User talk:W!B:

If you post here, I will reply here. If I have posted to your talk page, feel free to post your replies there.
If I do not respond, please leave a quick note on my talk page at the german wikipedia.

Image:Radiodrome-sketch-lettered-colour.png and otherEdit

Thank you for uploading files on Commons.

Please upload similar images in SVG format if you have such possibility.

EugeneZelenko 14:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

with pleasure, but: HowTo? - is there an article discribing it? --W!B: 03:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You could create SVG files in Inkscape or your vector drawing program could have SVG export filer. Then you just upload SVG file in same way as PNG. --EugeneZelenko 15:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thank You. excuse me, my question was quite lazy - it's not about how to make svg's, but:
I upload it, with the same name, but .svg - ok. in Template talk:Information there is other_versions=, is that the place to note the similar png/svg-versions?
At the page, where the images are gathered (what's the name?): should I place both files? or do I use a caption text pointing to the svg? - I didn't find a help-article, meta:SVG image support gave me no answer - do You know a sample page, where we see how to include svg's? --W!B: 01:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I prefer to keep on Commons only SVG version (if SVG rendered same as PNG), and usually mark PNG version as {{redundant|SVG version}} for replacement and deletion.
If you want to keep both versions, you should point to alternatives in {{Information}} but I think SVG version should be promoted and used on gallery pages.
SVG images usage are absolutely same as any other format, you need to just specify correct file name.
EugeneZelenko 15:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I did it. I'm your opinion to promote SVG, but not convinced to use them: in fact, Mozilla FireFox will manage SVGs in upcoming ver 1.5, and I don't know about other browsers. thus, let us do and help-page about that topic to get it discussed. do you know a proper place for it? --W!B: 06:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, MediaWiki software render SVG to PNG (every time to specific image size) internally and always display PNG, so browser support looks irrelevant. I think you could read more in release notes on --EugeneZelenko 16:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


Hallo! Please see Image talk:Tractrix1.png. Thank you!--KENPEI 12:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions about categoriesEdit

I've uploaded several geometrical drawings. Now I want to fix that many of them don't have categories. I see at Category:Geometry the category Category:Geometrical figures, also there was a Category:Geometry Diagrams not linked from Category:Geometry. And also a lot of geometry drawings on Category:Geometry, where top banner says images should never fall.

Now, can you give me feedback where to put images like Image:Unit disc.svg Image:Rouche-thm.png, Image:Tractrix.png Image:Reflexion totale interne.png and Image:Unitcube.svg ?

Should I also recategorize those on Category:geometry into subcategories? Drini 23:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

hi Drini, lot of qustions, few answer. I started some tidying up last december, and put comments to some categories (like Category:Circles), but neverever got feedback (till now), so maybe nobody is interested.. ;-/ in fact I'm no "profesional", I can't tell You for shure where to put images. there is no main sheme (like Commons:Category scheme astronomy), I used Category-tree-Commons to browse for fitting cats. maybe we should start a Commons:Category scheme mathematics, good place to discuss systematics

but that's all I could help you, maybe the cats in w:en will help. I didn't ask for making new cats when I needed them .. good luck --W!B: 21:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

PS did you visit my article Tractrix? I thought about an template article curves
Well, categories are excluding, so I'm all for putting Unitcube into coordinate systems as well as geometrical figures, same as the others, thanks for the reply, I didn't want to mess up. Drini 03:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
excuse me a lot, I confused to mess up with to tidy up, please re-read my text and re-answer, what a shame - greetings --W!B: 08:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

language of categoriesEdit

hello there, you posed a question once about which language to use for categories. This question is being discussed here Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Languages_of_categories, feel free to drop by or post the question also for German speaking users. Gryffindor 22:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


moved to Template talk:Oldmapslink#contemporary --W!B: 13:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

re:Directed graph with back edgeEdit

Hi W!B,

Which page did you edit? Help:Category redirects to Commons:First steps/Sorting. If you give me a link to the diff, I can have a look. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

see at your disc (keep together) --W!B: 12:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


I just saw that you made corrections in Image:Blank map of Europe.svg, could you maybe make one more and that is to divide serbia and montenegro in 2 countries. On the current one its one. CrazyPhunk 14:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

never mind, it has been done bij anyone else. CrazyPhunk 20:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories by countryEdit

at Yours, to keep it together.. --W!B: 03:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Celestial sphereEdit

Hi, maybe you can help: Someone has (nearly) created Category:Celestial sphere, that is, there are 17 images in it, but the category does not exist. Is there any point in having a category called this, and if so, could you perhaps add it in the right place in the astronomy structure (my knowledge is very limited). Thanks in advance. Deadstar 12:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

didit - had to put an {Category redirect|Celestial spheres} in it (name convention:plural) - please ask "Someone" to tidy up - greetings --W!B: 08:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Districts of AustriaEdit

Hallo W!B.

Du hast im März die Kategorie Districts of Austria und zwei Unterkategorien angelegt. Alle drei zwei Unterkategorien sind im Moment leer. Hast du noch vor, für alle politischen Bezirke in Österreich Kategorien anzulegen? Ich finde die Bundesländerkategorien ausreichend, hätte aber kein Problem mit den Bezirkskategorien. Wenn du allerdings nichts mehr damit vor hast, schlag ich sie zur Löschung vor. mfg ChristophT 18:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

hallo, verzeihung, bin eine zeitlang nicht mehr vorbeigekommen - stimmt, ein angefangenes projekt: da in Category:Subnational entities offensichtlich nur top-level-strukturen eingetragen sind, wohl unnötig: sinnig wärs erst, wenn wir einzelne karten der bezirke hätten: die müssten dann imho exakt so kategorisiert werden, wie ichs angesetzt hab - weiß nicht, wie man das eleganter lösen könnte.. --W!B: 13:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, ich habe mir gedacht, dass die Gliederung in politische Bezirke zu fein ist. Es gäbe ausserdem zu wenig, was spezifisch zu einem politischen Bezirk gehört. Bundesländer haben doch mehr spezifische Sachen wie z.b.: Politiker (Landesregierung, Landtag), Kulinarik, eine Reihe von Städten, Flüssen, usw. Pro politischem Bezirk wäre dann manchmal vielleicht eine Stadt anzuführen oder zwei Flüsse oder ein Dutzend Personen aller Berufsgruppen, die von dort kommen. Und die politischen Bezirke gibt es noch nicht so lange wie die Bundesländer, (Wenn ich mich nicht irre) wenn man die Kontinuität von den Kronländern und Herzogtümern bedenkt.
Ich habe aber sicher nichts dagegen, wenn du da etwas aufbauen willst. Also teile mir deine Entscheidung mit. mfg --ChristophT 14:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Servus W!B, hier nur kurz ein Lob für Deinen unermüdlichen Feinschliff bei den ganzen geol. Sachen. Weiter so :-) --Überraschungsbilder 14:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

oh, danke Dir - sind auch viele schöne bilder, wär schade die nicht zu finden .. gruß --W!B: 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Structural geologyEdit

