User talk:Gödeke/Archive

2008

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Gödeke!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|correct name}} For more information read the full deletion guidelines.
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

2009

Why?

Why did you first empty Category:Volunteer fire departments in Finland and then mark it for deletion? Please use summary field to give some reason for your actions. Samulili (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats dead and buried --Gödeke (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fire fighting categories

Please be more careful when re-categorising as Category:New South Wales Fire Brigades is for New South Wales Fire Brigades which is a NSW government agency but it isn't the same as New South Wales Rural Fire Service and by putting those two in one category means that it's harder to find photos for the relevant agency. Bidgee (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The category is Firefighting in New South Wales with the cats engines, stations and fighters. There are all engines, stations and fighters. The categories NSWFB and NSWRFS are seperatly. --Gödeke (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fixing up your mess but you're just messing it up again. I have split of Category:Fire engines of New South Wales so there is no need to double up on categorises! Bidgee (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I´m not interested on NWSFB and NWSRFS. All engines, stations and fighters are in the subcategories of Firefighting in New South Wales like all the other countrys worldwide. --Gödeke (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I'm also not interrested on editwars. --Gödeke (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Australia's fire fighting is different to those in other counties as all states and territories have a fire brigades (structural fires in metro, regional cities and some large towns) and rural fire services (structural fires in small towns and remote areas as well as bushfire fighting) and by putting those in one category wouldn't work since they (fire brigades and rural fire services) are different and if we use the system that you want we will be over categorising were as what I did is probably the best system we could use. Bidgee (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

All country's fire fighting are different to those in all other countrys. --Gödeke (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop doubling up on categories. The images are in categories that link into that category and there is no need to double up. Yes all countries are different but Australia is hugely different. Bidgee (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you have split engines and not fighters and stations like them? --Gödeke (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Well I will when I have the time (later on today). Bidgee (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Whaleback Light.jpg

I see that you recently removed the category Category:Kittery, Maine from this image. According to en:Whaleback Light this lighthouse is in Kittery, Maine so should be in that category.--Captain-tucker (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And why Category:Lighthouses in New Hampshire? --Gödeke (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why that was there, I correct it to Category:Lighthouses in Maine and added Category:Maine in the 2000s. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks --Gödeke (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Firefighting in Ohio

I was curious — why add Category:Firefighting in Ohio to File:Site of the Homer Laughlin House.jpg? Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

On the pic is a fire hydrant. --Gödeke (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Firefighting in Israel

Enough please. you are disturbing our use in pictures. Ori~ (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

2010

category removals

Why are you removing Scouting categories and not replacing them with anything?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Scouting means Scouts, also boys and girls in scout organisations. --Gödeke (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. Your point?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing of Bergbau- und Hüttenkombinat

I've reverted your edit because the VEB Bergbau- und Hüttenkombinat Albert Funk Freiberg belongs to clear period of time, whereas Category:Mining in Freiberg (Sachsen) represents a much longer period of time, from the very beginning of silver mining in the ore mountains in 12th century 'til today and - maybe - possible mining in the future. You cannot substitute one with the other, instead VEB Bergbau- und Hüttenkombinat Albert Funk Freiberg has to be in both of these categories. --Markscheider (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Von mir aus, ich seh das nicht so eng. Aber richtiger wirds dadurch auch nicht. --Gödeke (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Inwiefern? Bergbau- und Hüttenkombinat betrifft nun mal nur die Zeit der DDR. Beide Kategorien bilden zwar Schnittmengen, sind aber nicht deckungsgleich. Schon allein deshalb, weil das Bergbau- und Hüttenkombinat nicht nur in Freiberg Bergbau betrieb. Aber davon ab - ich finde es gut, das sich ein Mitstreiter gefunden hat. Lysippos, der das ganze angestoßen hat, scheint nicht mehr viel zu machen. --Markscheider (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Restaurants in Nebraska

I've been doing most of the recent Commons photography in Nebraska. I'm afraid I must disagree with your creation of new categories "Restaurants in (City), Nebraska".

The old categories were not excessively large, so breaking them up wasn't justifiable on grounds of size. The new categories are all quite small, and likely to remain that way. The loss of convenience entailed by the new layer of categories, especially for people with slow Internet connections, prompted my decision to reverse your changes.

Please get back to me on this: with your concurrence, I'd like to slug the new categories for speedy deletion.

