Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
I have nominated for deletion a number of images you have uploaded. These images are maps and are attributed to designers other than you (Elzbieta Bielecka, Dr. Annegret Thieken) . You must either explain exactly why they are public domain or supply OTRS permissions by their designers. Sv1xv (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:7-Kraljevina_Srba,_Hrvata_i_Slovenaca_-_podjela_na_oblasti_1922.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is 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 VRT-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:7-Kraljevina_Srba,_Hrvata_i_Slovenaca_-_podjela_na_oblasti_1922.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Jugoslavia_1922_adm_podela.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Jugoslavia_1922_adm_podela.jpg]]).
If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
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!
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
Here's how:
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
[[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.
Compliments on the highly detailed map you made depicting Nazi Germany. I have a question in regard to the Flandern und Hennegau (Hainaut / Henegouwen) region that is shown on it. Was this name actually used for that area by the German authorities of the regime in Brussels? If so, then that is the first time I have ever heard of it. I was also under the impression that all of the two French departments of Nord and Pas de Calais had been annexed to Belgium.
Regards, --Morgan Hauser (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmm i really cant remember from wich original sourcemap i took this. its been 5 years ago. i checked google and didnt find anything actually.
Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:
Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.
If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.
You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.
Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.
Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 15:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you create two additional maps to the one that shows changes to the NSDAP party Gaue over time? The Nazi party's regional branches in Austria and Switzerland also seemed to have established party districts in these countries prior to the Second World War (seperate from the NSDAP/AO I believe). See Nazi Party (Former Gaue dissolved before 1945) and Operation Tannenbaum.
Regards, --Morgan Hauser (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, for such a map i would need more informations about the Gaue in Switzerland and if they are really "NSDAP Gaue" or unconnected local organisation structures. Same for the Gaue in Austria. I believe they will be identical to the later Reichsgaue but proof is need (for example for Lienz to Kärnten and Ausseerland to Oberdonau). For Switzerland only 5 of the possible Gaue are mentioned at Wikipedia. In general it seems that only for the Gau Ostschweiz, Bern-Soluthurn, Schaffhausen and Zürich its possible to draw a boundary at the moment. The article say that the other Gaue are named after their capitals, but i really cant believe that every of the small Cantons is a Gau of its own (see Gau Ostschweiz -> union of 4 Cantons)
Hi Exec, gute Arbeit bei dieser detailreichen Karte! Es sieht so aus, als hättest du die Karte mit einem Vektorprogramm erstellt. Deshalb schlage ich vor, eine SVG-Version hochzuladen, dann kann man sie leichter weiterverarbeiten. • Madden (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sehr schöne Karte, die ich erst jetzt entdeckt habe. Allerdings ist unten ein kleiner Fehler: Es heisst "insgesamt" , ein "m" zuviel. Und nochwas: Die PLZ-Karte ist die auf Basis 1943/44 - mit den späteren Bezirksteilungen als Grenzen darin? Ist das auf Basis 1944 sinnvoll? --Kuhlmac (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Ok. Ich meine die kleine Karte mit den Postgebietsleitzahlen. Hier sind die ursprünglichen: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postleitzahl_(Deutschland)#mediaviewer/File:PLZ_1943.png - diese Bezirke wurden teilweise und nach und nach geteilt. (21 in 21a und 21b z.B.) - aber ich sehe gerade, dass sind nicht die postalischen Grenzen - für Westfalen kam es mir so vor, als wären es die postalischen. Mein Fehler. Dann bleibt es bei den "insgesam(m)t 913 Kreise" --Kuhlmac (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Ansonsten: wirklich tolle Arbeit!!! --Kuhlmac (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sehr geehrter Herr Schulte, für das Buch "Wir vom Jahrgang 1932", Wartberg-Verlag, würde ich gerne einen Ausschnitt Ihrer Karte des Deutschen Reichsgebiets http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:NS_administrative_Gliederung_1944.png verwenden (die Alpen- und Donaureichsgaue). Falls möglich bitte ich Sie um einen kurzen schriftlichen Vermerk an der@textmaker.at, in dem Sie mir das für alle Auflagen der Publikation genehmigen. Als Fotocredit würde ich Exec/CC-BY-SA 3.0 angeben, es sei denn Sie wünschen etwas anderes. Als Bildgeber stünde Ihnen auch ein Belegexemplar zu, wenn Sie das in Anspruch nehmen wollen bitte um Bekanntgabe einer Zustelladresse.