Hi! I don't agree with your deletion-tag on category:geological structures. Structural geology is a branch of research and as such one can expect this category to have for example pictures of hammers and other equipment or perhaps portraits of famous structural geologists. Because such pictures cannot be found in the current category, the name is wrong. Geological structures can include pictures of any structure within the Earth's lithosphere, such as folds, faults, boudins, cross-sections, etc. But also tectonic or even geomorphological structures that are not necessarily studied by structural geology. The category that has pictures of structures in rocks should therefore by called "geological structures", not "structural geology". Best regards, Woudloper 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry, where did I put an deletion-tag on category:geological structures? did I forget something? to my opinion I put an #REDIRECT in it - because Category:Structural geology was filled with images of geological structures, thus they containd the same stuff: do You think, we should place all contents of Structural geology to geological structures? what exactly is an en:geological structure - so we could give some precise profile to the cat? greetings --W!B: 09:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi W!B! My knowledge of the names of tags here is rather limited... I just meant that I think the redirect is at the wrong category, it should be structural geology that redirects to gelogical structures instead of the other way round.
"Geological structure" is not a very well-defined name, so it can also apply to things that are not nesessarily studied by structural geology. In the narrow sense, geological structures are structures in rocks, on both larger and small scales. They can be folds, joints, faults, layering in rocks, etc. If the scale gets larger, structures such as fault patterns, tectonic blocks, terranes or even tectonic plates can also be called geological structures, though more usual is "tectonic structures". In a broader sense one could even call a landform a geological structure. If you want I can try to write something like an introduction for the cat. Woudloper 10:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
ah I understand, we've Category:Landforms
in fact, what is usual on commons, to place the objects a science studies into the category of the science - thus, geographical objects are sorted into Category:geography, cancers are sorted into Category:pathology and optical phenomena into Category:optics - so Structural geology is the study of the three dimensional distribution of rock bodies and their planar or folded surfaces, and their internal fabrics. (:en:structural geology) - thus, all three dimensional distributions of rock bodies could be placed into Category:structural geology - in fact, Category:Landforms is sorted to Category:structural geology - should we redirect it there?
besides, should we do an intersection of structural geology and Category:Stratigraphy: maybe Rock strata - would be easier to sort and allow us to gather all lithostratigraphic interesting images - many imaces in Cat:structural geology do show strata
(we have Category:Stratum (Eindhoven), and no Category:Strata, but who knows ;) or Category:Rock layers/Category:Rock layering --W!B: 10:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If that is the usual thing we do, I object to the usual thing we do. It would mean we'd put pictures of shoes in the category:Hiking, or pictures of fishes in the category:Fishing.
Our choices are not straightforward. Pictures with rock strata, for example, can also be put in the category:Sedimentary rocks. Strata are a geological structure of course (though normally not studied by structural geology but by stratigraphy), but the pictures can also be classified by rock types. It depends a bit on the picture and what it shows which category is more important. Woudloper 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
shoes in the category:Hiking - no, because its not the science of shoeing (its just were the are used, like dancing, or winter, or going to office) - we would put them in category:bootmaking, thats where "shoes by type" belongs to
ok, the strata images in Category:Structural geology should be placed in Category:Folds - but where place Category:Folds to - in Category:Structural geology or in category:geological structures? --W!B: 13:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In that way, the category landforms should be in category:geomorphology. It would have some overlap with category:Geological structures. The category:Geological structures should then be in category:Structural geology, among others. Since folds are geological structures, that category should be in geological structures. Woudloper 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
sorry, two months later, and still in Category:Structural geology there is exactly nothing else than geolocical structures - it would be completely empty exept category:geological structures - maybe we'll do that later, if there are some dozends of pictures of structural geologists, and some more stuff.. till then, nothings lost in sorting up like that --W!B: 12:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Boulders in natureEdit

I have to ask -- where else would they be? In a museum? :) Maybe you could write a short sentence describing this category? cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for reminding me.. I forgot to set, and: museum is a fine idea.. ;) --W!B: 11:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Hallo! Du hattest in dem oben genannten Klimadiagramm bei der Kategorie eine alphabetische Sortierung (Ortsnamen) ergänzt. Ich weiß nicht, ob das so besonders sinnvoll ist, weil Du in dem Wust von am Ende 120 Klimadiagrammen in der Kategorie (hänge leider derzeit fest, daher erst so wenig drin) ohnehin kaum wirst sagen können, welches Klimadiagramm zu welchem Ort gehört – da hätten wir von Anfang an die Ortsnamen an den Beginn des Dateinamens stellen müssen (aber der Zug ist mittlerweile abgefahren). Da zumindest ich als derzeit wohl einziger Ersteller von W+L-Diagrammen einheitliche Dateibezeichnungen setze, stehen die Diagramme auf alle Fälle in der gleichen Reihenfolge, wie wenn man eine Sortierung zusätzlich angibt. Sinnvoller wäre es vielleicht, zusätzlich eine Galerieseite im Rahmen von Climate diagrams (als Unterseite?) zu installieren; vor der Bearbeitung dieser Seite schreckte ich bisher zurück, da eine Seite mit nachher Tausenden von Thumbnails einfach zu groß und unhandlich würde. Auf meinen eigenen Seiten liste ich die ganzen von mir erstellten Diagramme ohne Thumbnails als Hilfe zur alphabetischen Suche. Karten (auf meinen eigenen Seiten in der deutschen Wikipedia) sind angedacht, warten aber noch auf das Kartengrundmaterial. Gruß -- JörgM 11:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

oh, den verdacht hatte ich fast - meinst Du, wir sollten das wieder rückgängig machen? nun fand ich noch verstreut diverse klimadiagramme, die nicht von Dir sind (ich sortiere ja gerade Klima der Alpen, weil ich einen überblick über das vorhandene datenmaterial bekommen will..) - um das zu sortieren, muss ich sowieso eine menge Deiner Dateinem öffnen - ich lass mal ab, um zu schauen, wieviele diagramme Du schon gemacht hast .. mir schwant schon, dass es mehr sind.. - vieleicht können wir dan gleich sinnvoller weise einen ganzen baum nach klimaprovinz aufziehen, und Alpen auf Alpenklima umbauen, wenn wir die arbeit schon machen - dieses browsen nach staat geht mir nämlich extrem auf den keks, wenn es um regionen-themen geht ;) - lieben gruß --11:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC) PS tolle arbeit ist das aber schon, die Du da machst..
[1] bin ich da richtig? --W!B: 11:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Jo, das bin ich da drüben.
Gegen die (zusätzliche!) Kategorisierung nach Klimaregionen ist nichts einzuwenden, ich habe Deine Alpenkategorie letztes Jahr schon unter eine neue Kategorie Category:Climate diagrams by region gehängt. Ich selbst lasse so etwas bleiben, weil mir das ein zu heißes Eisen ist (von der korrekten Zuordnung her).
Eine Alphabetisierung einzelner Bilddateien innerhalb der Kategorien bringt nichts, da anstatt der Dateinamen (davon ja immer nur die ersten Buchstaben) primär Thumbnails angezeigt werden. Das macht nur bei Artikeln und bei bei den Kategorien selbst Sinn (meiner bescheidenen Meinung nach). Aktualisiere lieber die vorhandene Galerie-Seite oder häng da irgendwie 'ne neue dazu. Diese theoretische Doppelung haben wir hier ja bei vielen Dateien (Galerie + Kategorie). Die Galerieseiten kannst Du übrigens viel besser strukturieren als es bei Kategorien möglich ist: Bei den Alpen könntest du Gipfel- von mittleren und Tallagen trennen, Nord von Süd, West von Ost, und in den Städten innerhalb der Alpen herrscht wohl sowieso ein ballungsraumbedingt vom flachen Land differenziertes Klima. Gruß -- JörgM 12:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Du hast recht, das (Galerie + Kategorie) ist ein leidiges them, das wir nicht lösen können, weils beide schulen gibt: die einen kategorisieren, und die anderen erstellen galerien - aber keiner tut beides, und sie veralten gegeneinander
und stimmt auch, zuordnung ist immer heikel, aber mit den alpen sind wir auf der sicheren seite, das ist eine hinreichend wohldefinierte zone (wenn auch die feingliederung teils nicht über die staatsgrenzen kompatibel ist) - ich werd mal nachdenken, was tun, die abc-sortierung nehm ich wohl mal zurück.. --W!B: 12:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
so, die abc.sortierung ist wieder weg - vielleicht wär eine imagemap die angemessene erschliessung? --W!B: 14:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Was meinst Du mit Imagemap? 'ne Karte, auf der man auf einen Punkt klickt und dann beim entsprechenden Diagramm landet? Ist auch nicht sonderlich sinnvoll, da ich meine Diagramme derzeit in zwei Sprachen erstelle (englisch und deutsch), auf welches sollte man also sinnvollerweise verlinken, vor allem, wenn dann noch 'ne dritte (Französisch) dazukäme? Nene, ich werde nur mal den Ansatz mit den Positionskarten weiterverfolgen, sobald dazu die entsprechenden Grundkarten vorliegen (Deutschland betreffend), und ansonsten einfach weiter auf meinen Unterseiten hier auf den Commons Listenbildung betreiben.
Apropos: Du suchst Diagramme aus den Alpenregionen? Gib mal auf meiner Diskussionsseite entsprechend Laut, welche konkret. Schweiz wird weitgehend ein Reinfall werden, weil die Schweizer Daten darf ich nicht für Wikimedia benutzen (sind also nur wenige Stationen via GCN verfügbar), Österreich könnte ich aber wohl einiges beisteuern, Italien, Slowenien und Kroatien habe ich jetzt keinen Überblick, Frankreich ist eigentlich erledigt, da stehen mir nur noch sehr grobe Daten zur Verfügung, die ich ungern in Diagrammform gießen möchte (glatte Gradzahlen, auf 10 Millimeter gerundete Niederschläge, Beispiel auf meiner deutschen Diskussionsseite). Gruß -- JörgM 08:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
danke Dir, tu ich.. --W!B: 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fire blight Map-World6.svgEdit