--Ammodramus (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Coffeehouses/Cafés in Washington

I notice that you moved Category:Coffeehouses in Washington to Category:Cafés in Washington. I think that is an odd choice. In local parlance, a coffeehouse is a business that is centered around espresso coffee; many carry nothing else beyond a small selection of pastries, although some have a wide range of desserts, up to half a dozen types of sandwiches, and maybe one or two other meal options. Very few have liquor licenses (although a few more are licensed for beer and wine). A café can mean anything from a coffeehouse to a bistro; despite the etymology, it doesn't even necessarily have any emphasis on coffee and may be a place that wouldn't welcome a customer who just wanted coffee. - Jmabel ! talk 07:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, at the moment everything in the category is more or less a coffeehouse. We need to resolve this before the new name leads someone to start muddying the category. What precisely was your objection to the previous category name? I see you have been on Commons since I raised this but have not replied. - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to concur with User:Jmabel re. the word "café". In most of the United States, the word is used to cover a very wide range of businesses, ranging from coffeehouses as Jmabel describes them to restaurants at which full meals are served. For example, the Picket Fence Cafe in Columbus, Nebraska, which you recategorized in "Category:Cafés in Nebraska", almost certainly serves full meals; and, as Jmabel observes, would probably frown upon a customer who only drank coffee and didn't order food.

At least in this country, I don't think that "cafe" is useful as a category title. I think it'd be better to divide establishments between "coffeehouses" and "restaurants". There'd still be some overlap, but the terms are less broad than "cafe".

--Ammodramus (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Gödeke, unless I hear a clear objection from you in the next 24 hours, I plan to change this back. - Jmabel ! talk 05:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Kategorie "Town halls in Plankstadt"

Absoluter Blödsinn, für das kleine Kaff Plankstadt (knapp über 1000 Einwohner) eine eigene Kategorie für das einzige Rathaus zu schaffen, zumal es in der Kategorie "Town halls" heißt, also Plural, und der kleine Flecken Plankstadt definitiv nur ein Rathaus hat. Wohl etwas zu übereifrig gewesen? --62.227.175.114 18:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Hier ist der Ton von WP:de unüblich.
2. Hier ist im Gegensatz zu WP:de bei Kategoriennamen der Plural üblich.
3. Hier werden nach Commons-Regeln Bilder gesammelt.

Wohl etwas vorlaut gewesen? --Gödeke (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nö, nicht zu vorlaut gewesen, der Vorwurf, dass es Blödsinn ist, für das Rathaus Plankstadt eines 1000-Einwohner-Ortes eine eigene Kategorie zu erschaffen, bleibt. Warum nicht für jedes Bild auf Commons 'ne eigene Kategorie? --62.227.175.114 21:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hinweis an die IP: da fehlt eine 0, es sind knapp 10.000. Im übrigen +1 zu Gödekes Anmerkung, Deinen Umgangston betreffend. --4028mdk09 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dresden from...

Nur als Nachfrage weil ein paar deiner edits auf meiner Beobachtungsliste sind. Bist du dabei die Kategorisierung

• 1900 to 1939
• 1940 to 1979
• 1980 to 1999

aufzulösen? Ich würde das gutheißen, einfach deswegen weil es sich meiner Kenntnis entzöge, dass 1940 ein einschneidender Zeitenumbruch in Dresden gewesen wäre und ich mich schon häufig an dieser Abgrenzung gestört habe. Die Kategorisierung nach den üblich Dekaden halte ich für besser. --Martin H. (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nachdem ich immer wieder hierüber stolperte, ändere ich es. --Gödeke (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Gut so. Achso, dabei aber bitte aufpassen: Es gibt keinen Hinweis darauf das zB File:Fotothek df ps 0002811 Stadt ^ Stadtimpressionen ^ Treppen ^ Treppenanlagen.jpg in den 1970ern entstanden ist. Das Datum 'vor 1977' ergibt sich einzig aus dem Todesdatum des Fotografen. Klar, er muss es zu Lebzeiten gemacht haben - für unsere Kategorisierung bedeuted dass: 20. Jahrhundert. --Martin H. (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Habs auch bemerkt und ändere es. --Gödeke (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Notfalls kann man über eine zusätzliche Zwischenkategorisierung nachdenken, die dann aber sinnvoller ist als die vorherige. z.B. 1945-1990 für die Besatzungs/DDR-Zeit, die Kategorie wäre dann unterkat von Category:Dresden in the 20th century und würde die Jahre 45-49 sowie die 50/60/70/80er enthalten. Ein wenig wie die, zugegeben auch nicht ganz ideale, zumindest aber übersichtliche Lösung die ich in Category:Stralsund in the 20th century eingebaut habe. Eine Extrakaskade. --Martin H. (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Gefällt mir zwar nicht, aber machbar. --Gödeke (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. Glaubst du an verschollene weitere Dresden-Journal-Jahrgänge, oder warum diese Oberkat für das DJ 1906? --Gödeke (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Lt. wikisources ist das Dresdner Journal von 1850 bis 1914 erschienen, also durchaus eine gültige Kategorie für eine Zeitung. --Martin H. (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Und ich dachte wir kategorisieren nur was wir haben. --Gödeke (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Haben wir ja, zwar nur eine Ausgabe aber immerhin. --Martin H. (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Bautzen

