User talk:Kurpfalzbilder.de

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
jæja
jæja
English: Welcome to the Commons, Kurpfalzbilder.de!

Contents

Image:Berze la Ville Apside.jpg[edit]

Ich sehe auch hier keine permission. ...Forrester 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ich habe die Erlaubnis von Eduard van Boxtel zur Verwendung der Bilder von http://www.ho-net.nl/BourgogneRomane/ bereits an permissions-de_at_wikimedia.org weitergeleitet, aber da hat noch niemensch reagiert, heisst einfach abwarten, denke ich.
Zitat: Bonjour monsieur,
Merci pour votre courriers concernant les églises bourguignonnes. (Je vous écrirai en francais comme vous l'avez fait.)''
Je vous permets d'utiliser mes sources pour enricher wikipedia, si possible ajoutez un lien vers la page source. Aussi je suis interessé par les listes d'édifices que vous mentionnez. Avez-vous les construit d'apres les listes sur mon site (page http://www.ho-net.nl/BourgogneRomane/inventaire.htm)? En outre, je ne peux pas ouvrir les liens que vous avez envoyé, alors je ne peux pas trouver ces listes. Avez-vous les URL corrects?
Bonne continuation,
Eduard van Boxtel
www.BourgogneRomane.fr.vu
--Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam 15:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Jemand vom OTRS wird den Herren mal anmailen (die Freigabe war nicht besonders gut) ...Forrester 16:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

flickr-Bilder[edit]

Hallo Kurpfalz, danke für deine Arbeit. Achte bitte auch bei den Bildern auf die Qualität. Ich habe gesehen, dass unscharfe Bilder, schiefe Bilder und völlig verfärbte Bilder dabei sind. Gruß --ST 10:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

nun, das unscharfe Bild ist das einzige Bild eines romanischen Tympanons in Polen, das farblich zimlich gruslige Bild das einzige von Blis-Ebersing. wie auch immer, in Zukunft beschränke ich mich auf qualitativ bessere Bilder und "schiefe" Bilder kann ich mit GIMP auch etwas geraderücken, so geschehen bei diversen, gerade hochgeladenen flickr-Bildern (wenn ichs editiert habe merke ich das bei der Bildinfo auch an) Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam 22:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, danke dir. Es war ja nur ein Hinweis und keine böse gemeine Kritik. Danke dir jedenfalls nochmals für deine Arbeit. Gruß --ST 15:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)






Danke...[edit]

...für das kategorisieren von wahrscheinlich schon hunderten meiner Bilder hier. GrüßeSchmelzle

....Dito von mir. Tschüß --Ra Boe 19:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Landkreise Sachsen[edit]

Hallo, vielleicht wartest Du noch etwas mit dem Umkategorisieren aller Kirchenfotos nach Landkreisen, denn in wenigen Wochen werden alle Landkreise aufgelöst und neue, größere gebildet. Siehe: Kreisreform Sachsen 2008. Das gibt dann richtig Arbeit (auch bei den Wappen, Karten usw.). Vielleicht macht das dann ein Bot - sofern dieser weiß, in welchem Landkreis sich dann welche Gemeinde befindet. gruss Geograv 00:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

vielleicht macht es aber doch Sinn, denn der Bot hätte es dann viel leichter da sehr viel Bilder in der Kategorie Churches in Saxony bislang ohne jedwede weitere Kategorisierung dastanden, die ein Bot nicht nach Landkreisen sortieren kann. --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
kurznachgedacht, nein, ein Bot kann es niemals schaffen, also doch Handarbeit angesagt, drum beende ich meine Bearbeitung in dieser Kategorie--Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam 01:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
und ich hab mal länger drüber nachgedacht :-) - Du hast doch recht - es macht Sinn. Denn die Landkreise werden geschlossen in größere Landkreise überführt, sodass ein Bot nur die Landkreiskats A, B und C nach D verschieben muss. gruss Geograv 02:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


thank you for categorising[edit]

Hello there,

thank you for so meticulously categorising images. Every image should be in at least one category, and the more specific it is the better. If you need further help about the usage of categories (especially to avoid over-categorisation), you can read up on it here Commons:Categories#How_to_use_categories. Even for only one image you may create a proper category for future use. Also note that categories are in English, while an article is in native language. Feel free to ask if you have any further questions. sincerely Gryffindor 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanx! I just have a question about english spelling at the moment: recently I started the category Velum quadragesimale (Fastentuch). I took the latin name because I don't know the english. Do you have any idea? --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam 15:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Your best bet is to look at the English Wiki link just in case (although sometimes there you have be careful, since naming disagreements exist there as well). If the English Wiki does not give you a proper idea, then it is fine to go with whatever version goes best (in your case, it seems like a mixture of Latin and German), until a better solution can be found. Categories can be renamed and moved, you can put in request here User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Gryffindor 12:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)



Little conflict[edit]

Hallo, I noticed that you did substantial good work on the Belgian churches categorisation but that you entered in a conflict with our Belgian overall categorisation habits that are not really formalised. I quickly wrote something up in Category_talk:Churches_in_Belgium#Resolution_June_2008_-_Belgian_category_organisation, which is a consensus grown over the years. I did not mean to become aggressive, but sometimes it is difficult to explain things in such a short time.