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? 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. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 07:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks, nice busy bot, I forgot, repaired it - go on, brave one! --W!B: 09:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

deprecated function in your monobook.jsEdit

Dear user, I noticed that you use the includePage function in your monobook.js page.

This function is now obsolete, as the importScript function was introduced with rev:35064 to the MediaWiki Javascript core library wikibits.js. It also keeps track of already imported files.

To allow us to remove includePage from Mediawiki:Common.js I'd kindly ask you to replace its use with importScript (same syntax!). Thanks! --Dschwen 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

like this? in fact, I use Simple-Skin, may I put that into Special:Mypage/simple.js --W!B: 01:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, like that, and yes i believe you can put it into simple.js (some tools/gadgets might not work with that skin though). --Dschwen 16:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I am completely against a redirect of genre(s) to Category:Art by genre because it attracts robots and hotcats while there are genres for almost every cultural and artistice related items: paintings, artwork, music, songs, clothing, architecture, literature, ... To me, here a redirect does not help at all. --Foroa (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

you mean, we'll delete it?
in fact, target will be ok for that, as literature und music is included into arts, and clothing (concerning genres) part of arts and crafts, see Category:Fashion - the rest is in there for shure
in fect, there is more contradiction to en:Category:Genres, which seems to be reserved for literature (including other narrative media), while cats like fr:Catégorie:Œuvre par genre (which is interwiki in en:) of course contain all arts - maybe the word is used different in US?
greetings (PS and manymany thanks for Your fast dispatch of moves, dels) --W!B: (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Try doing a search on category:genre and you will see how many topics are involved (and this is only the beginning), so no way to make a sensible "genre" redirect.
Thanks for your impressive category cleaning capacity.
Remains the Category:Arts and Crafts Movement artists: I am wondering if we gain something by splitting it up into a deeper architecture subcat. --Foroa (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
ah i see - but cleanig up cat:genre and cat:genres (i think ypu saw them, it was from 08-09-26T06:37:07—07:19:58]), it seems only to be a bug in an automatic categorizer (fickr-import?) - i found Category:Television programmes by genre, which was missing, the rest till about 200 is all arts, to my opinion.. what you mean specific does not belong to arts? or do you treat art as "visual art" (eg only painting, graphigs, sculpture ..)? many people do, but are wrong ;)
ad Category:Arts and Crafts Movement - I'll discuss that with collegues at Commons talk:CommonsProject Architecture - as A. is well-sorted, i think we'll do a subcat
I work with Dapetes catgraph], which is a fantastic tool for finding horrible categorization bugs
there is another "problem", we have.. - lets do it also by discussing: it is the circle Category:Illustrations und Category:Pictures and images, which i put to Category talk:Illustrations
--W!B: (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi, could you let me know, please, waht is happening with this edit? The new wording does not make much sense to me. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry, thanks for calling attention --W!B: (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Date queryEdit

Hi, I noticed you made some edits to Image:Wappen Kaisertum Österreich 1815 (Klein).png, so maybe you can help with the "failed rename" that I was looking at. Here it seems that Gryffindor was trying to rename the image to say "1915" (instead of "1815"). Is 1815 correct? In that case, I could (or you could possibly) take off the rename template. Thanks for your help. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

1815 ist correct (by some way, 1915 also, as its valid til 1915, even after Empire of Austria became Austria-Hungary 1967) - overdone description - thanks for asking & greetings --W!B: (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Media needing category reviewEdit

What are you doing? Category:Media needing category review is a category to keep track of images tagged with {{check categories}}. You shouldn't be putting other categories in there. Multichill (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

ah, thanks for info, found that said nowhere - I hate that splitted up undocumented infrastructure stuff, we do here at commons: lot of good ideas, but no plan, and lots of authors beeing proud of beeing the only one to know..
let's do a uplevel central like Category:Commons cartegorising maintenance - is there a specific platform to discuss? or just meet at Commons talk:Categories - greetings --W!B: (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
PS undid, see Commons talk:Categories#Category:Commons categories maintenance --W!B: (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Left a note over there, maybe we can sort this mess out ;-) Multichill (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ecozones and "climate"Edit

I just noticed the category changes made to some of the Ecozone categories that I made here. Thank you for many of the changes, I have a question about one of the additions: the adding of them (and not all of them) to the category for "Climate". Since I have not thought of this, I am looking for your thoughts for doing that.

Are you interested to see the paper that inspired their inception? -- carol (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ah ja, You are right, we should seperate category:climate zones and category:ecozones more precisely, they are quite mixed up - zones beeing both can be handled as that
which paper and whos inception? didn't get that right.. :\ --W!B: (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yow, thanks for the quick response. I am sorry, I thought that there might have been a use which I had not considered for those maps.
I try to make the paper that defined these zones available for any person who has taken an interest in the categories. -- carol (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
yupp - maybe we should sort them out, as this zone scheme uses some "common" terms - in fact Arabian Peninsula is just a geographic topic at all, maybe we do some category:Arabian Peninsula (ecozone) subcats, or we do category:NAME of ECOZONE (NAME of AUTHOR of SCHEME) for all (as we got a lot of different schemes of ecozones)
besides, it seems to me, it shouldn't be categories, but articles: in Category:Afrotropic we find some gorillas, gazellas - which are no ecozones at all.. as an article we could do a sort of samples.. --W!B: (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
ah sorrx, I see we got articles - so maybe we remove the image-maps from the cats, as the are misleading.. --W!B: (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(reset) The article for Ecozones at English wikipedia was sitting there somewhat abandoned and not all of the zones had complete articles and I did not have access to that paper. So I grabbed the name and the maps. The original maps and the eight divisions work really well with the paper I was using. That German map showed up later (and you can see this if you look at the history of the German article and also at the existence of the same Ecozone articles that are at English wikipedia -- although last I looked, without links to them from the main article). That German map showed up at an interesting time here, actually -- I suggest that you be careful with that.