Hallo Gödeke, Ich habe gesehen, dass du Dateien aus einer Jahrhundertkategorie (Category:Bautzen in the 19th century) in Decadenkategien verschoben hast. Ich finde das unsinnig, da diese Cats für jene Zeit zu kleinteilig sind und das Auffinden der Bilder nur erschweren. Sollte es dir dabei um das Befüllen z.B. der Category:Saxony_in_the_1850s gehen, könnten die Bilder auch doppelt kategorisiert werden. Damit es richtig Spaß macht: unter Category:Album der Rittergüter und Schlösser im Königreiche Sachsen befinden sich noch andere, aber Vorsicht: manche der der Rittergüter befinden sich heute nicht mehr im Sächsischen. --WikiAnika (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ort nach Jahr

Commons:Kategorien#Kategoriestruktur

Mit der Category:Zittau by year sind die eingebunden Kats/Bilder überkategorisiert, da die Jahreskats bereits über die Dekadenkategorien unter der Category:History of Zittau eingebunden sind. Im Unterschied hierzu ist die Category:Zittau by decade auch in der Oberkat Category:Cities in Germany by decade eingebunden. --WikiAnika (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gilt diese deine Aussage nur für Zittau oder auch für alle anderen schon seit langem (und nicht von mir) so kategorisierten Orte? --Gödeke (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wenn einer den Blödsinn anfängt müssen ja nicht alle anderen nachziehen, oder? In Zittau ist es mir aufgefallen, weil ich die auf der Beo habe. --WikiAnika (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Was Du als "Blödsinn" betrachtest können andere anders sehen. --Gödeke (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Ich habe da andere Vereinbarungen im Hinterkopf. --WikiAnika (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Modell Meißens im letzten Drittel des 10. Jahrhunderts.JPG, File:Modell Meißens im letzten Drittel des 10. Jahrhunderts.JPG

Hi, sag mal, warum hast du die beiden Stadtmodell-Bilder in die Jahreskat 1950 in Meißen gepackt?--D.W. (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Einfach weil sie da hergestellt wurden, wenns nicht passt einfach ändern. --Gödeke (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Schokoladenkuchen McCafe 1.JPG und dergleichen

Erkläre mir bitte entweder, worin der Sinn liegt, Bilder von Kuchenstücken in die Kategorie "unbekannter Ort in Deutschland" zu schubsen, oder entferne doch diese Änderung wieder. Danke & Gruß, 80.99.46.164 11:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Dem stimme ich zu, der Ort wird nicht identifizierbar sein und weder das Produkt noch das Bild haben irgendeinen Ortsbezug. --Martin H. (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

2011

Category:Scouting_in_Ghana

Category discussion notification

Category:Scouting_in_Ghana 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!

Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

thx --Gödeke (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Fast_food_restaurants_in_Mechanicsburg,_Ohio

Category:Fast_food_restaurants_in_Mechanicsburg,_Ohio 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!

Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

2013

Category:Coffee_smuggling

Category:Coffee_smuggling 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!

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Die Kategorie ist ja leer --Gödeke (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Modern_movement_architecture_in_Cologne

Category:Modern_movement_architecture_in_Cologne 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!

AKor4711 (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

OK --Gödeke (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Domino's

Domino's 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!

Mjrmtg (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

OK --Gödeke (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Amtseinführung Woelki

Hallo Gödeke, du hast heute einige meiner Woelki-Fotos umkategorisiert. Dafür erstmal ein allgemeines Danke :-) Konkret aber zu File:Amtseinführung des Erzbischofs von Köln Rainer Maria Kardinal Woelki-0915.jpg. Du hast einige Bildnotizen hinzugefügt, nur die beiden äußeren Priester noch nicht benannt. Ich bin mir da auch noch unsicher, aber könnte es sich beim linken um Bischof Heinrich Mussinghoff handeln? Er hat als dienstältester Bischof der Kölner Kirchenprovinz Kardinal Woelki zur Kathedra geführt. Und rechts außen vielleicht Gerhard Ludwig Kardinal Müller, Präfekt der Kongregation für die Glaubenslehre? Ich tue mich mit Gesichtern im Vergleich mit anderen Bildern immer etwas schwer. Raymond 11:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Mussinghoff nein, Müller glaube nein. --Gödeke (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm danke. Raymond 18:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha, ich hab's: links Friedrich Kardinal Wetter und rechts Gerhard Ludwig Kardinal Müller. Im WDR-Video ab Minute 0:13:00 werden sie von Heße vorgestellt.

Thx --Gödeke (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Paulaner,_Munich

Paulaner, Munich 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!

Mattes (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Sculptures of scouts

Sculptures of scouts 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!

--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ships_in_Germany_on_stamps

Ships in Germany on stamps 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!

Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Modern_movement_architecture

Modern movement architecture 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!

Stolbovsky (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)