall besser. :-) -- Ies 20:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Zur Erklärung[edit]

Historische Bilder (i.d.R. = freie Bilder) hatte ich bislang nicht anderweitig kategoriesiert. Beharre aber an diese Vorgehensweise aber nicht. Man könnte jetzt aber noch einige Kirchen zusammen fassen - ich denke die Gemarker Kirche hat genug Bilder. --Atamari 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Die historischen Kirchenfotos scheinen mir noch etwas ungeordnet. Einige von Dir beigetragene Fotos sind nur als historische, einige von Pitichinaccio beigetragene Fotos sind nur als Kirchen kategorisiert. Die Fotos der Beyenburger Klosterkirche hatte ich schon zusammen gefasst, weil sich das gerade so schön ergab. Vor den restlichen Kirchen hatte ich aber noch respektvollen Abstand gehalten, da ich mich mit denen nicht wirklich auskenne. -- Ies 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Courthouses in Lüdenscheid[edit]

Hallo les, eine eigene Kategorie für nur ein Bild? Da es nur ein Gericht in Lüdenscheid gibt, kommen nicht mehr viele Bilder dazu. --195.145.160.196 14:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ja, das leuchtet nicht sofort ein. Es hilft aber Ordnung zu halten und erleichtert das Auffinden und die Zuordnung sowohl verschiedener Gebäude in Lüdenscheid als auch von Gerichtsgebäuden verschiedener Städte. Ich räume übrigens schon mal vorab auf. Demnächst kommen einige Bilder von Lüdenscheid hinzu. Das derzeitig einzige Bild vom Gericht wird auch nicht alleine bleiben. -- Ies 14:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wuppertal Elberfeld 15[edit]

Frage zu Image talk:Wuppertal Elberfeld 15.jpg gesehen? --Atamari 15:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Beantwortet. -- Ies 15:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, also Barmen. Kann es sein, dass es Friedrich-Engels-Allee 384 ist? Dann hätte ich wieder ein Artikel auf der ToDo-Liste. --Atamari 15:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ja, Google Maps zeigt bei dieser Adresse ziemlich genau auf das richtige Haus. Auch das Ensemble mit den beiden Schieferhäusern der angrenzenden Engelsstraße stimmt mit der Beschreibung überein. Das isses. -- Ies 15:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Manioc images[edit]

Hi, Les. I'm really confused by your actions and was hoping to avoid further reversions by asking for a little clarification. Why exactly are you removing the images Image:Dried manioc.jpg and Image:Drying Manioc.jpg from Category:Manihot? By your own edit summary, the images should be categorized to the most exact category as possible, and in this case, that happens to be Category:Manihot because we don't know the specific species pictured. By Commons guidelines, "It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure." You seem to be removing these images from their place on that tree by taking them from Category:Manihot. Thanks, Amcaja 02:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Diverses[edit]

Briller Viertel[edit]

Ich habe einige Bilder gemacht, vielleicht kannst du etwas kategorisieren. --Atamari 23:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Na, diese Haus kenne ich doch irgendwo her. :-) -- Ies 17:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Nur ich habe das schönere BLAU (ohne Farbkorrektur) ;-) --Atamari 17:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Zoo[edit]