If this gives you problems, I am of course happy to discuss this here with you. --Foroa 18:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

O.k., I see, so I will not longer categorize by provinces though I think that a categorization only with communities will still blow too much the category churches in belgium... --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam 19:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your understanding. What is too much? Anyway, at the rate that downloads are arriving, even a province subcat will eventually "blow too much". Fact is that nobody searches churches according to provinces. The day that your cat Gothic churches in Belgium gets too full, would it make sense to add a geographic province level subcat organisation ? I don't think so. A finer category system should differentiate in classes of gothic architectures, but that means more knowledge of the gothic architecture, which creates other problems of competences.
Personally, I feel that almost all churches deserve a photo series, not only the typical postcard like picture. Hence each church should have its own category in the end. As you can see in category:Cities and villages in Belgium, a rather flat category system has significant advantages for quick browsing. In other countries, this is missing, especially if you don't know the country organisation.
For your information, Belgium used to have 2700 municipalities. This has been reduced to 600 in the late seventies, mainly by regrouping them in administrative/political municipalities, but each village still has its own identity and feels often not connected to its municipality, or is sometimes more connected to another neighbouring "centrum" city. That's why you will not find many connections between villages in the same municipality. This might be different in a couple of dense cities such as Brussels where the borders between the villages are much more blurred. So connection the church of for example Mater to churches in Oudenaarde makes not much sense. (The church administrative organisation is quite different from the current administrative organisation) --Foroa 05:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Rygge Church in Østfold[edit]

I have reverted your change to the image of Rygge church as a romanesque church in Denmark for the simple reason that this is Rygge in Østfold, Norway. The church is not far from E6 aproximately 1 hours drive south of Oslo. If there is, or you want a category for Romanesque churches in Norway, that would be fine. Haros 19:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for the note! I will categorize romanesque churches in Norway after I have finished Denmark - which is much trouble, because each 3rd church can be categorized there; other categories I am surveying are "brick gothic churches", "fieldstone churches", "timber framed churches", by this way I have to categorize churches and buildings around the baltic sea and beyond (noth sea, including belgium, netherlands, england and france...) --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Castles and Ruins[edit]

Hallo, du hast die Bilder der Burg bzw. Ruine Wackenau als Untercat. von Category:Castles in Graubünden eingeordnet. Wäre es nicht sinnvoller, sie als Untercat. zu Category:Ruins in Graubünden" einzuordnen? Ich krieg das mit dem Erstellen von Untercats nicht hin, gibt immer ein Chaos wenn ich's versuch.... Gruss, --Parpan (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ich will die Kategorie Ruins in Graubünden in den nächsten Tagen durch die Kategorie Castles in Graubünden ersetzen, d.h., soweit es sich um Burgruinen handelt, da diese Kategorisierung die üblichere für Burgruinen ist. Wenn mehrere Bilder einer Burg vorhanden sind werde ich sie in Einzelkategorien fassen (was in Graubünden offenbar bislang nur für drei Burgen geschehen ist). In der Schweitz habe ich übrigens die Kantone Waadt (Vaud) und Schwyz schon fertig bearbeitet. --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Bei deinen Änderungen der Bilder zu Chaschinas ist dir ein Fehler unterlaufen: Die Burg heisst Chaschinas und nicht Castrisch, das ist eine andere... Gruss, --Parpan (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hoppla, Tschuldigung! Ich werd das gleich korrigieren. Gruss --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Fehler ist jetzt behoben --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)



TUSC token 3ea99f209780198093e5bbf84a41a4bf[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Cats[edit]

Hallo! Ich habe wieder ein paar Burgenbilder zum Hochladen. Hier habe ich mich selbst darin versucht - geht das so? So auf Anhieb sieht es glaub ich nicht so schlecht aus, oder? gruss und danke, --Parpan (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hat sich wohl erledigt.--Parpan (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Ja, Du hast es ja genauso gemacht, wie ivh . Gruss --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Schemelsberg (Vineyard)[edit]

Ähem ... den Schemelsberg zum Weinberg zu erklären, ist grob falsch. Das ist ein Berg, auf dem sich etliche Weinberge (im Definitions-Sinne von für den Weinbau landwirtschaftlich genutzte Fläche in Hang- oder Flachlage) befinden, aber außerdem auch Wald, Äcker, Gärten usw. Der Burgberg, auf dem sich die Burgruine Weibertreu befindet, ist zudem nicht mit dem Schemelsberg identisch. Mach das also bitte wieder rückgängig. Viele Grüße --Rosenzweig δ 10:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, der Schemelsberg ist in der Tat ein Berg bei Weinsberg, aber mit Schemelsberg wird auch die 34 ha große Weinlage bei Weinsberg bezichnet, die auch den Schlossberg mit einbezieht, und gilt als die beste Lage der Region. --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Das weiß ich schon, ich lebe dort und von mir sind bis auf eines alle Bilder, um die es geht. Eine Weinlage ist aber was ziemlich Abstraktes und kaum dazu geeignet, Bilder von Bergen dort rein zu kategorisieren, die eben den Berg zeigen, nicht die Weinlage (die als solche nichts ist, das man fotografieren könnte). Zudem heißt vineyard nicht Weinlage, sondern Weinberg. Wenn du also schon eine Kategorie für den Berg willst, dann nenn sie doch einfach Schemelsberg ohne Zusätze (m. W. gibt es keinen gleichnamigen Berg) und hänge sie unterhalb der Bergkategorien ein. Für die zwei Bilder, die tatsächlich den Schemelsberg zeigen, lohnt sich das aber kaum. Viele Grüße --Rosenzweig δ 11:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
na gut, dann werde ich die Kategorie umtaufen in "Vineyards of Weinsberg" --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Danke. Dieser Name ist ok, da können dann auch zukünftige Bilder Weinsberger Weinberge rein. Viele Grüße --Rosenzweig δ 21:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Category scheme Italy[edit]