Vielen Dank für Ihr Entgegenkommen,
mit freundlichen Grüßen
Helmuth Santler
I'd like to know about NS_administrative_Gliederung_1944.png what's exactly the date. 1944 OK which month exactly ? The South Tyrol has ever been annexed (integrated) to the Reich ? Thanks Littlejazzman (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
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!
file: Regierungsbezirke Deutschlands 1981-2008.svg, grammatical errors in text[edit]
The following text in the file contains grammatical errors:[edit]
ACHTUNG!
Dargestellte Grenzen sind für
die alten Bundesländer
AUSSCHLIESSLICH
ab dem 1. Januar 1981 gültig,
wobei die Jahreszahlen
für
NUR
für die Existenz der
Regierungsbezirke in den darstellten
Grenzen gilt.
ACHTUNG!
Dargestellte Grenzen sind für
die alten Bundesländer
AUSSCHLIESSLICH
ab dem 1. Januar 1981 gültig,
wobei die Jahreszahlen
NUR
für die Existenz der
Regierungsbezirke in den dargestellten
Grenzen gelten.
die französischsprachige Kartenwerkstatt hat aktuell diese Karte von dir "in der Mangel", es geht dabei vor allem um die Übersetzung.
Da solche Wünsche in einem innterantionalen Projekt durchaus regelmäßig kommen: Wäre es dir möglich, die Karte ohne Beschriftung erneut hoch zu laden? Das würde anderssprachige Varianten deutlich vereinfachen.
Hi, ja klar das könnte ich. Habe auch gerade eine neue Version hochgeladen. Aber ich habe schon zu dem Thema was gepostet in dem Thread im der französischen Community. Wenn man bedenkt, dass die echten Originalnamen ähnlich genug sind um von Franzosen verstanden zu werden und im deutschen Wikipedia die Artikel und Karten über Französische administrative Einheiten auch nicht auf Deutsch übersetzt werden weil wir eine Strategie der endonymen Namensverwendung pflegen (z.B. wird "Département Moselle" nicht "Departement Mosel" oder "Moseldepartement" im deutschen Wikipedia genannt) sehe ich bisher keinen Benefit den Franzosen eine nationalistische Extrawurst zu braten.
Oder hast du schlagende Argumente warum man die einzig gültigen Originalnamen in eine andere Sprache, die das gleiche Alphabet benutzt, übersetzen sollte wenn selbst im entsprechend fremdsprachigen Artikel die Originalnamen ersichtlich sind?
ich persönlich halte Kartenbeschriftungen in vertrauter Rechtschreibung (Kalifornien statt California als blödes Beispiel) für einfacher zu erfassen - und steigern damit mMn den Nutzwert in diesem primär auf Laien als Leser ausgerichteten Projekt. Die gültigen Namen für die NSDAP-Parteigaue sind natürlich die deutschsprachigen, ich finde jedoch, dass diese Information in den Fließtext gehört und nicht die Karte ausschließlich mit den (aus französischer Sicht) Fachbegriffen arbeiten sollte. Aber das ist nur meine Meinung :)
Lass uns darüber reden. Das Beispiel ist gut. Im Falle wie Kalifornien bspw. in einem Schulatlas, der ja für Laien ist, halte ich das durchaus nicht für verkehrt auch wenn so der "echte" Eigenname als Information nicht mehr präsent ist und z.B. Schulkinder im zunehmend anglizistisch geprägten Alltag eher mit California konfrontiert sein dürften. Jedoch würde ich die Entwicklung der Parteigaue der NSDAP nicht als Laienthema bezeichnen. Um einen echten Mehrnutzen aus meinen SEHR präzisen Karten, im Gegensatz zu denen in Geschichtsatlanten, zu ziehen muss ich ziemlich Tief in der Materie drin sein. Tief genug um nicht endonyme Schreibweisen zu benötigen.
