User talk:Atamari/Archive/2014

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/2014⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

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

Dear Wikimedians,

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

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

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

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

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

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for removing your upwizcampeditors

Hello Atamari, there is a discussion about a request regarding your Upload Wizard Campaign Editor userright, which have never been used or not used recently. You can participate discussion in Commons:Requests for rights#General request. If you have a reason that your upwizcampeditor be kept, please let us know. This is just a notification of discussion you may be involved. Best regards, — 레비Revi.

Delivered on behalf of 레비Revi by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I use the rights for the annual Wiki Loves Monuments. I'm one of the German organizer. --Atamari (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

File:DEU Beyenburg COA.svg

Du hast meine Kategorisierung revertiert. Sag mir doch bitte den Grund für diese Aktion. --Maxxl2 - talk 12:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ich habe die neue Kategorie der ganzen Kategorie Wappen von Beyenburg zugeordnet. --Atamari (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Das halte ich nicht für eine gute Idee, da ich noch eine Verfeinerung in Category:Cross pattée gules für diese Datei machen wollte. Cross pattée gules passt nicht zu den Fotos in der Category:Photographs of coat of arms of Beyenburg --Maxxl2 - talk 12:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Das Kreuz hat mit diesem Thema Category:Canons Regular of the Order of the Holy Cross zu tun. p.s. durch diese Änderung ist das Wappen in keiner "SVG coats"-Kategorie mehr. --Atamari (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Stellt sich nicht überhaupt die Frage, warum es eine Kategorie Coat of arms of Beyenburg mit 3 - 4 Dateien geben muss. Irgendwo hab ich mal gelesen, dass man erst Kategorien erstellen sollte, wenn mindesten 10 Dateien zusammenkommen bzw. die Aussicht darauf besteht. Darüber hinaus halte ich es nicht für gut Fotos und svg oder png, gif etc.-Wappen gemeinsam zu kategorisieren. Ich bin der Meinung, dass alle Wappen der Wuppertaler Stadtteile in der Category:Coats of arms from Wuppertal (warum Former coats of arms from Wuppertal? - Du hast doch selbst mit Fotos belegt, dass sie weiterhin benutzt werden - sogar auf dieser Seite sind sie zu finden!) zusammengefasst werden sollten. Die Beyenburg gif-Datei werde ich wegen der schlechten Qualität zur Löschung vorschlagen. Gruß--Juergenk59 (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Auf Commons gelten nicht die Wikipedia-Regeln. Und Bilder von Beyenburg-Wappen kommen noch weitere dazu. Nicht-so-gute-Qualität, war auf den Commons noch nie ein valider Löschgrund. Die Wappen von Elberfeld und Barmen sind keine Wappen in dem Sinn mehr, das sie offiziell benutzt werden (werden dürfen). Sie bilden in heutiger Zeit nur ein schmückendes Beiwerk und sind als historisch zu betrachten (sie werden auch nicht in der Satzung der Stadt Wuppertal erwähnt). Es würde auch keiner auf die Idee kommen, die Abbildungen der Wappen auf diversen Gebäuden abzuschlagen. --Atamari (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mangifera indica 0005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 14:08, 15 April 2014 (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 07:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wuppertal Hardt 2013 020.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments meets all QI criteria --J. Lunau 09:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Accident of the Wuppertaler Schwebebahn 1999-04-12.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose No geocoding, scope not linked to a category. Yann (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No opposition now. Yann (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Very useful picture and the nominator corrected the formal issues that Yann had pointed out. Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

WLE-Bilder Umgebung Wuppertal

LSG?

Hallo Atamari, da sind ein paar neue Bilder aus der Umgebung: Special:ListFiles/Yowan2008. Vielleicht kannst du die ja Standorten oder einem konkreten Schutzgebiet zuordnen und eventuell dem User unter die Arme greifen? Holger1959 (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ist Solingen, wird schwieriger. Schau mir später an. --Atamari (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Scharpenacken