Hi, I see your contribution on Ardea Category. Do you know that there is a Commons:Category scheme Italy for place in Italy? Please refer to it for categorizations. Ciao, --mac (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)




Flickr review[edit]

Good day Kurpfalzbilder.de, unfortunately I have closed your request for trusted user as unsuccessful, please take the advice & try again when you feel ready! Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Kleiner Tipp (falls schon bekannt, einfach ignorieren): wenn du Flickr-Bilder mit Flickr2commons auf Commons lädst, werden sie vom hochladenden Bot automatisch als reviewed gekennzeichnet. Hilft vielleicht in manchen Fällen schon. Viele Grüße --Rosenzweig δ 23:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
aha, das wusste ich noch nicht, merci für den tipp... --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)



category:Ancient Roman arches[edit]

Hallo, entschuldigung, - I need to learn a bit more of Deutsch -, so I will continue in my bad english ;) what's the matter with the ancient Roman categories. Several people like you are removing categories refering to ancient roman but those categories pages doesn't state anything about deletion. Did I miss something ? Greudin (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, kein problem, it was just a move :) Greudin (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
par-contre, moi je parle un peu de francais. C'est vrai, j'ai justement cree des nouveaux categories pour cites romaines en France (Nimes, Arles, Orange etc...) sans toucher les categories existantes --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

category[edit]

Hi,

I see that you do a good job for the category of fréjus. thx. --Patricia.fidi (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Reconstruction plans and models of castles[edit]

Hi! Koenntest Du in der Kategorie eine Definition ueber Sinn & Zweck dieser Kat einfuegen? Mir ist nicht ganz klar, wo die abgrenzung gegenueber Category:Castle drawings und Category:Castle models liegt. TomAlt (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Es geht um Rekonstruktionszeichnungen, die einen nicht mehr vorhandenen Zustand zeigen oder unausgeführte Wiederaufbaupläne. Ich habe das einzige Modell wieder herausgenommen (unter den modellen gibt es ja viele Rekonstruktionsmodelle, evtl könnte eine ensprechende subkategorie eingeführt werden, die eine gemeinsame hauptkategorie mit den rekonstruktionszeichnungen bekommen könnte) und die Kategorie lautet nun Reconstruction drawings of castles. Ich hoffe, es wird damit klarer. Di betroffenen Biler sind nun auch unter Drawings of castles in Germany kategorisiert. Gruss --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Viel besser, als zusätzliche Zeichnungskat macht das Sinn. Danke. TomAlt (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)



Category:Burgenkunde[edit]

Das gibt ja einmal eine Kategorie mit über 600 Einträgen. Da wäre es vielleicht sinnvoll, solange man nur an 47 Einträgen herumdoktorn muss/kann, wie man diese Kategorie sinnvoll aufbaut. Mein Vorschlag:

  1. Man nennt sie um in "Burgenkunde (Otto Piper)", sonst landen dort über kurz oder lang alle möglichen passenden und unpassenden Bilder.
  2. Man sortiert die Bilder in der Reihenfolge in der sie bei Piper auftauchen. So lassen sie sich nachher auch besser finden. (Ich habe das mal für 4 Bilder gemacht).

Bevor ich aber weiter mache, möchte ich erst Konsens mit Dir erzielen. --Wuselig (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ich bin in beiden Punkten einverstanden, und mache noch einen weiteren Vorschlag:
  • Unterkategorien nach den Kapiteln des Buches, am besten gleich jetzt schon damit anfangen, denn wenn es mehr Bilder werden, ist die Arbeut um so mühevoller.
gruss --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Schei..., warum hab' ich mich nur eingemischt? ;-)--Wuselig (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Das ist gar nichts im Vergleich zu meinem Vorhaben, die Kategorie Castles in Poland übersichtlicher zu gestalten ;-) --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please link images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello Kurpfalzbilder.de!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichillT (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ordensburgen.jpg[edit]

Hallo Andreas Rockstein, vielen Dank für das sehr schöne Bild zur den Deutschordensburgen! Ich finde die Beschriftung allerdings sehr klein. Man muss das Bild stark vergrößern um sie lesen zu können. Wäre es nicht sinnvoller, den Bildausschnitt auf das eigentliche preußisch-pomerellische Kernland zu beschränken? Dann könnte man einen größeren Maßstab für die Karte wählen. Die genaue Lage dieses Kernlandes innerhalb des Ostseeraums könnte dann ja in einer kleinen Zusatzkarte in eine Bildecke dargestellt werden. Grüße --Furfur 00:05 3-Dez-2008 CEST