So weit ich die Entwicklung verfolgt habe wird in Deutschland angestrebt die Endonyme zu verwenden um damit die isolierten nationalen Perspektiven abzubauen und bei Eigennamen am Original zu bleiben. Damit wir glückliche Weltbürger werden ;-)
Ohne Scheiß: wenn gewährleistet wäre, dass ich auch als Schöpfer übersetzter Versionen vermerkt wäre würde ich die Blankokarte sofort hochladen.
Selbstverständlich ist die Parteistruktur der NSDAP kein Laienthema - allerdings sehe ich innerhalb der Wikipedia-Projekte Karten nicht als losgelöste Einzelwerke, sondern als Mittel um Texte zu ergänzen und zu verdeutlichen. Um bei deinem Beispiel Moselle zu bleiben: Die Karte im Abschnitt Sprache finde ich unglücklich, in diesem Fall vor allem wegen der französischen Legende. Klar, ich kann mir zusammenreimen, dass alsacien für elsässisch steht (generell beherrsche ich kein Wort französisch) - jedoch werde ich dadurch vom eigentlichen Karteninhalt und -zweck (das Aufzeigen der Sprachregionen) abgelenkt. Gelungener ist dies bei der Geschichte des Départements Vosges - durch die deutsche Legende kann ich mich vollständig auf den Inhalt konzentrieren. Ob die Übertragung der deutschen Gau-Bezeichnungen ins französische nun wirklich eine gute Idee ist, kann und will ich nicht bewerten; ich kann aber die Intension nachvollziehen: Das schnelle Nachvollziehen des Inhalts, ich kann mir vorstellen, dass Palatinat für einen Französischsprecher ähnlich viel Bedeutung [Lage, Geschichte, ein "Gefühl" für die Region] mitliefert wie für mich Rheinpfalz.
Mit deiner aktuellsten Variante der Karte (Erweiterung bis 1943; ich persönlich hätte die Karte unter einem neuen Namen hochgeladen, da sie doch den Inhalt sehr verändert. Das könnte für einige plötzlich inkorrekte Bildunterschriften sorgen, aber das nur am Rande) sehe ich den Bedarf einer Übersetzung eher noch mehr: Die Legende ist jetzt wichtig für das Verständnis und sollte lokalisiert werden können.
Zu deiner Anmerkung der Autorenrechte: Ich kann mir nicht anmaßen, für alle zu sprechen (und deinen deletion request habe ich gesehen), jedoch sind die mir bekannten Grafikbastler in der französischen WP sehr genau mit den Urheberrechtsangaben, ich denke da an Sémhur oder Flappiefh.
Ich hab mal ne englische Version rausgeknallt... Es ist extrem unkomfortabel wenn man was ändert, dann in duzenden Wikis was zu ändern... jedesmal eine neues Objekt in der Datenbank zu erzeugen und dann alles händisch umzustellen ist enorm fortschrittshemmend... ;-) daher ist es nur eine Erweiterung der ursprünglichen Information Execger (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Das ging ja fix, nicht schlecht! Eine englische Version dürfte aber für fr.WP noch falscher sein: Weder eine vertraute Sprache noch die offiziellen Bezeichnungen :) Dir auf jeden Fall ein schönes Wochenende, rbrausse (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Auf (seltsamerweise) meiner Disk-Seite in der französischen WP gab es einen Änderungswunsch: Tyrol-Voralberg statt Tirol-Voralberg - scheint mir auch plausibel zu sein, das Französisch-Lexikon von leo.org unterstützt das. rbrausse (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been studying your map(s) of Nazi gaue, which I found well-made and easy to read. The translation into English is good, and I'm glad you've gone to the trouble of making this version of the map. However, there are a few oversights and other details I'd like to bring up—I thought to do so here because the thread seems relevant to me, though I am unable to read the discussion above.
