As I log in here only occasionally, dont't use this page. Instead you can leave a message at my page in the german Wikipedia
- 1 Image:Ru-архитектура.ogg
- 2 F. Wendt
- 3 Buildings by association
- 4 Larger version?
- 5 Modern churches
- 6 Architectural categories
- 7 Category:Libraries
- 8 Category:Gasometers
- 9 Category:Aspire_Tower
- 10 Zollingerdach Klein Schneen
- 11 File:Docklands map.jpg
- 12 Category:Cathedral_section
- 13 Category:Underground_works_construction
- 14 Category:Church_benches
thank you for your advice in my user talk page. You obviously know much better than me how to categorize building images in Wikipedia. Can you please do it with my images? I've spent at least two full days uploading, describing and categorizing my photographs, and within the next months I won't have the time to work on them again.
Myriam (user: thyes)
Dear TomAlt, I recently uploaded Image:F. Wendt competition design for the Peace Palace The Hague.jpg, but I can't place the architect. The only information I have is that he worked in Berlin-Charlottenburg. Do you have a clue or do you know where to look for his bio? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- No idea, I had a look around on the usual databases (archinform) but could not find him on the web, sorry. TomAlt (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Buildings by association
Please do not remove "Buildings by association", and do not redirect the cat. Buildings are NOT automatically owned by a group or other organisation they are associated with (Masonic structures for example includes tons of formerly Masonic buildings) - I have no problem with a "Buildings by owner" cat, but it is not the same! Ingolfson (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see your point. Up to now we had one hierachy for buildings that are built for, built by and/or owned by used by (in the past or currenty) an person or organisation. All this was up to now subsumised in the Category:Buildings by owner. But you are right, this is not very precise. This tree contains cats like for example Category:Castles of the Teutonic Knights ("Client") or Category:Coca-Cola buildings ("Current Owner"). When I created the "Owner" tree I thought keep it simple. I'm not a natural english speaker, my dictionary says the word "Owner" can mean the person who gave the comission or current owner. But perhaps "Association" is the better lemma than "Owner"? Then we should rename the whole tree to "Association", if thats the best word for it. Whatever, we should avoid separate hierachies for this aspect, I think that would make things to complicated. TomAlt (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for not checking back here - but we effectively did all me / you had discussed here already. "Association" is also nicely flexibly for borderline cases (where owner isn't) and already exists as a category structure (which I am busy extending - no reason not to run with a good thing ;-). Also, the problem with an "owner" category is that it is a moving target. If Coca-Cola sells a coca-cola shaped building (just as a blunt example), it would still be associated - but unless some user hears about the fact that this specific building isn't OWNED by them anymore, it would stick around in the wrong cat... Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Does any higher-resolution version of this file exist? It is an excellent image, and I think the Wikimedia projects would benefit from having a version of higher resolution. Best, Notyourbroom (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Found the higher res version, and just uploaded it. TomAlt (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
moved to Commons_talk:CommonsProject_Architecture#Category:Modern_churches TomAlt (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, TomAlt! I am sorry I didn´t answer you before. I am quite disconnected to Commons these last months, and I didn´t see your message. Here is my opinion about the subject: 
|Category discussion notification||Category:Gasometers 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.
220.127.116.11 15:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Zollingerdach Klein Schneen
Hallo TomAlt, bei dem Foto File:Zollingerdach Klein Schneen 2.JPG hatte ich die Category:Zollingerdach gerade zuvor durch Category:Roof forms ersetzt, weil es sich nicht um ein Zollingerdach handelt, sondern um ein Bohlenbogendach oder Bohlendach, vgl. ,  unter Bohlendach. Eine passende Kategorie für Bohlendächer habe ich nicht gefunden, aber nach dem Artikel de:Zollingerdach stelle ich mir darunter etwas anderes vor als ein Tragwerk, bei dem die (normal längs verlaufenden) Sparren aus kurzen bogenförmig zusammengesetzten Bohlenstücken bestehen, wie es in Klein Schneen der Fall ist. Die Dächer in Klein Schneen sind auch bereits Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts entstanden, als Zollinger noch gar nicht lebte. Die Bildbeschreibung hatte ich deshalb auch geändert. --Dehio (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, ich bin nach dem Bildnamen gegangen und davon ausgegangen, das das Bild einfach falsch kategorisiert wurde. TomAlt (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Kein Problem, nix passiert. Es sieht halt von außen ähnlich aus wie ein Zollingerdach, und als Presse03 mit uns das angeguckt und fotografiert hat, waren wir nicht auf dem Gutshof und erst recht nicht im Gebäude, sondern haben nur von außen geguckt. Erst am Tag des offenen Denkmals habe ich es dann von innen angesehen, und Herr von Schnehen hat das Dach genau gezeigt und erklärt. Vielleicht frage ich Presse03 mal, ob man die Datei umbenennen soll, damit es nicht mehr so verwirrend ist. --Dehio (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
|File:Docklands map.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.
Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
11:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)