The reason for using categories was that the Ecozones tree was to be used to subcat native species of plants and animals for the area. "Flora of" and "Fauna of" categories. There was a merge of the "Plants of" categories in September. I am certain that when the people who did that are sorry enough, the merge will be undone. I could never determine what the "Plants of" categories contained. I never found a description of what should belong in those categories and I also never found any thing that made the contents of the categories make sense. Native species are interesting for the sciences. <-- here is the paper I started with. The maps start on page 121 (if I remember correctly). One of the nice things about this division of the globe is that the paper is available online. The Australians have sub-divided their zone differently from the paper, I would do this myself for the United States (I would put Oklahoma into Category:South-Central United States instead of where it is Category:North-Central United States) if I was just starting this now after my experience with the native plants from my country.

Political divisions are kind of sucky for locating plants or animals that live in this world. Some countries are very small area and some are very large. This whole new tree started due to problems like that. -- carol (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

biogeographical realms, Wallace, 1876
ah, in fact, the pdf You gave is named World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, which is not about ecozones, but biogeography (we would call it category:vegetation zone..)
besides, the basic scheme of Yours seems to be a variant of Wallace, 1876, which is originated in zoogeoraphy, but now we would call it floristic kingdom/realm, see w:Phytochorion (however, there seems to be a lot of confusion and unpreciseness - we have de:Afrotropis also, but showing another map without Arabia - in fact both de and en article are unsourced)
so maybe we specify all as categorie:biogeographical zone as a assorted subset of ecozones --W!B: (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a feeling that plants and animals locate themselves together (with the animals sticking close to their food) so the idea that a globe that is divided with placing plants on it in mind would also work to place animals -- I haven't thought through how to manage animals and their migration patterns into this "what is native at this location" category scheme. Also, the geological features of the areas. Coastal areas and mountainous areas are all very different from interiors and lower, level areas which can be seen via plants and animals as well as the descriptive words I used to mention them.
I grabbed the name "Ecozones" and the maps; availability of the documentation was part of my justification for doing this. That the articles for the Ecozones start to mention everything that the categories here try to contain for the areas -- it might be a next generation for that Ecozone stuff. I wouldn't be able to support nor argue this point due to the fact that I haven't read that paper. I had envisioned (eventually) a category system which would also contain information by altitude also. I think it would be really cool to be able to (via category nodes) view all of the areas of this planet that are above a certain height and to be able to see the similarities between the different species that evolved at the different high and low points everywhere. (I had a big problem with calling the plants that are found on the African mountains "Alpine", btw.)
After I started to look into ways to answer some of the problems I had (starting with how really ignorant my range maps looked due to the dissimilar areas of the political divisions) the ability of the wiki-powered categorization here seemed to be just the thing to make up for the problems, provide a lot of information in one place which is not available in one place anywhere else online yet and interestingly enough, provide awesome management for what will soon be a large subset of 4 million images that are located here. -- carol (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
So, I am not so strong feeling for where these categories belong, what they are under -- with the exception that they were made to not be "Plants by country" or anything "by country". I am more strongly opinionated of what they contain.
There were two different articles that I added content to which are good examples of species and their native location; both are Senecios. The giant Senecios that are located on the African continent and will probably not be migrating any time soon and the little Common groundsel which had a fairly interesting invasion history and can be found almost everywhere on this globe now between a few latitudes. I read all kinds of stuff from the Australians bitching about invasive plants and the history of the common ragwort also contained a side story about the problems with "trends of research" -- at that time, parasitology was the big thing and the poisoning was not considered. I am straying here from the point of this though, I am sorry. I have not found a way to share my enthusiasm for managing the photographs of all of these ideas and things that I read. The collection of images here is very impressive and managing some information at the same time that the images are managed seems to me to be the coolest thing.... -- carol (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look at ...Edit

Hi, I think that Special:Contributions/Pfeifferfranz might need some help. Best regards. --Foroa (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

ja, seems so, I'll contact him/her - thanks for informing --W!B: (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Artist's illustrationsEdit

Category discussion notification Category:Artist's illustrations 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 | +/−


The diagram contains two points labeled A1 and zero points labeled A5. It seems as though the point labeled A1 in the lower left of the image should be labeled A5.

thanks, thats right.. --W!B: (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Sword battleaxe shield.svgEdit

You categorized this image on Category:Crossed Swords but this is a sword crossing an axe. Can I revert this? Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

no, please read the hint i gave in in Crossed Swords --W!B: (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Forgive my butting in, but perhaps there should be a "Crossed weapons" category to include "Crossed swords" as well as axes, arrows, spears, pistols, cannon, etc. and any combination of these. I've seen a great many of these weapons crossed in saltire in both military and private heraldry. Wilhelm meis (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thats realy intrasting, yes! but i found also croziers, keys and feathers, and lots of tools as numerously used emblems, al the same variation interpreten the old crossed-swords theme - maybe "Crossed weapons" would be too specific, but what weill be more general - "crossed objects" will mabey too unprecise, i'd like to leave it restricted to Saltire-crossing iconography --W!B: (talk)

Crowns in heraldryEdit

Here is my idea. (Indenting to show subcategories)

Crowns in heraldry:

Crowns as heraldic charges (e.g. File:Wappen Baustert.png)
Crowned figures in heraldry (already in place)
Shields surmounted by crowns (e.g. File:Escudo de Alora.svg, File:Escudo Almogía.jpg, File:Escut de Belianes.svg)
Shields surmounted by imperial crowns (e.g. File:Kaiserstandarte.svg, File:Virgil Solis HWG Wappen des HRR mit Putti.jpg)
Shields surmounted by royal crowns (e.g. File:Powstanie Styczniowe symbol.PNG, File:Marinen vapen.svg)
Shields surmounted by mural crowns (should also be subcat of "Mural crowns in heraldry", can replace "Mural crowns in crest")
Shields surmounted by coronets of rank (e.g. File:Mikkeli.vaakuna.svg, File:Uusikaarlepyy.vaakuna.svg)
"Ducal coronet in crest" (already in place)
"Archducal coronet in crest" (already in place)
"Baronial coronet in crest" (e.g. File:Escut de Malgrat de Mar.svg, File:Savonlinna.vaakuna.svg)
"Comital coronet in crest" (count in English ,greve in Scandinavia)
"Coronet of marquis in crest" (marquis, marquess, margrave, etc.)
"Coronet of untitled nobility in crest"
Crowned helmets (e.g. File:Herb Kujawa.PNG, File:Bastian COA.svg, File:POL COA Pobog.svg, File:Imperial Coat of Arms of France (1804-1815).svg)
Crowned figures in crest (already exists, but needs sorting) (e.g. File:Malmö fulla vapen.svg)
Crowned eagles in crest (already exists, but should be subcat)
Crowned lions in crest (already exists, but should be subcat)
Heraldic crowns: (should contain subcats below and images of "just the crown")
Heraldic imperial crowns:
Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire
Imperial Crown of Austria
Crown of Saint Stephen
Imperial Crown of Russia
Heraldic royal crowns
Royal crown of...
Heraldic coronets of rank (should contain subcat Shields surmounted by coronets of rank [see above] and images of "just the coronet" as well as other images/subcategories that include coronets of rank.)
Mural crowns in heraldry (already in place)

