User talk:Srittau

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

Contents

Categories[edit]

Hi. Please do not remove categories from pages or images, even if they are duplicated. There is currently still an important discussion going on if images should be in articles or in categories. Until this is decided please do not remove categories, even if they are redundant with articles. (Example: Image:Wrap9908.jpg) -- Chris 73 04:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Berlin Brigade, Berlin Infantry Brigade, Forces Françaises à Berlin[edit]

Hello Srittau, With uneasiness, I witnessed that you recategorized the regarding pages I've put into WikiCommons. I wouldn't like to undo your work as I don't like my work to be undone by others. Therefore I'd like us to work together and not against each other. Instead of using the Category:History of Berlin by organization, I'd kindly suggest a Category:Allied History of Berlin or Category:History of the Allies in Berlin. The Category:Allied Occupation of Germany is fitting, too. Joerg--BajanZindy (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to make some sense of the overfull Category:History of Berlin. Your suggestions all sound very sensible to me, so please go ahead. --Sebari (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Srittau, no reason to be sorry. I understand your changes as the Category:History of Berlin is indeed overfull. Some more subcategories there would be great. What would you suggest? The shorter Category:Allied History of Berlin or the longer Category:History of the Allies in Berlin? Both sound okay to me. A Category:Allied Occupation of Germany I must have seen on the english Wikipedia. So that's something else. Joerg--BajanZindy (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Bezirk Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf in history[edit]

Hello Srittau, I saw coincidently that you created some categories for Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf in history. One of the images is on my watchlist. How old is this Bezirk? Well, It's barely 9 years old as it was created on January 1st 2001 as you can see on the german Wikipedia page Bezirk Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf. I'm sure that you agree that all categories regarding the years before 2001 should either state Bezirk Charlottenburg or Bezirk Wilmersdorf. For us Berliners, it doesn't make any difference as we know when Charlottenburg and Wilmersdorf been merged, but for folks abroad it's a different story. They might get the impression, the Bezirk Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf was created when Greater Berlin was formed back in 1920. The idea itself to categorize our Bezirke in history is a very good one though. I like it. Regards Jörg--BajanZindy (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

When I started categorizing, I was just reusing the existing category structure. I am not too fond of the "History of Bezirk XYZ" categories myself. On the other hand, I think we should stick with them, but maybe sub-categorize them. I'd like to keep a clear geographical structure, i.e. if you are interested in things that happened in what is today Schmargendorf, you shouldn't have to look in Category:Bezirk Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf for recent stuff, in Category:Bezirk Wilmersdorf for things before 2001, and in Category:Schmargendorf (or even Category:Landkreis Teltow) for things before 1920. Instead, I'd like to have geographical categories, that stay the same over the years (just Category Berlin-Schmargendorf for the example), no matter what the current political distinction is. Of course, there are areas that are wholly contained within other areas. (For example, Schmargendorf's area is part of the old Bezirk Wilmersdorf's area, which is part of today's Bezirk Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf's area.) In other cases, it's not that simple. For example, it would make sense to have geographical Category:Berlin-Luisenstadt, which is part of today's boroughs Mitte and Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg. Well, enough rambling. What are your thoughts? Maybe we should move this discussion somewhere else, like Category talk:Berlin, or even de:Portal:Berlin? --Sebari (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sebastian, The idea to categorize by geography isn't badd at all. Only this way you can locate the former villages like Schmargendorf, Gatow, Dahlem etc. I believe it also makes sense to keep the categories Bezirk ..., because both is correct. In the case of Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf in history I suggest to create a link before 2001 and split the category up in the old Bezirk Charlottenburg in history and Bezirk Wilmersdorf in history. In those categories I suggest you to create a link since 2001. That way you avoid unneccessary searching. As our ways will certainly cross from time to time, I suggest you contacting me via email. That keeps it off of your talk page. We can also discuss this in one of the portals, but that might create too much friction for some. For example: Check out the talk page for Berlin (West) in our german Wiki. There's a really hot discussion going on about what name the article (Berlin (West) or West-Berlin) should have. You'll see what I mean. Till later Jörg--BajanZindy (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
PS:As you been so busy unlinking the BVG buses from Category:Buses in Berlin I created another Category:BVB buses (Berlin) where you can place the majority of the remaning files. Jörg--BajanZindy (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:RAF Berlin-Gatow?[edit]

Hello Srittau, I wondered for quite some time about your re-categorizing images, my own or from thirds, and I gave up on reverting. To sort images in years only makes sense in connection with a certain annual or one time event. Otherwise those images basically become infants. Just one more thing: Please change the name from Category:RAF Berlin-Gatow to Category:RAF Gatow! The short name of the Royal Air Force Station Gatow was RAF Gatow, never ever it was called RAF Berlin-Gatow! Anything else than RAF Gatow is very wrong!