In the 1926 map, Oberpfalz has not been translated to "Upper Palatinate".
In the 1933 map, the "P" is missing from "Rhenish Palatinate".
In the last two maps, Upper and Lower Danube need to be switched.
In the 1943 map, Elsass has not been translated to "Alsace".
Apart from these small errors, there is the matter of the Marks. I do not know whether you had a specific reason for doing so, but you have translated some of the names that include "Mark" and left others as they were. In the last three maps you have translated Kurhessen as "Electoral Hesse", and in the last map you have translated Mark Brandenburg as "March of Brandenburg", which both translations seem perfectly correct to me. However, you have left Ostmark (first three maps), Bayerische Ostmark (1937 and 1939 maps) and Westmark (1943 map) untranslated, even though it would be more consistent and probably more informative to translate them as "Eastern March", "Bavarian Eastern March" and "Western March" respectively. The names are clearly longer this way, but there is space in the gaue in question, and I think many readers would better understand the meaning of these names as well.
Dear Duke, thank you for your useful hints. I will modify the maps as soon as possible for me. :-)
The March-Theme is to discuss. In my opinion if the name of an adminsitration unit is written as one word like "Westmark", "Kurmark" and "Ostmark" it is a proper name which should not be translated. Wikipedia also use as main article "Ostmark" for Austria and "Kurmark" for Brandenburg and only mention "Eatern March" and "Electoral March" in the article. For Example: if i would translate "Kurmark" to "Electoral March" i believe its much more confusing. In the case of "Mark Brandenburg" it is not a single word which is shortened for "Mark von Brandenburg" what designate it to become translated. To follow this logic i will make "Bayerische Ostmark" to "Bavarian Ostmark". I don't know if anybody support this logic but i will do it like that in the new version with correction of the mistakes you mentioned.
Hallo! In deiner Karte hat sich ein Fehler eingeschlichen. Es kommt zwei mal der Bezirk Grieskirchen im Gau Oberdonau vor, der nördlich davon ist aber der Bezirk Rohrbach. Wäre es möglich dies zu ändern? Gruß --Geiserich77 (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just updated my maps of NDH based on more accurate source data (1:200k map). Would you like to check them over and comment? I know you had some concerns about the district boundaries of the original maps. These are the updated maps; NDH 1941-43, NDH 1943-45. Also I am updating my other maps relating to NS German occupied europe based on more accurate source data. To this end I have been digitising contemporary maps of the era; Karte des Deutschen Reiches (1:100k) and Ubersichtskarte von Mitteleuropa (1:300k). I now have full coverage in the areas I have updated (Ost/West Preussen, Protektorat Bohmen-Mahren, Wartheland, Balkans) as well as some areas of Northern Germany and former-Austria. You said you work for a large project doing a similar thing, so I was wondering if you are interested in collaborating and sharing generated GIS data? I can send you sample GIS data to show you if you wish. XrysD (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo!
Vielen Dank für die sehr schöne Karte zum Schleswiger Plebiszit. Könntest Du evtl. einen Fehler in der Grafik korrigieren, der auch auf der Diskussionsseite angemerkt wurde: beim Abstimmungsergebnis muss es "0-25 %" und nicht "0-15 %" heißen. Danke --Furfur (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!
Hi Yann, sorry to say it, but you get fooled by DIREKTOR. He does vandalism and now use a smart manipulative tactic to ensure support by admins. I demand an intensive review of the case and at the end a punishment for the user. My DRs on his nonsense-replicas are not disruptive. It’s the opposite. He uses automated tools to reverted everything. That is disruptive and aressive. If you have any suggestions to stop that user, I would be glad to hear it. You can check the dissucsion made in 2015 HERE.
Not necessary to explain, that if you check my contributions you will see that I am always open do constructive suggestions to improve my maps and contributes high quality maps which are the main maps at its topics.
I do NOT "do vandalism". Nor do I scheme or "cleverly fool people", presumably while rubbing my palms together, or however you imagine it. This is the umpteenth time you have posted insults of that kind, and my patience is at an end: stop.