Mein Vorschlag wäre alle Objekte und Landschaften (Category:Zoo Wuppertal (basics)) eine Ebene zurück (Category:Zoo Wuppertal) und die Tiere nach Category:Animals in the Zoo Wuppertal. Analog zu den Museen, siehe Category:Von-der-Heydt-Museum und Category:Paintings in the Von-der-Heydt-Museum. Gefällt mir deutlich besser. Evt. kann man in Zukunft auch Category:Plants in the Zoo Wuppertal machen wenn es viele sind. --Atamari 23:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Das ist eine gute Idee und würde auch mir besser gefallen. Den Umstand mit den (basics) hatte ich nur gemacht, da alle anderen Zoos die Tiere direkt im Hauptverzeichnis haben und das wohl der allgemeinen Gewohnheit entspricht. Unser neuer, eigentlich besserer Aufbau würde dann aus der Reihe tanzen. Lassen wir uns davon beeindrucken? -- Ies 17:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ich finde das Modell mit den Museen so einleuchtend und ärgere mich, das ich nicht damals darauf gekommen bin. Gibt es überhaupt andere Zoos (die Kategorien) die zwischen dem Park und seine Bewohner (Tiere) differenzieren? --Atamari 17:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sieht nicht so aus. Wir scheinen die ersten zu sein, die in einem Zoo nicht nur die darin enthaltenen Tiere sehen. -- Ies 19:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Dann ist es beschlossen, wenn ich Zeit finde verschiebe ich auf Category:Animals in the Zoo Wuppertal - es sei denn du kommt mir zuvor. --Atamari 14:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Naturdenkmäler[edit]

Rosskastanie am Rabenweg

Für die Bilder Image:Wuppertal Nützenberg 0013.jpg und Image:Wuppertal Nützenberg 0014.jpg brauchen wir noch eine eine Kategorie wie Naturdenkmale in Wuppertal. Siehe auch hier: de:Liste der Naturdenkmäler in Wuppertal, evt. sogar unterteilt biologisch/geologisch. --Atamari 23:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Da hatte ich schon heftig drüber nachgedacht. Fotos der Bachschwinde Blumenroth habe ich eben hochgeladen. Fotos vom Hohenstein habe ich auch noch. Für den Anfang wird es wohl eine gemeinsame Kategorie tun. Trennen (biologisch/geologisch) können wir immer noch, wenn wir genug zusammen haben. -- Ies 17:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ja, wenn dir noch einen guten Namen einfällt und die passenede Mutter-Kategorien.
Guckst Du: Category:Natural monuments in Wuppertal
Bei den Baudenkmalern (Category:Memorial buildings in Wuppertal) sollten wir auch mal nachdenken. Ich denke es mach keinen Sinn, alle Fotos die in Frage kommen dort hin einsortiere, es werden wahrscheinlich 80-90% der Gebäude sein. Besser wäre es vielleicht nur die, die als eigene Kategorie existieren, dort mit der "Eigenschaft" Baudenkmal aufzunehmen. zB die jetzt von mir angelegte Category:Villa Frowein. --Atamari 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Brunnen[edit]

Vielleicht hast du hierzu noch ein paar Bilder, zu der Liste (de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Wuppertal/Liste der Brunnen in Wuppertal) die gerade in der Werkstatt bzw. im Entwurf ist. --Atamari 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerade vorrätig habe ich 5 Bilder vom Werther Brunnen (die 2 Halbkugeln). Und noch ein Bild von dem Ding vor der Deutschen Bank in Barmen, bei dem ich mir nicht sicher war, ob es ein (still gelegter?) Brunnen oder eine Skulptur ist. Wie ich sehe, taucht es in Deiner Liste als Brunnen auf. Nette Liste, übrigens. Die sieht nach einer Menge Recherchearbeit aus. --Ies 15:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Die eigentliche Arbeit kommt noch. Die Liste ist aus "Denkmäler Brunnen und Plastiken in Wuppertal" von Ruth Meyer-Kahrweg ungefähr 380 Objekte sind beschrieben - sehr interessant. Die Schwierigkeit ist, dies als Quelle zu benutzen ohne URV zu begehen. Dewegen habe ich auch schon einzelne Skulpturen fotografiert, wie beispielsweise der Bär an der Schule. --Atamari 19:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wuppertal Friedrich-Ebert-Str 0011.jpg (Fenster der Sophienkirche)[edit]

Hälts du die Umwandlung in SVG sinnvoll? Ich zweifel... --Atamari 09:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nein, das ist Unsinn. Habe ich schon revertet. -- Ies 15:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Image:Something on a branch.JPG[edit]