Should there be a separate category for "Full achievements of arms"? (e.g. File:Austria-Hungaria transparency.png, File:Coat of Arms of Sweden.svg, File:Coat of Arms of Aa en Hunze.jpg, File:Coat of arms of Iceland.svg). Also, naturally, some coats of arms will fall into multiple categories (e.g. File:Bieliński vel Szeliga POL COA.svg is both a Shield surmounted by comital coronet and Crowned helmet, and File:Herb Straszyński 1.svg is a Crowned figure in heraldry (but not a crown as charge), Crowned helmet and Crowned crest). I would also place File:Stedra CoA CZ.jpg in Crowned helmets and File:Ovanåker landskommun vapen.svg in Crowned figures in heraldry.

One final note: The subcategories " crest" under "Shields surmounted by coronets of rank" may be renamed "Shields surmounted by... coronet" for consistency, if you like. I think "Crowned figures in crest" and its subcategories are a better use of the phrase "in crest". But that's just my opinion. Also, we might consider using "with" in place of "surmounted by" (e.g. "Shields with mural crowns"). Again, just an idea. Wilhelm meis (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for Your fine concept and sorry, i've got lost in habsburg-genealogy last days..
  • i will start embedding that concept into present categories, about " crest" to "Shields surmounted .." we will see if we do it manually or by a {move} bot action, thus maybe we should leave a masage on Commons:WikiProject Heraldry..
  • about "shields with.." instead of "surmounted by" i still believe in beeing mistaken as "shields showing (charges)", as written at Your en:discussion - lets use our readers precise terms and words, once they learned it, they will be thankful .. ;) (i was! - and we will give precise translation ..)
  • "Full achievements of arms" sounds very interesting, a highly informative class to compare local/national mannors, which is best done by a category, not a gallery or an wikipedia-article, which may accompany it
i will ping you about progess, and shurely ask for help if i get stuck - manymany thanks again --W!B: (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Like itEdit

Like it. Thanks =) /Lokal_Profil 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

goat's proud .. ;) --W!B: (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Heraldic crownsEdit

Hi, why do you suppose that any crown category will contain only heraldic representations? --Eusebius (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

do i suppose? excuse me, i do not understand Your question --W!B: (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe that's not you and I'm mistaken, but I've seen a lot of category about crowns being systematically included into categories about heraldic crowns, and since not every representation of a crown is a heraldic representation, I think it is not so obvious. --Eusebius (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
ah, i understand.. yes, its me, i did it with all categories, which do show only (or mostly) heraldics - just quickie
of course we should do heraldic..-subcategories to all crowns-categories - including Category:«Name of Crown» in heraldry, as i will do eg. with Category:Imperial Crown of Austria (see disc above) oder did with Category:Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire in heraldry (which name gets a little odd..) or Category:Archducal coronet in crest - lots of work, we'll get on with it time by time ;) --W!B: (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Flood_in_Central_Europe_Meteosat_200906221200_met8.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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− 07:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)



Why did you remove the category:Maps of the history of Europe from File:Ddayweather.jpg since it is related to the Normandy Landing that is without a doubt an historical event? Pierre cb (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

hi Pierre cb, thanks for ping on de:WP
because i did the complete Category:Weather maps of Europe into history [2], they all refer to historical events: by that i saw, we have to differ about Category:Meteorological maps between
  • dated events (historical weather)
  • maps about local weather phenomena in common
so i started a concept, how to put Category:Weather maps completely into category:Maps showing history, and all about Category:Meteorological theory maybe into Category:Climate maps:
  • there are some regions, as USA, where we already have got both weather maps and climate maps
  • and some regions, where we've got a weather and climate of XXX-structure
we should harmonize the systems..
about D-Day map: we should specify category: i didn't look into WWII-cat-system either, nor history of Europe-system, but the cat should be likemaps of battles of WWII → maps of WWII in europe → WWII-maps → maps of Europe 20th cent. and maps of battles in 20th cent. - that would be more precicesly describing - greetings W!B: (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hurricane tracksEdit

Left thoughts about the merge/move you proposed at Category talk:Tropical cyclone tracks. Note that the content in that category is placed there by a fully protected template - I can sort out that if needed.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

About the categorizing of Southern Limestone AlpsEdit

Why must the Category:Southern Limestone Alps be only in Category:Mountain ranges of the Alps and Category:Geology of the Alps? Why not in Category:Mountain ranges of the Eastern Alps like it was before? For example all the articles around claims these mountains to belong to the Eastern Alps anyway.Ximonic (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry, when i reverted your edit, i didnt see you made the change to eastern alps - thats ok of course - exepted, southern limesone zone is part of the southern eastern alps, so we will get another hierarchy within eastern alps W!B: (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Language policyEdit

Hi, in an effort to move the Commons:Language policy closer to completion, I have been editing it and cleaning it up for the last few days. I have tried to make the page as neutral and consistent as possible with the relevant policy and guidleine pages that it cross references.

I would appreciate it, as someone who has discussed some of these policies in the past, if you could look at Commons talk:Language policy and contribute your thoughts. This is the version that exists as I am writing it and I am encouraging everyone to consider the "static" page until everything gets sorted out.

Many thanks. Evrik (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

soory for not answering, i was quite busy on my home-WP a while
the more i think on it: it will never become a offical policy, if it is'nt discussed on a very, very broad base by Commons community, inviting users from all's languages WPs to contribute: much too many options overseen, and mainly loosing into irrelevant details, by now --W!B: (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


Hallo W!B, ich habe Deinen SLA aus dieser Datei entfernt, da die Behauptung, dass es sich hierbei um ein Duplikat zu File:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG handele, nicht zutrifft. Der Unterschied liegt im Bereich der niederländischen Sprache, die bei der einen Karte mit erfasst ist und bei der anderen weggelassen wurde. Die beiden Fassungen sind das Resultat eines erbitterten Streits (siehe die zugehörige Diskussionsseite), wobei am Ende jede der beiden Fassungen recht häufig benutzt wird, so dass beide entsprechend auch auf Commons verbleiben, da wir hier nicht im Konfliktfall über die Korrektheit von Karten entscheiden. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

oh verzeihung, mein fehler - den streit hab ich am rande mitgekriegt - ist es dann ein doppel zu File:Historical German linguistical area.PNG? irgendwie spuken dann massig varianten und backupkopien revertierter fassungen und interwikiimporte herum..
beschriftung ist ein besserl anders - zählt das?
ausserdem sollte in die (jetzt gesperrte) datei unbedingt ein index der varianten (galery) - bist Du admin und kannst das machen W!B: (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hallo W!B, SLAs sind hier nur bei kristallklaren Fällen möglich, d.h. es muss sich Bit für Bit um die gleiche Datei handeln oder die eine Fassung kann nur eine herunterskalierte Variante der anderen Fassung sein. In allen anderen Fällen sind reguläre Löschanträge zu stellen, die jedoch nur dann erfolgsversprechend sind, wenn die eine Fassung nirgends mehr verwendet wird und weitgehend Konsens besteht, dass sie überflüssig ist.
Wenn Du eine Änderung bei der für die Bearbeitungen gesperrten Datei wünscht, dann spezifiziere das bitte kurz auf der zugehörigen Diskussionsseite (insbesondere mit dem gewünschten Namen der Kategorie). Ich habe die Seite unter meiner Beobachtung und bin dann auch gerne bereit, Änderungen durchzuführen, die unproblematisch sind bzw. auf einem umfassenden Konsens beruhen.
Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
ah verstehe, ich vergeß immer dass {{duplicate}} ein SLA ist, danke Dir & gruß, ich notiers noch auf der disk (hab eh angefangen, sie zu sammeln) W!B: (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Regions of SpainEdit