Well, as I know you're as much a Berliner (Schmargendorfer) as I'm a Spandauer: Fröhliche Weihnachten und ein gutes neues Jahr 2010! Jörg, der BajanZindy (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Storage depots[edit]

Could you please explain why you removed the whole Category:Storage depots structure and replaced it with warehouses? Also, could you clarify whether you asked for this via move/merge tags on the categories and the usual two-week wait? I cannot check this since the categories are... gone! You certainly seemed to not have used the Commons delinker.

I disagree with your move and am considering reverting it / asking for admins to revert it. Reason is that media like like this one are clearly miscategorised in 'Warehouses'. A warehouse is a physical building. A pile of sand, or a yard full of buses aren't, yet they are storage depots. Ingolfson (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if I went overboard with this. I recategorized some files/categories that were clearly warehouses, and afterwards not much was left. Please go ahead and revert any changes you feel were wrong. --Sebari (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ein-Bild-Kategorien[edit]

Hallo, es ist in meinen Augen nicht sinnvoll, Kategorien für 1 Bild anzulegen, wie du es z.B. bei Category:Bahnhof Muggerkuhl und Category:Bahnhof Neustadt-Glewe gemacht hast. Du tust dies bei Bahnhöfen, andere vielleicht bei jedem einzelnen Bauwerk oder Denkmal mit einem Bild und schon geht der Gesamtüberblick verloren bzw. lassen sich alle Bilder einer Kat nur noch durch sehr viele Klicks erfassen. Gruß -- Niteshift (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Zwei-Bild-Kategorien[edit]

Hallo Sebastian. Ich sehe immer wieder auf der Beobachtungsliste, dass Du Bilder "von mir" umkategorisierst, unterkategorisierst etc.. Für die wunderbare Arbeit vielen Dank. Allein die Sinnfälligkeit von Zwei-Bild-Kategorien, wie gerade bei Category:Stralauer Fischer, geht mir nicht so ganz auf, zumal die zugehörige Category:Reinhold Felderhoff inclusive dieser beiden Bilder indgesamt nur acht Bilder hätte. Unklar in diesem Zusammenhang ist mir dann auch, warum Du hier beispielsweise die drei Bilder zu Kühn (wäre sogar ein Bild mehr) nicht gleichfalls unterkategorisierst. Aber ich habe vom Kategoriensystem keine Ahnung und will mich nicht einmischen - nimm es einfach als Meinungsäußerung eines Unkundigen, der das System Deiner Unterkategorisierungen nicht so richtig verstehen kann. Gruß --Lienhard Schulz (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Lienhard,
das Anlegen solcher "Kleinkategorien" kann mehrere Gründe haben:
  • häufigster Grund wahrscheinlich: Ich habe mich einfach vertan und erwartet, dass ich beim Zusammensuchen noch mehrere Bilder für die Kategorie finden würde. Gerade eben ist mir das zum Beispiel bei Category:Ludwig-Hoffmann-Brücke passiert. Das lasse ich dann aber in der Regel trotzdem so stehen, da ich normalerweise erwarte, dass im Laufe der Zeit noch mehr Bilder für die Kat hochgeladen werden.
  • Aus Konsistenzgründen. Wenn es beispielsweise in fast allen Berliner Ortsteilen eine Kat "XYZ in Berlin-ABC" gibt, dann lege ich eine solche Kat auch dann an, wenn sich in Ortsteil ABC dort erstmal nur ein oder zwei Bilder befinden.
  • Um "Struktur" zu bieten. Zum Beispiel ordne ich alle Bilder, die ich zuordnen kann, in die entsprechenden Straßenkats ein, auch wenn sie zur Zeit die einzigen Bilder dort sind. Aber erstens erwarte ich eigentlich im Laufe der Zeit mehr Bilder für alle Straßen und andererseits bietet das schon eine Kategorisierungshilfe für Neu-Uploads. Ich hoffe, dass dadurch Bilder von vorneherein richtig einsortiert werden, was das Nachsortieren vereinfacht.
  • Ein "Wegkategorisieren" hilft bei sehr großen und unübersichtlichen Kategorien. D.h. es werden erst einmal alle Bilder in passende Unterkategorien sortiert. Dabei kann es natürlich passieren, dass eine Unterkategorie am Ende nur ein oder zwei Bilder besitzt.
  • Manchmal gibt es nur ein oder zwei Bilder mit einer Menge sinnvoller Kategorien. Zum Beispiel bei einem Bild zu einem Gebäude: Da kann es Kategorien für Ortsteil, Funktion(en) des Gebäudes, Straße, Fotograf, Zeit der Aufnahme etc. geben. Da lege ich dann gerne eine Kategorie für das Gebäude an, womit die Kategorien in den einzelnen Bildern "aufgeräumter" werden. Das bietet außerdem einen Vorteil bei der Konsistenz: Wenn ein neues Bild zu diesem Gebäude hochgeladen wird, wird es meistens gleich richtig eingeordnet. Die zig anderen Kategorien müssen nicht nachgetragen werden.
Oft ist natürlich auch eine Mischung dieser Punkte der Grund. Beim Stralauer Fischer war hauptsächlich der erste Grund mit einem Anflug des letzten Grundes Schuld. Warum ich bei Felderhoff nicht weiter aufgeräumt habe: Ich hatte zu dem Zeitpunkt mehrere Tabs offen mit anderen Kategorien, die ich gerade am Sortieren war. Da ist mir das gar nicht aufgefallen. Ich war eigentlich gerade beim Aufräumen von Category:Sculptures in Berlin-Treptow. Oft komme ich beim Sortieren von hundersten ins tausenste: Ich räume gerade Kategorie XYZ auf, dann fällt mir dabei die Unordnung von Unterkategorie ABC auf, die gleich mitaufgeräumt wird etc. Da geht mir manchmal (leider) der Überblick etwas verloren. --Sebari (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