Yes, it looked mighty strange, which is why I gave it such an ambiguous name, too :) Do you know such an expert, or a better category we could use for it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make a category for your image as well as some similar images I found at a not well suiting place. Wait a short while, please... --Ies 07:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The job is done: Category Wasp nests and the required surroundings are prepared and your image is moved. -- Ies 13:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Nicely done, the nests categories should be quite useful.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil[edit]

Not anyone who creates senseless categorys is a stupid bot ;) Regards, __ ABF __ ϑ 11:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As I saw thousends of categories made by User:Polbot I'm pretty certain it was nothing but this one! Though the bot ran for vew days only before it could be stopped, Commons still suffers from the mess it caused. Greetings, --Ies 15:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but Category:Hydrangea serrata eg. was mabde by Quadell, who is not a bot afaik ;) Regards, __ ABF __ ϑ 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but Quadell is owner of User:Polbot and when the bot ran it marked all new produced categories with "Quadell" (instead of "Polbot"). See for instance the not yet cleaned Category:Pachypodium and Category:Berberidaceae in which the species categories are for shure made by the bot. --Ies 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhamnus[edit]

About the file Image:Rhamnus ludovici-salvatoris.jpg. I realized it was wrong: it was not Rhamnus ludovici-salvatoris, it was Rhamnus alaternus, so I changed the name in the description. Do you know a way to change the file's name? Paucabot 08:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paucabot, thanks for this information. Renaming own images is quite easy with {{badname|Image:new name.jpg}}. Simply upload a correct named version of your image (Image:new name.jpg) and replace the description of the incorrect named one with {{badname|Image:new name.jpg}}. -- Ies 18:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Kategorien[edit]

Sorry für meine Übertreibungen sowie das ungenaue Arbeiten mit dem Kategorisieren von Fotos. Ich werde Deine freundlichen Hinweise künftig besser beherzigen und diese „Dummheiten“ so gut wie möglich zu vermeiden trachten. Wenn ich doch mal wieder über die Stränge schlagen sollte, ersuche ich schon jetzt um Verzeihung; es wird nicht in böser Absicht geschehen. Es ist in Anbetracht dieses Kategorien-Dschungels oft ein wenig schwierig und recht aufwändig, den passenden Titel zu finden. Und wie Du richtig anmerkst, ist gegebenenfalls eine neue Unterkategorie zu eröffnen. Danke für Deine verständnisvolle Aufklärung und viele Grüsse aus einem sonnigen Kärnten. -- Johann Jaritz 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Passiflora[edit]

Hi, I'm interested where you have taken the photographs of these passionflowers. A while ago I have taken a look in Passiflora: Passionflowers of the World (ISBN 0881926485) which is regarded as a standard work on passionflowers, but I couldn't find pictures that resembled the species you have photographed. Today I have got a copy of Curtis's Botanical Magazine of August 2006 and there I saw a picture and desciption that matched this species perfectly: Passiflora pardifolia. According to the desciprition this speies is indigenous in Brazil. Have you taken the photographs in Brazil or somewhere else where the plant is cultivated? Kind regards, Hans B. 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hans, thanks for attending to this plant! I found it cultivated (but unfortunately without a tag) in the Botanical Garden of Bochum, Germany. Best regards, -- Ies 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your information. Here I have found a picture of the species you have photographed: [1], but the acompanying text says it's Passiflora organensis. I think the Botanical Garden of Bochum has misidentified their species. According to the article of John Vanderplank about Passiflora pardifolia in Curtis's Botanical Magazine, it was at first thought to be a form of Passiflorra organens. Here you see: the "real" Passiflora organensis and here you see pictures of Passiflora pardifloia. The last pictures better match with the specimen in the Botanical Garden of Bochum than the picture of Passiflora organensis. I will sent an email to the Botanical Garden of Bochum, maybe there not aware of this. Kind regards, Hans B. 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

no edit war?[edit]

Most often you improve the image information -- that is awesome! Today, I saw that you (perhaps) did not want to have a single ugly image in the Oxalis category. I am personally not into gallery making -- it is a high maintenance ordeal to me. I do not hate them though and I haven't destroyed any. I am slowly moving them out of Category:Senecio simply because there is too much going in the upper portion of the page. To me, almost everything that can be done to make a gallery nice can be done to make a category nice.