Hallo, Scharpenacken liegt laut BFN-Karte nur zum Teil im LSG. Der Scharpenacker Berg ist demnach z. B. nicht geschützt. Ich hatte daher nicht die ganze Kategorie als LSG eingeordnet, sondern nur einzelne Bilder, die angeblich im LSG aufgenommen sind. Weißt du von einer bisher nicht verzeichneten Erweiterung des LSG oder hast du das unabsichtlich so (wahrscheinlich teilweise falsch) eingeordnet? Gruß, --Sitacuisses (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

ich habe noch mal auf die Karte Geschaut, das Gebiet geht runter bis zum Murmelbachtal. Die Url schau ich schäter mal nach. --Atamari (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

ich schau später zu Hause mal nach. --Atamari (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Die eine Feststellung ist, das rund der Hälfte der Bilder die vorher im LSG und Scharpenacken zugeordnet waren, somit gar nicht im LSG liegen (Dies zum Beispiel). Das große Teile des ehemaligen Truppenübungsplatzes nicht als LSG ausgewiesen sind passt auch nicht zu den Pressetexten in den letzten Jahren (z.B. das die Modelbauflieger keine Flugerlaubnis mehr haben). Zum anderen passt die Abgrenzung nicht zu den Abgrenzungen die im Geoportal die von der Stadt Wuppertal betrieben wird (aktuelle Landschafts- und Naturschutzgebiete). Ich bin überfragt... --Atamari (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sitacuisses: , das Problem der Karte über www.geodienste.bfn.de/ hat mich die ganze Zeit beschäftigt (auch in anderen Bereichen sehe ich dort noch Inkonsequenzen). Gerade sehe ich ein ganz wichtiges Detail zu den Scharpenacken inbs. den Scharpenackener Berge. Im Rahmen der Erstellung des Lanschaftsplan Ost wurde die Erweiterung des LSG angeregt und es kam dann zu einer Beschlussvorlage, siehe FFH - Umsetzung im Landschaftsplan Ost, VO/1682/03, also definitiv LSG. Fazit: geodienste.bfn.de hat einen Datenbestand, der (in Teilen?) zehn Jahre nicht aktualisiert wurde. --Atamari (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Straßenbahnmuseum Kohlfurt

Hallo - deine Unterkategorien sind ok. Aber wie wäre es, den einzelnen Bilddateien bald auch allgemein verständliche, beschreibende Namen zu geben? -  Maxxl² - talk 13:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ich denke, es können in den Jahren noch einige Bilder dazu kommen. Der Fahrzeugpark bleibt aber mehr oder weniger übersichtlich (siehe hier). Aber was meinst du mit beschreibende Namen? Mit Tw 275 fand ich mich schon ganz gut (Ich habe mich nach dieser Tabelle gerichtet), alles kann man auch nicht in der Kategorie mit rein nehmen (heutiger Besitzer, Nummer, Herstelle, ehem. Besitzer, Baujahr.. ect.) --Atamari (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Die vorgeschlagene Richtlinie Commons:Dateibenennung sagt: „Titel von Mediendateien sollten in der gewählten Sprache aussagekräftig und hilfreich sein.“ Die derzeitigen Titel sagen nichts über das Motiv der Bilddatei in verständlicher Form aus. Eine kryptische Buchstaben-Zahlen-Kombination die nur Tramspotter verstehen ist nicht gerade hilfreich. -- Maxxl² - talk 09:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Was wäre Dein Vorschlag? --Atamari (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 The Juggernaut (Amphi festival 2014) 002.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 12:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 The Juggernaut (Amphi festival 2014) 005.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok --Poco a poco 09:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 Corvus Corax (Amphi festival 2014) 011.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 10:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 Corvus Corax (Amphi festival 2014) 015.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 10:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 Corvus Corax (Amphi festival 2014) 017.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 21:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 Corvus Corax (Amphi festival 2014) 061.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 09:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 Corvus Corax (Amphi festival 2014) 058.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Promoted but please give each nomination a distinguished description --Moroder 13:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-27 In the Nursery (Amphi festival 2014) 013.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Mattbuck 22:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-27 In the Nursery (Amphi festival 2014) 012.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Mattbuck 22:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 The Juggernaut (Amphi festival 2014) 010.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good for me. --Livioandronico2013 15:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 Clan of Xymox (Amphi festival 2014) 005.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 Corvus Corax (Amphi festival 2014) 073.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 Corvus Corax (Amphi festival 2014) 028.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-27 Mesh (Amphi festival 2014) 018.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good qulity. --ArildV 09:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-27 Apoptygma Berzerk (Amphi festival 2014) 008.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good qulity. --ArildV 09:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-27 Apoptygma Berzerk (Amphi festival 2014) 007.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 The Juggernaut (Amphi festival 2014) 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Very nice picture, but the left hand is blurred. Still QI for me,--Démosthène 02:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 Corvus Corax (Amphi festival 2014) 054.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-27 Mesh (Amphi festival 2014) 021.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 10:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-27 Mesh (Amphi festival 2014) 017.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 10:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-27 Eisbrecher (Amphi festival 2014) 010.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 11:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-27 Eisbrecher (Amphi festival 2014) 035.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 15:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-27 Eisbrecher (Amphi festival 2014) 037.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 15:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-27 Solar Fake (Amphi festival 2014) 002.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --Christian Ferrer 05:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 Corvus Corax (Amphi festival 2014) 027.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 14:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 Corvus Corax (Amphi festival 2014) 003.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Quality --Generic1139 14:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 The Juggernaut (Amphi festival 2014) 011.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --Mattbuck 20:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 The Juggernaut (Amphi festival 2014) 014.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Mattbuck 20:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 Corvus Corax (Amphi festival 2014) 066.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --Mattbuck 20:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 Corvus Corax (Amphi festival 2014) 009.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments There is a disembodied hand in focus on the right. See note. --Generic1139 14:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)  Comment cropping --Atamari 11:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Good quality --Generic1139 21:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-26 Corvus Corax (Amphi festival 2014) 013.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Elbow on the left needs cropped. A stage is usually cluttered with stuff and that ok/unavoidable, but the main subject needs to stand out with light, or focus; body parts that are lit the same, or in the focus plane, are a distraction. If they are easily correctable, as in this case, they should be, IMO. --Generic1139 14:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)  Comment cropping --~~~~ Separation with background sufficient, blur (motion or dof) on extended hand ok in this case IMO.--Generic1139 21:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014-07-27 Solar Fake (Amphi festival 2014) 005.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good DOF and sharpness. Vassil 13:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Treppe Untersteinenfeld zum Haltepunkt Ostersbaum Wuppertal 03.jpg