Category discussion notification Category:Regions of Spain 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 | +/−

--Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token a23f1f99bd2f4d716c4bb7475fd32b04Edit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Book design categoryEdit

My German language skills are shocking, fortunately your english is better so I posted here in that tongue. I have been using the category "book design" for a little while, I am unaware of anything that else that fits. I just created Category:Fleurons to sort out those page elements, then noticed you had arranged the cats into 'pages' with the sort key. I found this unnessessary so I started removing them. Then I thought there may be a reason for creating them that is outside of the category system, which I think is better sorted automatically, and thought I had better see what was going on. cygnis insignis 14:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Alpenhochwasser_2005_sat_annot.png 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Kam Solusar (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


(About [3]) Ok this title is poor and there was no description, but this cat. is useful (for me at less).

Lack of description in categories is a general problem. therefore their contents are often approximate. For example, what is the difference between Category:Map icons and Category:Map symbols ?

«Map icons are always simple» : Yes it should, but most of icons in Category:Map icons or Category:Map symbols can't be used by "Location map" systems (≈10px).

I'm ok to help if you (or others) decide to clean these cats.   <STyx @ (I promote Geolocation) 16:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand - You should have said that ;) - lets name it Category:Simple map icons!
about symbols und icons: You're right, symbol vs. icon is completely a mess about all topics, no idea, how to fix that
--W!B: (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
ah I see, someone changed the description: why don't You name it Category:French location map system symbols - thats what the contents are, so it should say, what it is.. --W!B: (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


Hallo W!B! Kannst Du mir nähere Infos zur Grenzziehung zw. Alpen- und Karpatenvorland machen. Welche Quelle(n) hast Du dafür verwendet?

Herzlichen Dank kurt

hallo kurt - hier auf commons dauert immer etwas länger ;)..
erwischt, mist ;) - ich weiß nicht mehr, wo ich das herhab, ich fürchte, da ichs nicht dokumentiert hab, eher hingeschätzt - hättest Du was sinnvolleres im angebot? --W!B: (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Kategorie PrielsEdit

Hallo W!B, ich habe die Kategorie "Priels" durch "Priele" ersetzt und zur Löschung vorgeschlagen, da der Plural "Priele" lautet. Gruß --C.Löser (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

gut so, danke Dir --W!B: (talk)+


Category discussion notification Category:Beachripples 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 | +/−

-- Crowsnest (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Untertauern oder Category:Untertauern, SalzburgEdit

Wir hatten schon das eine, dann das andere, jetzt eine Mischform. Entscheide dich bitte und steh dann ein paar Tage zu deiner Entscheidung. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

danke für den hinweis --W!B: (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


Hallo W!B:, ich will ja nicht lästig sein, aber welchen Sinn macht es, die englischen Namen für die österreichischen Bundesländer nach dem deutschen Alphabet zu sortieren, etwa hier? Das bricht sowohl die Erwartungshaltung der nicht-deutschsprachigen Leser, als auch die der deutschsprachigen. Ich jedenfalls würde Upper Austria ziemlich am Ende der Liste suchen. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

meinst Du? ich hab extra die NUTS-sortierung genommen, damit es eben nicht sprachspezifisch ist (dass NUTS das abc in deutschen ist, ist "zufall")- oder hab ich da verkehrt herum gedacht? W!B: (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
ich hätte vermutet, dass diese Nummerierung von der deutschen Sortierung kommt, insoferne diese abbildet und trotzdem - durch die Indirektion - geschickt versteckt. Wenn ich mir vorstelle, die ISO-2 Einheiten irgendeines Landes nach einer mir nicht bekannten Nummer sortiert vorzufinden, noch dazu, wenn wesentlich mehr als 9 Stück, dann wäre ich auf die Suche angewiesen. Und die NUTS-Nummer im Kopf zu haben, going nuts. Siehe zum Vergleich auch Category:Mountains_of_Austria, da wird Upper Austria einfach unter U einsortiert. Ev. lohnt sich ja auch eine Zwischenkategorie Category:Churches in Austria by federal state. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
ah! gute idee viel besser - mach ich, danke Dir - und nur weiter so mit tipps&kritik, ist nicht lästig, auf commons ist man eh immer ein bisserl einsam - ist mir eine freude Dich auch hier zu treffen ;) W!B: (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Maps of the geography, Maps of geographical regionsEdit

Category discussion notification Some categories "Maps of the geography of ...", "Maps of geographical regions of ..." have been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which they should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created these categories, please note that the fact that they have 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 them. If the categories are up for deletion because they have 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 | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Variscan orogenyEdit

und Category:Alpine orogeny. Wahrscheinlich war mein edit ebenso falsch, aber aus irgendeinem Grund haben diese beiden Kategorien den Kategorienbaum unbrauchbar gemacht. Ich beobachte Bilder die zu Kategorien afrikanischer Staaten hinzugefügt werden und benutze dazu Katscan. Nun war File:Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Indian Botanic Garden - Howrah 2011-01-08 9879.JPG im Kategorienbaum des Afrikanischen Kontinents. Warum? Weil Category:Africa -1-> Category:Geology of Africa -2-> Category:Alpine orogeny -3-> Category:Himalaya -4-> Category:North East India -5-> Category:Assam -6-> Category:History of Assam -7-> Category:Bengal -8-> Category:Culture of Bengal -9-> Category:Bengali renaissance -0-> Category:Presidency College, Kolkata --> Category:Subhas Chandra Bose --> Category:Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Botanical Garden. Teilweise haarsträubend. Vieles daran ist sehr fraglich Kategorisiert, z.B. gehört ein Garten nicht als Unterkategorie einer Person nur weil dieser nach der Person genannt ist, vielmehr würde die Gallerieseite zu dem Garten in die Personenkategorie gehören, aber damit stehe ich wohl auf verlorenem Posten. Der Fehler der hier passiert ist, scheinen mir aber die Verbindungen 2 und 3, diese Verbindungen sortieren den Himalaya (und damit alle Bilder die auch nur im entferntesten mit Nordindien zu tun haben, *seufz*) unter die Geologie Afrikas. Hier brauchts eine Korrektur, entweder du findest den Fehler in der Systematik oder schlimmstenfalls revertierst du mich, dann werde ich eine andere Stelle suchen müssen um eine richtige Trennung zu erreichen. --Martin H. (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