I had a huge problem with the 'master plan' in another set of category here. Space flight. It just can't be done in the linear fashion that the 'master plan' decrees. Then, there is the software. The software is capable of much more than an overly simple and anal list is.

I don't like the uncat template on image pages. I don't like the stupid category either like Author died more than 80 years ago public domain images. If you had a completely free set of images to look at, would you look there for a specific image you needed? I wouldn't.

I did probably make a not even half finished mess in rockets -- but the intentions were good and the plan was almost there. If someone who understands and loves rockets would look into it, I think it would make sense and could be picked up from there.

I saw a diff today of an edit war that you were in sometime ago. That isn't fun, is it?

Then, there is the little issue of your nick. It is a classic unix catch phrase, 'because less does more than more'. I laugh about this everytime your name comes up in my watch list because it seems to be true with les also.

I just made a category and it is all missing now. The category, the history and I just undid that. Please, lets make it easy. Gallery and category can exist -- the software is strong, be as strong as the software. -- carol 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Carol, a stone will reamin a stone, a rocket remain a rocket and a hammer remain a hammer even in hundred years. Therefore such fix things very well suit to fix categories. Names of plant species, however, frequently change and even are preliminary by definition. Therefore these variable plant names very well suit to the variable articles. Variable articles means that they easy can be renamed, removed and redirected for maintenance reasons. As (species) categories on the other hand can NOT be renamed, removed and redirected their regular maintenance is very difficult, not to say almost impossible. Consequently I’m asking you to categorise everything but plant species. Particularly duplicate categories of already existing articles don’t make any sense. Bear in mind that these firstly are superfluous, secondly are difficult to maintenance, thirdly force users to look at two different places and fourthly force botanist to go to more than the double time and efford of maintaining plant species! Please do without plant species categories! -- Ies 19:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirection pages. Oh heck, your user name is an with an I -- sorry about that. I was just looking at the Category for Senecio and I came here to mention that I am really excited to get that in better shape. The main category should contain pictures of the bugs that eat them and the only gallery pages that will be left there are the ones for cultivars (at least I think that was what was going on there). Senecio has more than 20,000 named species -- so don't think for a second that I haven't thought about this. I suspect that once everything is figured out by the people who figure such things out that the list will be more like in the hundreds. What is the difference between category and gallery when it comes to synonyms? I can't figure any differences but that doesn't mean that there aren't any. Please, let me know. -- carol 20:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference between category and gallery when it comes to synonyms? As explained: One easy can move or redirect a gallery to the new name. Both is impossible with categories! In other words: when it comes to synonyms there is no way to handle this in categories! Depending on the certain authority there are 'only' about 1000 to 1250 accepted Senecio names. 'Only' because that's only about half of the accepted Euphorbia names. It took a week of my life to delete the superfluous Euphorbia species categories an ignorant user's bot once produced. -- Ies 20:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The only thing that Category can't do is be moved. There is software to change all of the Category names within a Category -- I haven't felt like I needed it yet. Compared to the maintenance and also this one fact, that not everyone makes nice and well thought out galleries -- most often it is just pasted Image pages within the gallery tags which makes it much less informative than the category which at least give part of the image name and the image size. In a repository of images, the image size is the most useful information; in my opinion -- all of the other information is perhaps subjective or I know what I am looking for (not the person who constructed the gallery). And those galleries are not great promoters of objectivity, are they? They give the feeling that all of the images are there, but most often, this is not the case. In some ways, I feel that I won this discussion before I even started to work at commons because of how the galleries weren't working before I started here even. Everything that I mentioned that were problems that already existed and the maintenance problem is not an idea I am guessing at, it is something that I saw. The renaming of species -- the actual working fact is that they have all of these names -- set unchangeably into PDF and text books and other printed matter. When writing an article for a couple of my species, I had to search for all of the names. I think that your argument seems contingent on there only being one name for a species, and the fact is that if a name has changed, the other names still exist too.
I think that you make too much work of it and that this will not be (and has not been) the choice that people will make. The amount of extra work is not equal to the amount of gain and I personally do not like the subjective (opinionated) quality that the gallery can easily have. Also, it is just more productive for me to ignore the search engine problems -- and not 'build an empire' around that. The result I need is usually third, fourth or fifth -- the first result being an incomplete, subjectively constructed and in need of maintenance gallery.
And about subjectivity vs objectivity, you removed the category from one or two of my images and did not put them into a gallery. That is an example of you being subjective while constructing a gallery. As a user of a free archive of images, I don't really think that anyone should be able to do that. I am not going to tell you what image to use, I am going to put all of the images I know of into a category and trust that you know what you are looking for. Is this a wrong approach for me to take? -- carol 07:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxalis rosea[edit]