HalenseeKarlsruher Straße[edit]

Hallo Srittau, bei der Karlsruher Straße ist mir ein Fehler unterlaufen. Es ist die Katharinenstraße. Knast du das verschieben oder Löschen?Fridolin freudenfett (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Fridolin, ich kann die Datei auch nicht selber umbenennen, das können leider nur Administratoren. Aber ich habe jetzt um Umbenennung gebeten, indem ich das "Rename"-Template gesetzt habe: {{rename|NeuerName.jpg|Grund}}. --Sebari (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bild-Kategorien[edit]

Hallo Srittau, kannst Du mir kurz erklären, warum Du die Kategorien verschiebst, bzw. löscht. Dann kann ich die Bilder in Zukunft vielleicht gleich richtig sortieren.

Gruß OTFW (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Um welche Kategorien handelt es sich denn. Ich (re-)kategorisiere in letzter Zeit sehr viel, darum weiß ich leider nicht, worauf du dich beziehst. --Sebari (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Um die Berliner Gedenktafeln.
Gruß OTFW (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Die Category:Berliner Gedenktafel ist ja dank deiner fleißigen Fotografiererei inzwischen sehr voll geworden. Darum versuche ich da etwas Ordnung reinzubringen, indem ich die Kategorie nach Ortsteilen unterteile. Die einzelnen Ortsteilkategorien können dann in die Kategorie Berliner Gedenktafel und die entsprechende "Plaques in Berlin-Ortsteil" einsortiert werden. Dadurch kann die letzte Kat bei den Bildern entfernt werden. Hoffe, das ergibt Sinn. --Sebari (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Rehbergtunnel[edit]

Hallo Srittau, ich vermute, Du kennst Dich mit Lokomotiven etc. aus. Sieh Dir mal die Category:Rehbergtunnel an. Vielleicht kannst Du die Züge einordnen - oder jemand anderes fragen. Gruß, --R. Engelhardt (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Erledigt. Vielen Dank für das Aufmerksam-Machen. --Sebari (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nochmal Bitte um Hilfe[edit]

Hallo Srittau, darf ich Dich noch einmal um Deine Hilfe bitten? Könntest Du (soweit erkennbar) bei meinen folgenden Bildern die Loks kategorisieren?