hallo Martin H., scheint sich erledigt zu haben, oder? (ich bin grad nicht oft auf commons) - catscan ist für commons in großthemen erfahrungsgemäß wenig hilfreich: hierorts dominieren recht assoziative zuordnungen, und der versuch, diese riesige datenbank im deutsch-WP-strengen sinne "sauber" zu halten, ist müssig (auch, weil es zu viele ansichten darüber gibt, was wie sortiert wird)- man findet damit nur einzelne fehlknoten, und im besonderne zirkelschlüsse - die findet man aber mit CatGraph sowieso besser --W!B: (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Von meiner Warte hat es sich erledigt, ja. allerdings habe ich nur recht destruktiv ein paar Kategorien (Nr. "2" in obiger Numerierung) entfernt und die Faltungen so aus den Kontinenten entfernt. Besser wäre es wahrscheinlich bei der Kategorisierung "3", Himalaya als Unterkategorie der Faltung, zu schrauben und nicht die gesammte Kategorie - die eher eine räumliche Ordnung ist - unterzukategorisieren sondern nur eine Teilmenge. Eine solche Teilmenge, z.B. Geologie des Himalaya oder geologische Geschichte des Himalaya, gibt es als Kategorie aber noch nicht. --Martin H. (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
einfach Category:Geology of the Himalayas anlegen (ich glaub, englisch steht er im plural, weil es mehrere gebirge sind), und mal zwei drei bilder reinlegen, als alibi, wenn Du Dich nicht engagieren willst: hier auf commons ist man nicht so heikel mit halbleeren cats: dass sie sinn hat, ist ja absolut unstrittig, und hier füllen sich die cats, wenn sie da sind
mit afrika dasselbe, der wurm war einfach die fehlende Category:Geology of the Atlas und fertig die sache: und wenn Du präventiv arbeiten willst, und nur ein bisserl ahnung von geologie, legst Du gleich noch ein paar solche für die anderen züge des alpidischen gürtels an (langfristig wird sich jeder freuen, wenn sie da sind)
das einzige, was man - fachlich gesehen bezüglich afrika und alpidisch noch dazunehmen könnte, wäre die gesamthebung der sahara, aber dazu dürfte bildmaterial mager sein ;) --W!B: (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Ich schaue nach entsprechendem Material und Kategorisiere entsprechend. Danke für die Hinweise. --Martin H. (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


Hallo W!B:, diese Kat verstehe ich nicht. Es handelt sich um eine Objektkategorie, zur Kirche in Rutzenmoos. Warum scheinen dort nun auch Pfarrhof und Museum auf? Und warum hat die Kirche drei Objekt-IDs?, jedes Objekt hat doch seine eigene! Ich verstehe, dass man die Bilder zu einer Kirche (wenn es auch nur eines ist :-) ) in einer Kategorie zusammenfasst, ich verstehe, warum man die Bilder zu einem Ort in einer Kategorie zusammenfasst, warum man alle Pfarrhöfe und Museen in einem eigenen Kategoriebaum zusammenfasst, aber warum ein Pfarrhof jetzt eine Kirche sein sollte, verstehe ich nicht. Die Dinger haben auch drei verschiedene Objekt-Locations und nicht bloß eine. Warum ich in weiterer Folge die Kirche unter Category:Museums in Upper Austria, den Pfarrhof unter Category:Churches in Upper Austria vermuten soll, erschließt sich mir nicht. Es macht keinen Sinn, unterschiedliche Objekte so zu einer Objektkategorie zusammenzufassen. Welchen Begriff von Kirche legst du da zugrunde, immerhin ist Kirche unter Category:Buildings einsortiert, ist also das klassische Kirchengebäude und nicht das Besitztum einer Pfarre, oder einer ganz untrigen Organisationseinheit der Mutterkirche. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

ja, wenn ich fertig bin, dokumentier ich auf der projektseite, wo ich gemeinsame kategorien für kirche & pfarrhof angelegt haben (4 von 250), weil zu erwarten ist dass der artikel die ebenfalls gemeinsam behandeln wird
PS: auf commons gibts keine objektkategorien.. - übertrag nie die de-pingelei (für artikel) auf commons, hier zählt assiziatives katalogisieren von bildern! --W!B: (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
nein, ich würde dich bitten, das vorher zu diskutieren. Ich mach den Unsinn mal rückgängig. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
wenn ich drüber nachdenk, was soll der schrott, auf der einen seite pöbelt man über halbleere kategorien rum, und wenn dann eine besser gefüllt ist, passts auch wieder nicht, und die bilder sollen erst recht wieder einejede in ihre kategorie, tsts, immer neu ideen für nutzlose arbeitsbeschaffung .. Herzi Pinki, bleib am boden: das finden zählt: die feingleiderung machen wir, wenn alle 30000 kategorien angelegt sind, dann bekommen selbst ungenannte nebengebäude und vor kirchen stehende fahrradständer eigene kategorien - vergiss es, überleg Dir lieber, ob man dort, wo das BDA selbst ein ganzes ensemble ausweist, die kategorien trotzdem getrennt werden sollen (kirche+friedhof, kirche+kloster) W!B: (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Du arbeitest in einem Höllentempo, so als hättest du Angst, die Welt würde morgen untergehen. Ich will dir nicht Arbeit schaffen, ich will dir Arbeit nehmen. Bei einer vorab klar definierten Struktur muss nicht so viel diskutiert werden, können andere im gemeinsamen Sinn sich daran beteiligen. Ich will uns allen Arbeit nehmen. Du arbeitest nicht im Sinne der Community, sondern du versuchst durch Massenedits deinen Willen durchzusetzen. Mir kommt vor, du empfindest jede Diskussion als lästig, du hast immer Recht. Wer langsam wieder auf den Boden kommen sollte, das bist du. Du beantwortest Fragen nicht. Du empfindest gefragt werden, als angepöpelt werden. aber hallo. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
ich will nur mit was fertig werden, was ich mir vorgenommen hab (weil auf meinen alten standardcomputer commons vor lauter dummen skripten nicht mehr verwendbar ist) und schon wieder doppelt so groß ist: ausserdem waren das jetzt ca. 250 objekte , ich teste eine struktur zuerst, bevor ich drüber red (solange ich auf der sicheren seite bin, gebäudebilder in kategorien zusammenzufassen, ist auf commons seit jahren üblich, und zwar lange bevor man drüber nachdecht hat, sie als denkmale zu klassieren, Du weißt sicher, wie eine gut gefüllte gebäudekategorie aussieht: ich setzt hier gar keinen "meinen willen" um, sondern usancen anderer, die sich bewärt haben): es gibt, wie gesagt, dabei 4 fälle, wo ich ein ensemble zusammengelegt hab, das ist imho noch knapp für eine diskussionsbasis (1-2 % fehlertoleranz muss immer drin sein) - nein, mir sind diskussionen nicht zuwieder, ich red mir nur nicht gern über selbstvertändlichkeiten den mund fusselig: ich versteh nicht, wo hier irgendwo überhaupt ein problem vorliegen soll: kannst Du mir geneur erklären, was exakt jetzt zu diskutieren wäre? W!B: (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
PS du musst noch Evangelische Pfarrkirche Rutzenmoos‎ aus der museumskategorie wieder austragen, wenn dan nebengebäude nicht mehr dabei ist (und den baustein fürs denkmal), ausserdem gehören, wie Dir sicher aufgefallen ist, das (ehem.) pfarrhaus und das bethaus zusammen, das ist das museum, die kirche nebenan ist aktive kirche, Du hast es also genau verkehrt herum gemacht --W!B: (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Churches by dioceseEdit

Adding this category to all categories of Roman Catholic diocese in Poland, is misleading and unnecessary. We already have Category:Roman Catholic churches in Poland by diocese, and Category:Dioceses by country. Please remove them. --Vladek Komorek (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

ah, sorry, i overlooked that categorie - but it would be right to put “Churches by diocese” into “Roman Catholic churches in Poland by diocese” - ins'nt it? W!B: (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Winter of 2011/2012Edit