There is no article for Oxalis rosea on en:Oxalis, I did not search the other wiki to see if there are articles there.

Do you write articles? If you take on the task of writing articles for the genus, perhaps the maintenance and productivity problems I mention will make more sense. The naming problems -- I kind of know what you are saying about that but the reality is that there is little difference between what a category and a gallery can do and a big difference in other problems.

Perhaps you could start to make articles that are as nice as your gallery here are? -- carol 07:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If everyone made gallery like you do, my opinions would probably be different. Also, I wonder if the original taxo stuff I pasted on my categories was either directly from you or indirectly from you. I know from many different experiences that there is a perfect world and then there is the best that can be achieved from a combination of effort and working with what you got. My category ideas are more of the second. The galleries don't make use of the software.
I was really really sad that day that you took the Category off from my rather nice image and didn't put them into a gallery. If your goal was to make me feel bad and sad, you succeeded. -- carol 08:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Liste der Brunnen in Wuppertal[edit]

Die Liste der Brunnen in Wuppertal ist schon ein paar Tage fertig - mindestens ein Bild kannst du noch beisteuern? ;-) --Atamari 18:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wuppertal-Stammtisch[edit]

Hallo Ies!
Für den 29. März ist wieder ein Stammtisch in Wuppertal geplant − würde mich freuen, wenn du vorbeikommen könntest :-)
Beste Grüße, --Atamari 18:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Danke für die Einladung. Ich komme! -- Ies 13:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Senecio squalidus[edit]

I thank you for including the railway stations in the gallery that you made for Senecio squalidus. This was one of the most interesting and fun articles (or anything) I wrote in the last few months. I made some changes to the gallery you made. I would appreciate if you tell me of things you like or dislike about the changes; I admit that my changes could be much better as I am only just now looking at all of the table options that are available. -- carol 18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey there![edit]

One of my citations referenced you.... en:Euphorbia canariensis feel free to edit or add. -- carol 00:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is one more nonsense you unfortunately produced. The amount of citations probably should but can't mask that you don't know what you're writing about. Obviously you didn't even try to understand what you're citing. Please stop and study at least the basics of botany before you write botany related articles! -- Ies 01:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
My articles there are at least as good as many of the others. The 'real' botanists aren't writing articles, are they? The homeopaths took over one page -- where were these omniscient botanists then?
I am open to constructive criticism; the web site that mentioned your name mentioned it in that you confirmed that their plant was indeed that species. I liked it to cite that the plant is poisonous because I suspect a similar thoroughness for the other details. If you please, deconstruct the method and thought-process that I used and show me the right way. Perhaps it is a bogus web site?
The gallery for Senecio kleinia is very nice, btw. Thank you for finding/providing so many images and sorting them by location. I would like to make maps of each of the islands with the area the plant grows in highlighted but that information has not shown itself to me.
If you prefer a not so friendly environment I could easily claim: You bastard! You made so much additional work for me! -- whatever works carol 02:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
"Your boss is a few sandwiches short of a picnic." <-- information that the fortune file just provided for me. I needed mapping information.... -- carol 02:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

turning red links blue[edit]

The authors of the paper I cited heavily for Senecio kleinia have it growing with a plant Schizogyne sericea which could have been from the genus Schizogyne Cass. except that this Aster-blah-blah doesn't exist. The Euphorb... Schizogyne does exist as a synonynm of Acalypha but there are these images:

That all certain look like an Asterca-spelling-problems.