I have never "vandalized" anything in all my 8 years on Wikipedia and my 60,000 edits. I simply do not agree with you that totally anachronistic 1937 borders, BOLDER than any other no less, need to be superimposed over a map of 1944 Germany. I believe it pointless to try and do a map of the Nazis' own internal subdivisions while trying to somehow stick to the Allied de jure position - which was going to change anyway once the war is over! Its unnecessarily confusing - and that is a FACT. They get mixed up with actual, real de facto borders. Insisting on them to this extent, I can only speculate you feel some attachment to those old borders of your home country? Forgive me, but I can't help but presume you're not quite happy with the loss of the "Wiedergewonnene Gebiete", Herr Schulte...
The names in your map are also contradict commonnames for the entities they depict: its not "RK Netherlands" - its en:RK Niederlande. You invented your own mixed-up English/German name. Same with "Francfort" and "Cracow". That too is confusing for the reader.
I also don't need a frame on a map for the infobox - it already has a frame. As do 99% of images on Wikipedia - since they're in thumbnails. Did it cross your mind your map will have a double frame wherever its posted?
I'm the user who found your map on deWiki and actually popularized it. And yet you have dismissed every single one of my proposals. At the end of the day, though - you don't really own the file at all. If you don't want to work with others, come to terms with that. --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be fooled by anyone, and certainly not by you. Whatever is the value of the maps, you requests for deletion are for revenge, and are invalid, as the files are in used. Stop this. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann I fool nobody. There is no "revenge". For such a nonsense I am too busy. Look at my long explanations and discussions. He aggressively vandalized and I explained everything and asked for a solution by deleting his damaged versions because he just continue. They were in use is not an argument bacause HE replaced them, thats why they were in use. So with what right he is allowered to replace items but i am not? Is his opinion more valuable because he is familiar with an admin? I guess you know DIREKTOR and handle him as a valuable User while I be an unknown, unimportant contributor. So you will support him for that reason or do you have a good idea how to solve this WITHOUT enforcing the POV of DIREKTOR at the end? By the way, if he his 6 years mean anything... i have over 10 years of contrubution and no vandalism or revenge or anything.
Did I understand you right, you call me Nazi because I put the allied chooses pre- and after war legal international boundary of Germany in the map which is necessary to understand from which point the Nazi expansion started and ended? By the way, the boundary of 1937 war valid till 1990 according to international law. You know what, I now believe you are Polish on a crusade to enforce whatever you believe from you POV.
1. Make useful suggestion then i will implement them as already happened. Like the frame thing. That’s a kind of idea. The endonym/exonym discussion can be done. But in that case all have to be changes to English or German. The cities can't have an English name while the units had a German name. You mixing up languages.
2. You started an edit war without discussion. I defend it against vandalism.
3. Claiming it is an improvement but having no arguments is just a refuted claim. Aggressively replacing the actual map is vandalism, especially because you have not the skill to modify the map. Your result is just not better but you false the content like at Ukraine / Wolhynia.
4. You again starting that 1937-Border discussion. Look above about the concept of the map for an encyclopaedia and the origin of the line (allies). You can disagree but I am the expert on THAT topic and had the skill to do a better work. Just a fact.
5. You popularize nothing. My map(s) were already the used before you started this.
But I see, you are the Friend of the admin so here is my offer…
You chooses the Language of the labels as long it is not mixed at the end. The box thing will be fixed but the boundary of 1937 stay like it is because it is an essential item for the interpretation of the reader. DEAL? So I can have my peace? Make me a list based of the my actual english or german version (because your copy is outdated/compare versions) of the map with the changes you would like to see.
You better do what I say, or my friend admins will destroy you xD. What a colorful world you live in, Sir...
Stop insulting people. a) Nobody is conspiring against you, I am not "fooling" people, stop implying such nonsense. b) "VANDALISM" on these projects is "editing deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". Educate yourself as to what "vandalism" means around here. Its deliberate destruction, not a content dispute. It'd be "vandalism", for example, if I uploaded porn over your map, or something of that sort.