Ich habe mal eben selber so einen Ausschnitt gemacht → Image:Ordensburgen Ausschnitt.jpg. Die grosse Karte sollte m.E. aber erhalten bleiben, schliesslich ist da noch ganz Litauen mit drauf. Eine weitere Karte mit Lettland und Estland folgt noch. p.s. hast Du eine vollstaendige Liste der Ordensburgen in den baltischen Staaten. Ich hatte nur eine für die polnischen und russischen Gebiete... Gruss --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Stone churches in Spain[edit]

Dear Kurpfalzbilder: congratulations for your work on categories about art and architecture in Spain. It is a pleasure to share project with editors of your level. I have a question for you: you have deleted the Category:Stone churches in Spain in several pages like Category:Cathedral La Seu, Urgell ‎and Category:Sant Climent de Taüll‎. I created that category to make another way of finding buildings by their main apparent material. It is somehow ambitious because thousands of churches fit for each category (brick, stone, concrete...) but it can be useful to find the images for people who don´t properly know the historical styles, and also to make differences between branches of each style. In Spain we have plenty of Mudejar Romanesque and Mudejar Gothic churches which use brick as their main material. Have your deletions been typos or do you have another point of view about the matter? Thank you for your kind attention. See you at Commons!--Balbo (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I thought, when you will fill the category "stone churches" consequently you have to put in tens of thousands of churches which makes not many sense (the same would be for "roman catholic churches in Spain" or "anglican churches in UK"). But I will not touch this category in future. The category "brick churches" makes more sense in my eyes, I have myself started the category Romanesque brick churches in Spain which can be extended in future by subcategories ("... in Castile and León" etc. or "mudejar-romanesque") --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok. The category can also be divided in subcategories. The main category is only a beginning. Also sandstone churches in Castile and León or Granite churches in Galicia and so on. Thank you very much for your kind attention. Cheers!--Balbo (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories in English[edit]

Hi again! I see that you are creating new categories for the cloisters in Spain. I have heard several times that the rule in commons is to name the categories in English when possible, using cloister better than claustro or claustre, and Church better than iglesia, esglèsia or ilesia. As you possibly will create other categories about this subject I thik it can be useful for the new ones. Cheers!--Balbo (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Jes, Categories schould be in english in general. But I prefer the original language names when I create categories for individual buildings, and I am not allone by this way, see the categories for castles for ex. And, but this is not your area, I would like to change the category "palaces in italy" into "Palazzi in Italy" due to the very different sense of the Italian "palazzo" comparing to the English "palace" --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks: I like your work.
Bad name: Category:Puerta meridional (Santiago) it's not of Santiago, it's of Cathedral of Santiago: Category:Porta meridional (Catedral de Santiago de Compostela). Also, there are Santiago of Chile... & Santiago de Compostela have 7 "puertas" (portas, doors). Perhaps you want say Category:Pórtico meridional (Catedral de Santiago de Compostela).
Also, if you can not use the language of Galicia (Spain) (it's gl)... please, you can use english. --88.24.115.134 15:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
At least I have changed the category into the original galego Name: Fachada das Praterías --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point with palazzo vs palace. I have myself created Category:Azulejos in Spain and Category:Patios of Spain for the same reason. Not that I have a strong opinion about all this, I am only trying to avoid problems when possible: as you know, in Spain there is a host of languages and dialects (official and also not official) and this stuff is mixed with politics, and sometimes it can be polemical which local language to choose. English is more aseptical, but indeed you are free to choose any other. Cheers, and congratulations for your work!--Balbo (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

New category: Romanesque porches in Castile and León?[edit]

Hi again! I know very well this phenomenon. They are called galería porticada, and there are plenty of them in Castile and León, especially in Segovia, as you said. The translation is not so evident for me, and I will think a bit about the matter before I answer. Cheers!--Balbo (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am wavering between gallery and arcade, and I think about Category:Romanesque attached arcades in Castile and León, but I am not completely sure, for it doesn´t mention that they belong to churches, as they do, and I am not also very sure about the grammatical correction. If I find something better I will tell you. Cheers!--Balbo (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Category:Romanesque church porticoes in Castile and León may improve the former.--Balbo (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Architectural miscelanea[edit]

Apses: I don´t agree in removing the images of corbels and windows in apses. They are most of the times the most characteristic decorated elements in Romanesque apses and I don´t find areason to exclude them from the category if they belong to an apse.

Choirs: I am sorry I don´t understand your thoughts about the meaning of choir[1]. Now I don´t have properly good English dictionaries available but I will have tomorrow. Choir is the place used by the singers, and not a kind of apse. In Spanish ábside can cave that sense of semicircular element, and if not we just call it cabecera. There must be an equivalent English name. I Spanish architecture, choirs (the place for the singers) can be in the middle of the central nave, at the pies (feet?, the end of the nave) and ellevated (is this what you call gallery?).

Romanesque in Basque Country: when I have some time I will look for more (indeed there exist more Basque Romanesque churches).

Today I won´t be able to continue at Commons, but tomorrow I will be pleased to talk with you about all these matters.