Danke! --R. Engelhardt (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ich habe mal versucht die einzuordnen. Aber gerade bei älteren Baureihen fällt mir das als der nicht so große Eisenbahn-Experten schwer. Die Dampfloks habe ich erstmal in eine allgemeine Kat eingeordnet. Vielleicht kann da ja jemand anderes mehr mit anfangen. --Sebari (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

File mover[edit]

The functionality of the template {{rename}} has recently changed. You might need to clear your cache to see the changes. If successful you should then be able to use the new "Quick adding" link in the template to instruct CommonsDelinker to replace the old name with the new name in all wikis. Please use that every time you rename a file. If further questions arise, feel free to write on my talk page --DieBuche (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Srittau[edit]

I was about to start doing some stuff and then remembered to be polite and discuss with you first. It is about Category:Buildings in Germany by function. I am very hesitant about this category - on the one hand, I quite support fine-grained categorisation, and have massively created "by function" categories left and right. At the same time, I feel that in the "Buildings in X-Country" cats, it is best to have all the top-level functions sitting straight there - such as in Category:Buildings in New Zealand. Not only is it more convenient, starting to move them into a subcategory as you have done in Germany also risks making the procedure uneven over the many hundred "by country" categories.

Would you be opposed to having the contents of "Buildings in Germany by function" be moved back into "Buildings in Germany"? Regards and happy editing, Ingolfson (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the current "Buildings in Germany" category is a mess anyway, please go ahead. If I understand you correctly, your proposal is basically like this:
  • Buildings in country
    • Buildings in country by state
    • Buildings in country by material
    • Buildings in country by ...
    • Airports in country
    • Churches in country
    • ...

This seems fine to me. --Sebari (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was basically what I meant. Thank you for your consideration. At some time, an extra subcategory like you created may be useful or even needed, but I was afraid that at this stage, we would end up with a wild mix of some categories having it and some not. Ingolfson (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Unterkats[edit]

Hallo Sebastian. Sorry, aber ich habe jetzt mal im Forum die aus meiner Sicht unnötig verkomplizierende Kat.-Verästelung am Beispiel der Category:Bahnstrecke Königs Wusterhausen–Grunow thematisiert. Gruß --Lienhard Schulz (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Gedenktafeln in Berlin[edit]

Hallo Srittau,

könntest Du bitte mal die restlichen Berliner Bezirke in der "Category:Plaques in Berlin" dazugeben. Ich wollte es machen, habe mich aber völlig verzettelt (siehe Marzahn-Hellersdorf).

Danke --OTFW (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Erledigt. Betraf aber nur noch Marzahn-Hellersdorf, soweit ich das sehen konnte. --Sebari (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Lakes of Bezirk Spandau[edit]

Was soll denn das verstecken der Bilder in solchen Unterkategorien? --Botaurus (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Das entspricht der bisherigen Systematik im Bereich Berlin. Dort sind alle örtlichen Dinge (Gebäude, Straßen etc.) in Bezirks- oder sogar Ortsteil-spezifischen Kategorien "versteckt". --Sebari (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Was heißt „entspricht“? --Botaurus (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Eventide Foil Print Sheets.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Eventide Foil Print Sheets.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 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Teemeah (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category talk:Airports in Berlin[edit]

Just to let you know that I started a discussion about categorization at Category talk:Airports in Berlin. ––Apalsola tc 20:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:NE_81_of_the_neg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:NE_81_of_the_neg 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 | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

De728631 (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Police_of_Washington,_D.C.[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Police_of_Washington,_D.C. 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 | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Geo Swan (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

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

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1973-031-43, Berlin, Olympiastadion.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1973-031-43, Berlin, Olympiastadion.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)‎ | +/−

October wind (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Srittau,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


Category:CB Rail class 185[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:CB Rail class 185 has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | 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)‎ | +/−

JT Curses (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Tegeler Fließ.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Tegeler Fließ.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, fixed, thank you! --Sebari (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Straßenbahn F0.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Straßenbahn F0.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Sebari (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Berlin-Dresden railway line[edit]