If you would like to argue that I do not know what I am doing, you will have to find someone else because I tend to agree with this assumption.

Also, do you know what the nicely rounded mound of foliage is in Image:Quesera de Bravo.jpg? -- carol 19:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Haspeler Brücke[edit]

Category:Brücke Haspeler Straße (Wuppertal) nach Category:Haspeler Brücke (Haspeler Brücke) wäre die Benennung nicht besser? --Atamari 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ja, wäre besser. Den Artikel und damit den Namen hatte ich verpasst. -- Ies 15:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hartmannufer[edit]

Eigentlich ist das Hartmannufer keine Brücke, sondern eine kleine Straße (eher ein Fußweg). --Atamari 15:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Diesmal liegst Du wohl falsch. Siehst Du auf meinen Bildern das Geländer, wie es für eine Brücke typisch ist? An beiden Ufern der Brücke stehen mit “Hartmannufer” beschriebene Schilder, eines davon habe ich geknipst. In Google Maps wird das Hartmannufer zweiteilig abgebildet. Unsere Bilder stammen vom östlichen Teil. Vermutlich meinst Du mit der kleinen Straße den westlichen Teil. -- Ies 15:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Och komm... du hast doch selber das Straßenbenamungs-Schild (die weißen Schilder mit schwarter Schrift. Ein Benamungsschild für eine Brücke sieht man am Bismarcksteg) aufgenommen. Es ist die Straße/Weg von der Hünefeldstraße bis Haspeler Brücke/Further Hof, Benennung 1935 (siehe auch "Wolfgang Stock: Wuppertaler Straßennamen. Thales Verlag, Essen-Werden 2002, ISBN 3-88908-481-8). Die Straße führt über diese Brücke. In Google Maps werden nur Straßennamen eingeblendet, Brückennamen sind sie Ausnahmen. --Atamari 15:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:AlbinoPopcorn.jpg[edit]

Do you really think that including a picture of young popcorn seedlings in Category:Popcorn is inappropriate/"nonsense"? Category:Corn has many images of corn plants! Royalbroil 04:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with removing dandelions from the Category:Weeds. I am certain that all U.S. residents consider them weeds. Maybe they are not considered weeds in their native continent Europe but they overtake everything here in America for several weeks. Royalbroil 04:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I see that the category was removed for other reasons. Nevermind. Royalbroil 04:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Popcorn is the puffed up seed of Zea mays. Your seedling is neither a seed nor puffed up. In other words: What you call popcorn seedling is actually a seedling of Zea mays. Please check the articles en:Corn (redirected to en:Maize) and en:Popcorn for further information.
Btw, whether or not a plant is stated a weed greatly depends on the certain area, the local law, and even a certain point of view. This certainly doesn't suit to a universally valid category. Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia (Syn. Taraxacum officinale) like most so called dandelions is of Asian origin and only became naturalised in Europe. Currently you see it becoming naturalised in America. Some dandelions like Taraxacum alaskanum and Taraxacum californicum are even of American origin. -- Ies 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
We agree on the dandelion, and I see that it was removed from the weeds category because that category doesn't belong. I would argue that dandelions has become naturalized a long time ago. They are everywhere in the U.S. in early June. Whatever, it doesn't matter.
I do still disagree with you about the popcorn topic. The seedling produces the product that is harvested to make popcorn. Yes they look the same because they are varieties/strains of the same species. I think that are your usage is too narrow. I argue that a picture of any plant that produces any product should be added to the product's category. How many readers are knowledgable enough to understand the distinction that you have indicated off the top of their head? I did read both articles on the English Wikipedia. Royalbroil 16:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)