I am glad to see that you are working hard around here!--Balbo (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

First about choir. The definition at es.wikipedia is very short ( a bit better at pt.wikipedia) but it makes clear that ist is the main room of liturgy generally in the east of a medieval church. In many spanish churches the liturgical choir was west of the transept (prominent example: Catedral de Leon → plan) while the "architectonical" choir (plan) is situated east of the transept, which might cause some confusion but it is never the west gallery (plan)... --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I will be gald to add a heading to that new page about Romanesque. Congratulations. Yes, there is a lot of work to be done, as there are more or less the same quantitiy of Romanesque in the other provinces of Castile and León, but also in Aragón, Navarre, Galicia... And there is nott that much information (and even more free licensed information) about them in the net.

About the choir, it is the place for the community to sing the liturgical offices. But the altar is, indeed, the main liturgical place of a church. In Spain, as you say, ther existed a long tradition to host the choir in the middle of the cathedrals, as it is in the cathedrals of Burgos, Toledo...[2] [3]. In the latter link choir is number 17. But there also existed another tradition that placed in lots of churches the choir ellevated and in the top. I know that in Carolingian architecture and German Romanesque the Westwerk was an extended phenomenon and that there exist a West Gallery that has its own personality. But in Spain that gallery at the west ("los pies de la iglesia") emerged at the end of the Middle Ages: it is named choir, and has the use of a choir. The most characteristical style that thas this scheme is the Isabelline Gothic. See San Juan de los Reyes [4]. See also this page. [5] Last two paragrafs talk about it. El coro se desplaza a los pies y en alto. means "The choir places now at the pies end of the church and ellevated" (pies: Sorry, I don´t know the correct word. Literally, "feet"). In the Renaissance and later in the Baroque a host of churches and convents placed the choir at this position. Here [6] an online debate about the correct translation of the term. They achieved High choir at the base.--Balbo (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Monastery of El Escorial, among others, has also a very famous high choir, and references to it can be found everywhere where the Escorial is described. Even more famous that the choir itself is the lower floor under it, called the Sotacoro (under-choir), because of its amazing plain vault. Here you have the proceedings of a lecture of the First Congress of Construction history analizing the vaults of the underchoir, with plans and images. [7]. I hope this helps. --Balbo (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Iglesias, ermitas y monasterios románicos en la Provincia de Burgos is fine, although it would be more correct Iglesias, ermitas y monasterios románicos en la provincia de Burgos. --Balbo (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

About the situation map you requested, I have to look for it for a while. I don´t have all me bibliography available when I am at Internet. Cheers!--Balbo (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK! I am going to an specialized library soon, so I will have a look for the map. Although it may be not so easy to find it. As the list has the name of the villages and cities, it can be easier to create the map locating the villages. Anyway I will look for something more ellaborated. Cheers!--Balbo (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I think both categories can coexist, and that was the consense at the debate of the general scheme [8]. This is because one may not be an expert in Spanish political geography and just want to find some image about a city or a province without knowing previously the autonomous community. So categories by location and by province are useful to make an easier search. --Balbo (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Now I have seen your proposal clearer at Catalonia and Castile and León. Well, it is a possibility, although I prefer a pure list of provinces, for the reasons I told you before; anyway if you are categorizing the Spanish churches by province, your scheme has some advantages. By now I don´t have a strong opinion about this.--Balbo (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Choirs (architecture) in Spain, Category:church galleries in Spain and Category:apses in Spain[edit]

These categories are still as you categorised. I have already explained the use and origin of these "high choirs" which makes them proper choirs and that they are called choirs in every architectural book and publication I have readed. I do have in this case an strong opinion about this matter. Please, feel free to ask any question or doubt you have about these elements. The chevet [9] [10] [11] may be the best specifical term for the "head" of a church which may not be curve. Ábside in Spanish means only the curved chevet, and cabecera (chevet) is a general word for any shape. In English this is not that clear, and I have found several places where apse is used for any shape of the eastern end of a church. Anyway, the doubt would be between apse and chevet, and choir wouldn´t be correct at all for Spanish churches, as this term envolves that specifical use of a choir. As I told you before, the use of a choir is not at all common for the Spanish chevets. The choirs were usually located at the base or in the middle of the central nave. Other locations may be found, of course, but it doesn´t justify to name all the chevets "choirs", because this would be false. I know that in other architectural traditions most of the choirs were at the chevet, behind the altar, and, mainly in North European Romanesque and Carolingian Pre-Romanesque there existed galleries at the westwerk, the west end of the church, but assuming literally those schemes to Spanish architecture is a big error. Please, read entry in the links I left in my last intervention about this matter. It is important to correct this if you are doing this systematical and hard work with Spanish churches, in order not to do useless work that has to be corrected afterwards. Cheers!--Balbo (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

o.k. I will swich to Chevet instead of choir for the cabecera. But the west gallery can't be translated to choir even when it's called coro in Hispanic. So 'choir is at least just the high choir (liturgigal place) and is used correctly for cathedrals in England, see Category:Choirs (architecture) in the United Kingdom. --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Most of the Images from the category Choirs (architecture) in Spain are moved now to Category:Chevets in Spain --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats[edit]

Just wanted to say you are doing a really great job with the classification of the architectural elements of Spanish churches. Cheers, --ecelan (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank´s for your very good job. Estou aprendendo muito. Parabéns. --Lansbricae (Ti dirás) 18:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Casamar -> Casamor[edit]

Hallo Kurpfalzbilder, kannst du mir bitte behilflich sein, folgende beiden Bilder umzubennenen?