Hi, macht das wirklich Sinn, eine Eisenbahnstrecken-Kategorie nach Bundesländern aufzuteilen? Zumal der Umfang der Kategorie keineswegs übermäßig groß war. Außerdem sind jetzt Brücken und Streckenbilder nach Bundesländern getrennt, die Stationen aber nicht. Insgesamt erscheint mir diese Aufteilung ausgesprochen unüblich und im konkreten Fall auch nicht notwendig/sinnvoll. Viele Grüße! Andre de (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sehe ich auch so, für keine andere Bahnstrecke in Deutschland gibt es eine Aufteilung nach Bundesländern, soweit ich das überblicke. Falls eine solche Aufteilung überhaupt konsensfähig sein sollte (ich halte nichts davon), ist die getrennte Behandlung von Brücken und Stationen alles andere als sachlogisch. Ich plädiere für die Wiederherstellung des Ausgangszustands. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Irgendwo muss man ja anfangen, insbesondere da die Anzahl der Fotos in den Bahnstreckenkategorien nicht weniger wird. Irgendwann müssen wir sowieso aufteilen und geographische Gesichtspunkte wohl am sinnvollsten und werden ja auch in anderen Bereichen verwendet. Dass die Bahnhöfe nicht aufgeteilt wurden, war ein Versehen meinerseits. --Sebari (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Warum "muss man"? Besagte Kategorie hatte gerade mal 24 Streckenbilder. Wie gesagt, das ist bestimmt keine überlaufende Kategorie. Und auch die 26 Bahnhöfe als Unterkategorien sind doch nun keineswegs unübersichtlich. Wenn Du die Aufteilung wirklich für notwendig und sinnvoll hälst, dann stoße doch bitte zuerst eine entsprechende Diskussion an, um hierzu einen Konsens zu erzielen. Andernfalls schlage ich auch die Wiederherstellung des vorigen Zustands vor. Viele Grüße, Andre de (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Ich denke auch nicht, dass man "muss", gleich gar nicht ohne Konsens. Falls es dir darum geht, fleißig zu sein und den Inhalt irgendwelcher überlaufender Kategorien in bereits bestehende Unterkategorien zuzuordnen, kann ich dir beispielsweise die deutschen Eisenbahnkarten oder den Schienenverkehr in Deutschland empfehlen. Das ist m. E. deutlich dringender (oder zumindest eher praxisrelevant) als die Atomisierung von vergleichsweise übersichtlichen Streckenkategorien. Davon mal abgesehen kann der auf Dresden-Berlin jetzt erreichte Zwischenstand so nicht bleiben. In den von dir angelegten "Länderkategorien" fehlen im Wesentlichen die jeweiligen Stationen. Und die von dir angelegte Streckenbrückenkategorie ist - freundlich ausgedrückt - zumindest nicht stringent. Denn über diese Kategorie ist z. B. die Elbebrücke zu Niederwartha wiederum der Eisenbahnstrecke im Land Berlin zugordnet. Das ist für meine Begriffe offensichtlich nicht die Verbesserung, die du herbei führen wolltest. Also m. E. lieber zurück auf den Ausgangszustand. Grüße, Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


Category:Kleine Eiswerderbrücke (Berlin-Haselhorst)[edit]

Hallo Srittau,

bei der "Kleinen Eiswerderbrücke" gibt es die Besonderheit, dass die Ortsgrenze von Haselhorst und Hakenfelde direkt über die Brücke verläuft. Somit gehört der östliche Teil der Brücke zu Hakenfelde und der westliche Teil zu Haselhorst. Also haben wir im Grunde beide Recht mit der Anlage unserer Kategorien. Vielleicht solltest Du das in der neuen Kategorie erkannbar machen (oder sollte man 2 Kategorien anlegen?

Grüße OTFW (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ich muss zugeben, dass ich mir da unsicher war, da die Karten genau das zeigen, was du beschreibst, aber auf der anderen Seite sowohl Kauperts als auch die Baudenkmal-Seite des Senats behaupten, die Brücke läge in Haselhorst. Ich füge einfach wieder die Hakenfelde-Kategorien hinzu. Ganz falsch ist es ja auf keinen Fall. --Sebari (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Lass uns doch die Kategorien in östliche und westliche Eiswerderbrücke aufteilen? Gruß OTFW (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Kategorisierung Bushaltestellen[edit]

Hallo Srittau, du hattest einige Fotos und Kategorien geändert z.B. Category:Bus stops in Lower Saxony, mit ist dabei nicht klar ob und wie diese Kategorie abgegrenzt warden soll zu Category:Bus stations in Lower Saxony. Wenn es eine Trennung in einfache Haltestellen und größere ZOB's sein soll, dann sollten wir das erklärenden Kommentar beschreiben und z.B. Category:Zentraler Omnibusbahnhof (Hannover) anders einsortieren. Ist das gemeint ? -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wenn ich mir die Kategorien Category:Bus stops und Category:Bus stations anschaue, scheint genau eine solche Trennung gemeint zu sein. Zumindest der englische Artikel Bus station scheint auch keine einfachen Haltestellen zu beschreiben. --Sebari (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hochbaumeisterei Lehrter Bahnhof[edit]

Hi, wo steht/stand das denn, dass Du es wieder mit Kreuzberg verdatest? Ich hätte jetzt gedacht, in der Nähe des Lehrter Bahnhofs, dann macht aber Kreuzberg keinen Sinn. Viele Grüße, --Andre de (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ähm Denkfehler meinerseits. Lehrter != Anhalter Bahnhof. Ich habe es mal in Moabit verortet. --Sebari (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok danke! --Andre de (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Writing Kane.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Writing Kane.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)‎ | +/−