Danke für die Kategorisierung. -- ESFP (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

viel arbeit, was da an einem tag eintrudelt, war mir nicht klar.. W!B: (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Snow in SwedenEdit

Hi! Thanks for categorizing my winter images, but January is almost always cold and snowy in Sweden (at least north of lake Mälaren), so they are not representative for the cold wave of Europe. V-wolf (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

ah, of course ;) - i tried to get an "all europe" overview into cold wave, so I took some images from sweden too: in fact, as one cannot see "coldness", i look for representative amount of snow, to compare all the zones of europa (including northafrica) - greetings from (also freezing) austria --W!B: (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that the intent is good, but wouldn't it show a false image of the harsh winter if we include places that often are cold in winter, such as the areas in the large mountain ranges, or northern Scandinavia? V-wolf (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
of course: if you know any better image, please put them in and bad images out ;) --W!B: (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I remove those I have taken. If I find any from parts of Europe afflicted by the cold wave I'll put them in the cold wave category. Cheers /V-wolf (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thanks a lot & greetings up north W!B: (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello, warning! This photo was taken in January 2008 and is not related to the current winter in Europe :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks a lot, sorry: wrong cat sometimes is better than none ;) W!B: (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dangerous Goods LabelsEdit


ich würde gerne Ihre Bilder von Gefahrgutlabels in einer kommerziellen Anwendung für Android Smartphones verwenden. Könnten Sie mir bitte mitteilen ob das möglich wäre und zu welchen Bedingungen. Gerne kann ich Ihnen bei Bedarf auch weitere Informationen über die Anwendung zukommen lassen.

Danke und Freundliche Grüße! Max hi (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ich muss darauf hinweisen, dass die bilder keineswegs von mir sind, sondern von diversen autoren der wiki-community: ich habe nur die kategorien angelegt, in denen sie versammelt sind
die bedingungen, wie sie weiterzunutzen sind, sind beim jeweiligen bild präzise angegeben: eine solche lizenz lässt sich nicht mehr rückgängig machen, und ist bindend
weitere informationen finden sich auf de:Wikipedia:Weiternutzung und (zur Wikipedia im allgemeinen), wo auch beispiele für Bildmaterial gegeben werden. konkrete fragen kann man auch auf de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Weiternutzung, de:Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia oder de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen (auf der deutschen wikipedia), oder Commons talk:Licensing hier in der bilddatenbank (auf englisch)
mfg W!B: (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


Allen4names (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Subtropical depressionsEdit


You have created the Category:Subtropical depressions buty the images and sub-categoryies you have put into it are not related. An Alberta Clipper for instance in a mid-latitude depression, otherwise known has an Extratropical cyclone. A sub-tropical depression is a term only used with mix lows or tropical and baroclinic nature that lead to a tropical cyclone. I will have to move part of the content of that category.

Pierre cb (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

jep, thanks, there is still a bit of confusion generated by the hurricane-projects classifying any non-tropical storm as “subtropical”. in fact, hurricanes are subtropical (as mediterranean “subtropical” storm have same latitude as hurricanes - there are no storms like that in real tropics, cf. w:Doldrums/Kalmen, ICZ), and “subtropical storms” are mid-latitude/temperate climate
if you'd a concept of sorting that up, we'll be glad ;) W!B: (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Done! Thanks for the other category sorting you are doing, that is a big job!Pierre cb (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
too big ;) - try to get some starting points to grow up .. W!B: (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Floods in EuropeEdit


I had to rename the Category:Cyclone Yvette 2014 into Category:Storm Yvette 2014, since Cyclone is reserve for tropical cylones in general which is not the case for this system. I did all the relinking necessary for images and interwiki.


Pierre cb (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


Wambe78 (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

street view world coverageEdit

Hello, i saw that you added a template to the google street view coverage map:

the template you added is

{{[[:Template:By 2014 Street View is not available in Austria for legal problems. see de:Google Street View #Österreich|By 2014 Street View is not available in Austria for legal problems. see de:Google Street View #Österreich]]}}

to this file:

The google street view world coverage map try to show the countries where google street view has images from those be just panoramas or actuall "street" coverage, on the map Austria is shown as "Countries and dependencies with full or partial coverage planned (official)" and "Countries and dependencies with views of selected businesses and/or tourist attractions only" i dont see why you put the dispute template, i dont know german language, so i cant read your reference, i understand english and spanish.)

i dont understand what are you saying by adding the disputed map template.

isnt google street view coverage of austria planned (by google)? (orange color on map)

i can see "views of selected businesses and/or tourist attractions" (example) so that dark green color over Austria on the map is correct.

current colors on the map regarding Austria are: orange and dark green stripes, so the map shows that the coverage on austria is planned and currently has just selected businesses and/or turist attractions

i hope you can remove the "Inaccurate-map-disputed" template. or (please) explain to me why you think the map is inacurate regarding Austria.

thank you in advance -kind regards --WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@WiZaRd SaiLoR: depends on what "planned" means. by 2014 google deactivated streetview for whole austria, deletete all files (so they say ;), and does not plan to reactivate it (too sumptuous to fulfill legal conditions on privacy of persons: it is not enough to allow people to ask google to remove them, google must ask each and any person seen on not public space if they may show them: right of publicity on any image of oneself, [4]). exept skiing areas of Ischgl, Sölden, Red Bull racing ring, and some football=soccer stadiums (contracts with private owners, i suppose). thus (if you want to include those few exeptions) it should be striped grey with dark green, with much more grey, shouldn't it? otherwise it's completly grey. let's make it grey, slightly dottet green, that's what it is ;) --W!B: (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the explanation, now i understand :)
As i see now, the orange colour must be removed from Austria, but the green still in place.
BTW: as i understand, the map colors on the countries when (there is more that one colour) are used striped colours, the proportion of each colour does not intend to represent the proportions of such coverage, and if there is any "colour" on a given country, then the grey is not used (the grey colour is only used when there is no current or planned coverage of any kind)
i will try to edit and upload a new map image to show Austria on green, wich means: "Countries and dependencies with views of selected businesses and/or tourist attractions only"
i hope that that fix the inacurate-disputed issue, and i also want to tell you, again. thank you for explaing the local problem to me.--WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@WiZaRd SaiLoR: problem is the stripes to be arranged so that orange (planned) was in the middle, so you'll oversee the rest, austria is small ;). but, please, make it gray. even "views of selected businesses and/or tourist attractions only" is not sure. skiing areas only sometimes in winter. in stadiums just for a round-view. and only as a web service to the operators, as far as i know. maybe google will stop even that. so anyone looking on our map and seeing austria not to be grey (thus telling "available") will be misguided, if he will try it @maps, and google says "not available" whereever he tries: nearly all tourist attractions won't be covered. if you make the middle stripe grey, and the two sidestripes green (what will as it happens cover exactly Vienna, Spielberg/Red Bull ring and Ischgl/Sölden), i would accept that. --W!B: (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Need to Hire an ArtistEdit

I'm looking to hire artists to design vector coats of arms for I pay $1.75 USD per arms. That’s not much, but I purchase a huge +10,000 image clipart package (called Armorial Gold) for you to use, which makes the process much faster and easier. I currently have two artists who work for me, and they have earned several thousand dollars over the last 12 months. Please contact me if you are interested — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coadb1984 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "W!B:".