Santa Romà de Casamar 20080917a.jpg -> Santa Romà de Casamor 20080917a.jpg
Santa Romà de Casamar 20080917b.jpg -> Santa Romà de Casamor 20080917b.jpg

Also statt "Casamar" jeweils "Casamor", da diese romanische Kirche (oder besser Ruine) in realiter "Casamor" heißt.


Herzlichen Dank und viele Grüße Insbesondere auch Dank für das Ordnen der Kategorie: Romanik in Spanien

Sordmut (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Sordmut. Umbenennen können letztlich nur die Admins. Du Kannst nur das Bild unter neuem Namen Hochladen und beim alten einen Löschatntrag mit dem Template {{bad name|EinVielEinfallsreichererName.jpg}} stellen. Die genaue Anleitung findest Du hier. Gruss, --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Vielen Dank für die Info Wamito (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Sant Cristòfol de Beget[edit]

Hallo Kurpfalzbilder,

die Kategorie "Category:Sant Cristòfol de Beget" trägt einen falschen Namen. Sie müsste korrekt nach der Kirche folgendermaßen lauten: "Category:Sant Cristòfor de Beget". Ich kenne die Kirche und habe sogar ein Buch über diese vor mir liegen. Kann man den Kategorienamen dies korrigieren. Herzliche Grüße Sordmut (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Bei so kleinen Kategorien geht das manuell noch ganz flott. Alle Bilder in der neuen Kategorie einsortieren und die nun leere alte Kategorie entkategorisieren und einen Schnell-Löschantrag stellen : {{Speedydelete|Grund für die Löschung}} Ich habs für Sant Cristòfor de Beget jetzt schon selber gemacht. Gruss --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Berge Graubündens[edit]

Hallo Kurpfalzbilder! ich wollte hier die kat "Mountains in Graubünden" ersetzen durch die Kat "Mountains in the canton of Graubünden", analog der Liste links. Meine neue kat taucht wohl auf (rechts), aber eben nicht dort, wo ich sie haben will; ich blick da nicht ganz durch... Und die Kat “Mountains in Graubünden“ könnte man ja wohl löschen, scheint mir überflüssig angesichts der neuen. Gruss und danke! --Parpan (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, Die "richtige" Positionierung erfolgte so:
[[Category:Mountains of Switzerland| Graubünden]]
(entscheidend war das Leerzeichen vor Graubünden) Die nun leere Kategorie habe ich noch mit {{Speedydelete| → [[Category:Mountains in the canton of Graubünden]]}} belegt. Gruss --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Danke - das mit dem Leerzeichen wusst' ich nicht, ist aber auch trickreich. Gruss aus den "Mountains of Switzerland| Graubünden", --Parpan (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Clocher[edit]

j'ai vue que tu a mis au reseau q'qs' images des clochers metallique des eglises du midi (ex.), et je-me demande esque-il-ya un terminus francais pour ce phenomen.

Bonjour, je n'ai pas compris ta question : terminus. Cordialement Vi..Cult... (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Voici une proposition de titre pour la catégorie des clochers en Anglais (car c'est la régle sur Commons) :

belltower (pluriel : belltowers) ou bell tower (signifie clocher) Encore mieux steeple

  1. Clocher.
  2. Tour.


Clocher : Bâtiment de maçonnerie ou de charpente dans lequel sont suspendues les cloches et qui est ordinairement élevé au-dessus d’une église.

   Petit clocher.
   Gros clocher.
   Clocher pointu.
   Clocher haut, élevé.
   La flèche d’un clocher.
   Monter au clocher.


Je propose ceci : Metal steeple in France. (c'est plus court que ce que tu as mis) Il y'aura sûrement des centaines de milliers de photo dans cette catégorie dans quelques années. Vi..Cult... (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ce serait peut-être bien de mettre les photos dans cette catégorie que quand on voit très bien le clocher métallique. Sinon, cela fera doublon avec la catégorie des églises en France. Je te laisse t'occuper à la mise des photos dans la catégorie Metal Steeple in France. Amicalement Vi..Cult... (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Impeccable, sauf que je n'ai pas su faire ce que tu as fais ? Comment le faire, est-ce avec hotcat ? J'ai déjà utilisé hotcat, mais à chaque fois que je crée une catégorie, le lien de la catégorie reste en rouge et ne devient pas bleu. Vi..Cult... (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Monument Historique[edit]

Bonjour,

J'ai répondu à ton message posté sur le Bistro. N'hésite pas à donner ton avis.

Je suis prêt à t'apporter de l'aide si nécessaire.

Grüße, Pymouss Tchatcher - 11:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Monument Historique[edit]

Salut,

pourquoi tu as modifie les subcategories par numero de departement? Je trouve que c'est plus facile de trouver les departements par ordre alphabethique.

--Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Je ne fais que suivre l'idée de Coyau qui a commencé à tout reclasser. Vois plutôt avec lui !
Grüße, Pymouss Tchatcher - 16:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Streets of Nice or Category:Streets in Nice[edit]

Well, I may have made a mistake but I believe that all the category about streets in France are named streets in rather than streets of. - Zil (d) 01:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

of course Streets in Nice is better than Streets of .... I have changed the template {{Category redirect|}} to {{move|Category:}} and restored the categorization so long there are all the streets in the category to be moved, because in your version you could not find any street of Nice. greets --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


Category:Railways[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Railways 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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

There are discussed the subcategories Category:Railways in France, Category:Railways in Nice. --ŠJů (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

General Motors and buildings[edit]

I just reverted some changes you made and also quickly tried to re-sort things with Category:Cadillac Place. It is the name of a building, it used to be called "General Motors Building", it is a group of joined buildings in Detroit. General Motors, the automobile company has many buildings and they are not all located in Detroit Michigan. That one building that used to have the same name as the category that should/could contain several buildings from many different cities makes it kind of confusing, perhaps.

Please do not be offended by my changing your changes to the categories. I actually looked things up (again) before doing this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Place

Let me know if you have any questions, complaints or want to bitch at me for what I did. -- carol (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Grüsse aus Rochester, Kent[edit]

I see your name so often on my watchlist, I thought it would only be polite to say hello. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Mountains of Tyrol / South Tyrol[edit]

Hello. Just curious, but why have you removed this category? I am asking because I myself am not sure whether to include cats such as Mountains of Tyrol and Mountains of South Tyrol in cases where also cats like Ötztal Alps exist. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi I have created a new category now Category:Schnalskamm which is categorized as Mountains of Tyrol and Mountains of South Tyrol. a couple of more mountains will wollow soon in this category. Btw: I am aware of the conflict of the categories Alps off... and Mountains in --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

regarding the Ötztal Alps I feel it is problematic to have the cats mentioned above (Category:Mountains of Tyrol and Category:Mountains of South Tyrol) at the level of the mountain range. So I removed them recently. A mountain is either in South Tyrol, or in Tyrol (which is the federal state of Austria), or at the border, which is modeled by adding both categories.
I also do not feel comfortable when the Mountains of ..-category is attached to a range, like e.g. on Category:Schnalskamm, even if all mountains for the moment share the same combination of Mountains of ..-categories, and will do so for the future. The reason is, that this inverses containment, the single mountain is part of the ridge, and not the other way round. So I would prefer to have the Mountains of ..-category at the level of individual mountains, or their individual categories. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Alpine huts vs. Mountain huts[edit]

Hallo Kurpfalzbilder.de, regarding your edit File:Raimeux02.JPG I think I have to disagree. Changing from Category:Mountain huts to Category:Alpine huts will make the File:Raimeux02.JPG a part of the Category:Alps, which it is definitely not. Same for File:Osser Willmann.JPG and possibly others. kind regard (and sharing your ceterum censeo) --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

o.k. thanks for the note, i'll create a new category "Mountain huts in Switzerland" for huts outside of the Alps, but File:Osser Willmann.JPG I have categorized as mountain hut, not as alpine hut, and there where mountain huts in Japan categorized as alpine huts i already have categorized as mountain huts --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the File:Osser Willmann.JPG, you are right and I was wrong. knirsch --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A new batch in category:Windmills in Germany[edit]

Hi, a new batch in category:Windmills in Germany is coming up. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Rocca Aldobrandesca di Sovana.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Rocca Aldobrandesca di Sovana.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Are you sure of the public domain status? Italian Wikipedia is not really good for licences Otourly (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


File tagging Image:SchlossGruensberggross.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:SchlossGruensberggross.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Jodo (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Architecture by date and subcats[edit]

Please have a look at this. Thanks! TomAlt (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Flickr-uploads Elsass[edit]

Hallo Kurpfalzbilder, könntest du für folgende Ortschaften/Themen noch folgende Bilder von Flickr herunterladen?

Vielen Dank! --87.185.97.170 18:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:Edelseider)


File tagging File:Kloster_Marienfeld1.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Kloster_Marienfeld1.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Suhadi Sadono (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:La Plange.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:La Plange.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Leoboudv (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


File tagging File:GutenburgMauerrest.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:GutenburgMauerrest.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:GutenburgMauerrest.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Suhadi Sadono (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


Category:Alsbacher Schloss[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Alsbacher Schloss 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, such as a copyright issue.
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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Die Kategorie ist inzwischen leer und die benutzte "Schublade" ist Category:Schloss Alsbach. Nichts für ungut! Grüße --ThomasPusch (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Besserwisserei[edit]

Zu Deiner Signatur wollte ich nur eine kurze Notiz hinterlassen: Das Geschlecht des Gerudivum muß an das Bezugswort capitalismus (m) angepaßt werden ;)

Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum

Gruß --chris 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Galaţi[edit]

Hallo Kurpfalzbilder.de, ich habe die Category:Galati in Category:Galaţi weitergeleitet. Die erste steht aber immer noch unter G in den Unterkategorien, ist aber leer. Wer kann diese komplett weglöschen? Könntest Du das erledigen? Danke, Grüße, --L.Kenzel (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Kurpfalzbilder.de, das Problem wurde von Foroa erledigt. Grüße, --L.Kenzel (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Some of categories "by alphabet"[edit]