WFinch (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Dankeschön![edit]

Danke für deine Unterstützung bei der Kategorisierung der vielen Rettungsdienst-Fahrzeuge! Ich hatte angefangen mir einen Überblick zu verschaffen, bin Abendbrot essen gegangen und als ich wiederkam war fast alles erledigt! So macht Commons Spaß, ich hab nämlich insgeheim eher damit gerechnet, dass jemand das alles über den Haufen wirft. Guten Rutsch! --Indeedous (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Ach und da fällt mir ein, dass ich bei einer Sache noch ein bisschen unschlüssig bin. Die RTWs in Deutschland sind laut Norm alle als Mobile Intensive Care Unit (MICU) ausgerüstet (siehe auch de:Rettungswagen#Normung) und es gibt eine zusätzliche DIN für ITWs, deswegen hatte ich ursprünglich MICU und ITW als zwei Kategorien angedacht. Du hattest ITW dann als Duplikat löschen lassen. Hast du eine Idee, wie man das macht? Einfach drüber hinweg sehen? Oder ITW und RTW als Unterkategorien von MICU? Nachteil wäre dann, dass man bei Ambulances by type den RTW nicht mehr direkt findet. --Indeedous (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
@Indeedous Ups, ich hatte gar nicht gemerkt, dass du gerade an den Kategorien gearbeitet hast, sonst hätte ich dir nicht dazwischen gepfuscht. Ich wollte erstmal die Rettungswagen etc. in Berlin richtig einordnen, darum bin ich auf die Kategorien gestoßen. Wie man das mit den MICO am besten löst, bin ich auch unschlüssig nach deiner Erklärung. Wahrscheinlich ergibt die Unterkategorie dann doch Sinn. Das Problem mit den Ambulances by type ist damit in der Tat gegeben. Oder man lässt wirklich die Kategorie "MICU in Germany" weg und sortiert RTW und ITW dann direkt unter "MICU by country" und "Ambulances in Germany by type" ein. --Sebari (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Hotel SANA Berlin 20150113 42.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Hotel SANA Berlin 20150113 42.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Desert (6486240135).jpg[edit]

Please take care of the renaming and any needed recategorizing of File:Desert (6486240135).jpg as you suggested at the DR. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Appears you're already taking care of it. Thanks again! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Overhead lines in Germany[edit]

Hi, ich hatte das Bild File:Bitterfeld Bahnhof Fern.jpg in die o.g. Kategorie aufgenommen, weil es durch die gezoomte Aufnahme einen recht besonderen Blick auf die Oberleitungsanlage bietet. Wie siehst Du das? Viele Grüße, Andre de (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ich gebe dir recht, das passt dort wirklich gut rein. Ich habe meine Änderung rückgängig gemacht. Ich hatte in der Kategorie mal aufgeräumt, weil es viele Bilder gab, in denen die Oberleitung "mit drauf" war und mir nicht wirklich alle Bilder in groß angeguckt. --Sebari (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Danke, auch für das Aufräumen! --Andre de (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Büchse der Pandora[edit]

Meinst du wirklich, das war angebracht? Commons ist nun wirklich nicht bekannt dafür, daß jemand Waren anbietet. Wlady ist seit Ewigkeiten bekannt und ich habe ernsthaft überlegt, ob ich mich darauf melden möchte. Ich finde nichts Anstößiges dabei. --Ralf Roleček 19:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ja, das fande ich vollkommen angebracht und richtig. Das Forum dient wirklich nicht als Warentauschbörse, egal ob jemand seit Ewigkeiten bekannt ist. Melde mich ruhig ... --Sebari (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, gab schon eine Antwort von dir[edit]

Neuer Browser, neues Glück...

Schuldigung, das ich dich mit gelöscht hab. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Kein Problem, macht ja Sinn, wenn das Problem behohen wurde. :) --Sebari (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Tool to look in categories and subcategories[edit]

Greetings, I noticed your comment on the Village pump and I thought I would drop a note here. You are correct that most of the tools suck for categorization but there is one, AWB, that can fairly easily determine what is in a Category and its subcategories. I'm not sure if you have ever used it, but the option is called Categories (recursive). Then once that is run, all you need to do is sort the list alphabetically and then remove the duplicates. I hope that helps. Reguyla (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. --Sebari (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)