I find the 1937 borders of Germany (and the Free City of Danzig) #1 unnecessary and #2 confusing, and therefore unacceptable. That was always and is now my primary problem with your original map. Arguments:
Unnecessary: they represent the position of Allied governments at the time as to the extent of Germany. Its a completely ethereal border that did not exist on the ground at any point (after 1937). Not only are they not the borders of pre-war Germany (Anschluss, Munich Agreement) - they won't be the borders of post-war Germany either. They're almost completely meaningless to the reader.
Confusing: they correspond with the borders of the Gaue in some areas - and elsewhere they do not(!) - creating confusion for the ordinary reader, who's simply looking to find out how the Nazis subdivided Germany. Different shades of color are sufficient to highlight the separation between Party Gaue and Reichsgaue.
Example: look at Gau Ostpreussen. Is it made of two parts? No? Then why have a big, fat border bisecting it!? Look at Reichsgau Danzig-Westpreussen. Did it consist of three parts? No? Then we don't need it looking like it was!! Etc..
Keep the 1937 border on an alternate file, its interesting, but for the main file... no. I can't use that on the article, I just need a normal map of 1944 subdivisions.
I brought this map into wider usage by bringing it into enWiki and other Wikis, even while it was only in German. That's me... sorry.
Finally, I won't have weird toponyms that don't correspond with the en:WP:COMMONNAME on enWiki. "Francfort" is en:Frankfurt, "Cracow" is en:Krakow, "RK Netherlands" is en:RK Niederlande, etc... Those are the most common English names. Look at enWiki, see for yourself. I can't use a map that doesn't have proper toponyms as commonly found in English. --DIREKTOR(TALK)13:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see both of your points, and I'd like to offer a suggestion. Since many different language Wikipedias have articles on WWII and Germany, there should correspondingly be many different language variations of a map of Germany's divisions in 1944, including one with no text that can be used as a template for languages you don't know well enough. English and German are good languages to start with, expanding as necessary to the languages of the Allies and Axis powers, and beyond to the rest of the world. — JeffG. ツ14:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DIREKTOR obviously you are not willing to have a deal, a discussion or anything and this is why you believe you have backup by admins. That is why you feel secure enough calling me Nazi, use my real name to provoke, act like a berserk and demand aggressively actions from me. Maybe cause you hiding behind a fakename. The first time you just gave up. Now you prepared your attack with the social structure of Wikipedia... initial you started changing the map without discussion. After losing the discussion you just replace all... so you should educate with good behaviour. By flipping around who is the aggressive and destructive person you fooled them of cause. And it worked so let us go AGAIN in to the discussion.
You are wrong on saying "they won't be the borders of post-war Germany either.". In fact, it was till 1990 as you can read here [[2]].
Your Main problem is you argue the boundary line of 31 December 1937, chosen by the allies in 1943 at the Moscow Conference which define the last valid boundary of Germany according to international law. Which was basement of all allied discussions for a post war order and which was valid according to international law and allied POV until 1990 a final contract between [Germany and Poland] settle the boundary confuses, unnecessary and "unacceptable". The problem is I as an expert don't agree and I know what is maybe the problem. Professional history maps are NOT fixed on a specific point in time. In general, they show information on multiple points in time to transport more information to the reader and being more complex. Like here: [[3]]
It seems that you just don't like it. Just to claim it is meaningless to the ready is not a valid argument. It seems you just don't like the concept of history maps and prefer single point in time simple maps like one of my other maps on the topic. That’s all your arguments are about. On my expert judgement it don't confuse and is a valuable information a mental healthy reader is able to understand and is useful to get an impression if he goes deeper into the topic.
Also on this "you popularized it" thing you are wrong. Before this map another map of mine with a differenc concept was used.
other concept
So I will come again closer to you demands... and here is the deal you need to accept (and I want you to say it):
I will create ONE new English version in a way you will be satisfied. BUT my condition is, that all your copies
are beeing deleted AND YOU have a look on the NEW one to protect it from vandalism.