Category discussion notification Some of categories "by alphabet" 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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


File tagging File:Interior from Balcony.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Interior from Balcony.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Interior from Balcony.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


File tagging File:Monumento_Ossario_Visto_Anni_Fa.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Monumento_Ossario_Visto_Anni_Fa.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Monumento_Ossario_Visto_Anni_Fa.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Trixt (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated License[edit]

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


Hello. Thank you for uploading Image:Sconemaze.jpg, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the image correctly? If you are not able to do this, the image will be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the village pump. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 20:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Hoare Abbey 1.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Hoare Abbey 1.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Bkell (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Battle of Sangarios 1921.png[edit]

Hello! This file is still under copyright in Greece (it expires next year), so is it OK to have it in Commons? I was under the impression that it had to be PD both in the US and in Greece for it to qualify. I am asking because there is a number of similar images I uploaded at the English WP... Constantine 11:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated License[edit]

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


Hello. Thank you for uploading Image:Ecp-croagh-patrick-1980.jpg, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the image correctly? If you are not able to do this, the image will be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the village pump. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 11:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Fitten_wappen.png[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Fitten_wappen.png, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Fitten_wappen.png]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Pruneautalk 14:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:Southwell_minster2.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Southwell_minster2.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Southwell_minster2.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

The Evil IP address (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Southwell_minster.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Southwell_minster.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

The Evil IP address (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Largodicorte_900.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Largodicorte_900.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:1330s_mountains[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:1330s_mountains 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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Jmabel ! talk 01:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Saint-louis-en-l-ile_09.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Saint-louis-en-l-ile_09.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Topplerschösschen[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Topplerschösschen 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

77.20.36.247 20:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wendelstein und Breitenstein und deren Beziehung zueinander![edit]

Hallo Kurpfalzbilder..
zuerst schick ich gleich was voraus, aufgewachsen in der Nähe von Feilnbach bin ich im Sommer am Wochenende regelmäßig mit dem Rad ins Jenbachtal gefahren und hab unzählige Male sowohl den Wendelstein als auch den Breitenstein über diverse Routen/Jägersteige etc. vom Norden her bestiegen, kenn auch den verbindenden Höhenrücken, z.B. Schweinsberg
Beim Schmöcken in der Bilderflut der commons fällt mir folgendes auf... unter Category:Breitenstein (Berg) sind schöne Bilder abgelegt, als Kategorie wird unter anderem -Wendelstein mountain - angegeben???
Meinem Verständnis nach ist das nicht korrekt.. a) der Breitenstein ist in eigenständiger Berg und Teil des Mangfallgebirges b) der Wendelstein ist ein eigenständiger Berg und Teil des Mangfallgebirges
liege ich da richtig? Grüße vom Chiemgau --Furchenstein (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)--Furchenstein (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Furness_Abbey_11.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Furness_Abbey_11.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Nunneries[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Nunneries 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely Stefan4 (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Comerica Bank Tower 1987.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Comerica Bank Tower 1987.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Comerica Bank Tower 1987.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

AndreasPraefcke (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

-mattbuck (Talk) 21:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

File:View from above Traverse City.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:View from above Traverse City.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

LX (talk, contribs) 14:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Photographer Barnstar.png The Photographer's Barnstar
Beautiful photos
Janellekirk (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Burg Oberhohenberg.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Burg Oberhohenberg.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Vexillum (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Miami freedom tower for wikipedia by tom schaefer miamitom 0001.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Miami freedom tower for wikipedia by tom schaefer miamitom 0001.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Miamitom (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Sender-Hornisgrinde.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Sender-Hornisgrinde.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Liliana-60 (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are you uploading pictures with wrong names and wrong descriptions?[edit]

Dear Kurpfalzbilder, You uploaded picture Skoura01.jpg from Flickr. Flickr does not say where this picture was taken, other than "Route des Kashbahs, Morocco". You call it Skoura. Why? Did you verify this? You should, because it is NOT Skoura, it is Ait Benhaddou, 80 km further. You have done this with many "Skoura"-pictures, which are all from Ait Benhaddou or from Telouet. These pictures are now wrongly named and wrongly categorized. By being so careless you are 'polluting' Wikimedia Commons. Warum machst du dass? Why are you doing this? Please explain. Loranchet (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Piazza Giotto.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Piazza Giotto.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Vejlby_Kirke_(Norddjurs_Kommune)[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Vejlby_Kirke_(Norddjurs_Kommune) 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Beethoven9 (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Biserica de lemn din Barsa(19).JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Biserica de lemn din Barsa(19).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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Eleassar (t/p) 11:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


Category:Falkenstein castles[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Falkenstein castles 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

--Gestumblindi (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Durga temple Aihole 1.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Durga temple Aihole 1.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Sanyambahga (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Wimborne Minster 15.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Wimborne Minster 15.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Nilfanion (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Hyltoncastleaaa11.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Hyltoncastleaaa11.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


File:Fort Bayard sign.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Fort Bayard sign.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Kelly (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)