Due to the actual version on my original map there is no need for a seprate file on the military government of Belgium and Nothern France cause it was added.
I change every labels to the English names at Wikipedia, what I can understand, but I am not shure if the ready knows about "Niederlande" meaning "Netherlands" in German. It seems that you don't expect a reader hard to confuse ;-).
There will no 1937-boundary BUT i will take care on that in the file details there is an explanation on the differences of the two English versions.
I would keep the frame around the legend and title fields. See the variant for what I mean.
"R.K." should be "RK", because its one word... and anyway its fine to abbreviate it that way.
I would prefer it if we rolled back to February 1944, because RK Ukraine still existed. It was up for a long time and it would correspond with the information on the locator map. I think it would make it easier on the reader who sees the locator, and then this map below. Is this all the same with you? Or is there a specific reason you went with May (I assume there might be)?
"Krakau" should be "Krakow".
I also suggest you might look into a military occupation zone Germany had in the puppet Slovakia. Maybe mark it out with the same line as you used to mark out Belgium and Northern France?
OBEY OR FACE THE FULL WRATH OF MY PUPPET ADMINS!
P.s. Re "popularized".. I'm not talking about some other map, yours or someone else's - I'm talking about this map. I posted it all over the various projects, and then set out to maybe improve it. But whatever... --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Frame: Okay
RK: Okay
My initial concept includes the RK Ukraine but there was a reason to not depict a situation in January 1944 so i reworked it. I could check what exactly was the good reason but it was in 2010 and thats a long time ago. In general it shows the last real de facto state of the map area before the reconqest by the Allies.
Now we had a problem. Please explain to me your general philosophy of the location names in that map. Krakow is the actual Polish endonym. It is not the English exonym (Crakow) and not the German one (Krakau). In 1944 it belongs to Germany so Krakau could be seen as the endonym of that time, or it could be Cracow because all labels are English exonyms of 1944. If you make it the actual endonym Krakow, what about Lemberg? What about Königsberg, Danzig, Posen, Kattowitz, Stettin, Reichenberg, Breslau etc? Kaliningrad, Gdansk, Szczecin, Liberec, Wroclaw? What about Warsaw? Why not Warszawa? There is a need of a logical rule. Because at Wikipedia the names of the articles are not usefull in that field. I would suggest: English exonyms from 1944. That was the original concept and only Cracow needs to be modified. If you want anything else there is an effect on all labels including the names of the units. ....or we can just do it like you want it, without disscussion and by threatening of punishment by your puppet admins...
Slovakia: In that map concept the background color defines the status of administration. In that zone there is the regular civil administration of Slovakia but a German administration in the field of military. I will make the line like suggested but an additional stripe signature for the background.
By the way, what about the deleting of your copies?
Please look into the reason if you can. We use a locator for 1942: with RK Ukraine up there I would much prefer if the internal subdivisions map also featured it, unless there's a good reason not to.
No, you're right: Krakau it is then (don't use "Cracow").
Slovakia: in every German military occupation zone there was a civil authority working under the military commander. I am personally unfamiliar with the particulars of the situation in the strip of occupied Slovak territory. Merely wanted to draw your attention to it. I am personally of the opinion that IF the area was under the authority of a Wehrmacht Militärbefehlshaber, it should be included. If not, then not.
Hello Exec. We have started an A-Class review for the article en:Nazi Germany and I was wondering if you could help with the image review portion? The question being asked is what is the source of the data for the above map. I would appreciate your comments on this question if you have time and know where the data came from. Replying here would be fine. Thank you, Diannaa (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am working on that topic for years so there is no single source. What you mean by "data"? The geometry, the thematic arrangement of the geometry? There are original archive maps, special interest maps from various publications, text sources reproduced in the arrangement of geometries... --Exec (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips and tricks
Made a mistake?
Delete Also this image has no author information. Sv1xv (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
#mediaviewer/File:PLZ_1943.png){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.wiesenhaid.de/lage/1919_39/europa_1919_1939.jpg){kind=link}