Have you obtained permission from the uploader to add that copyright tag? If so, then please provide evidence of that permission. If not, then the copyright tag is invalid. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Banffy has made a small mistake, I have corrected it. Banffy upload own photo the Commons. --Atamari (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a URL to a page where Banffy has given you permission to add the copyright tag, or send the permission to OTRS. Otherwise, the file will have to be marked for deletion for no evidence of permission. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Banffy has made a small mistake, is not problem. This is not a permission problem. --Atamari (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As you are refusing to provide any evidence of permission, I will assume that you do not have any permission and tag the file accordingly. Copyright tags must not be added without permission from the photographer. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Cats

STOP fighting with me! You gain nothing from making such a big issue out of this. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any meaningful work. much incomprehensible changes --Atamari (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If you see nothing meaningful then you should see nothing to make such a fuss about. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Nordbahntrasse

Ich sortiere gerade einige Bilder, die ich an der Nordbahntrasse parallel zur Breslauer Straße gemacht hatte, und könnte bei der Namensgebung etwas Hilfe vertragen.

• Ist "Bergisches Plateau" die richtige bzw. eine sinnvolle Bezeichnung für die große Freifläche?
• Heißt der Bahnhof richtig "Bahnhof Wuppertal-Wichlinghausen"?
• Hat die Parkouranlage dort einen Eigennamen (welchen)?

Einem Schild nach heißt die Anlage anscheinend "Parkour Plateau" (mit Leerzeichen). Gebräuchlich scheint dieser Name aber nicht zu sein.

• Wie heißt am Südende dieser Teilstrecke die (derzeit noch gesperrte) Brücke über die Wichlinghauser Straße?

Soeben gefunden: Wichlinghauser Viadukt.

• Nahe der jetzigen Parkouranlage und etwa in Verlängerung der Freiheitsstraße ging früher offenbar eine Fußgängerbrücke über die Bahnanlagen. Die Widerlager sind noch erkennbar. Gibt es zu dieser ehemaligen Brücke einen Namen?

-- Ies (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Das sind gute Fragen, die ich so adHoc auch nicht komplett beantworten kann. Dort war ich schon länger nicht.

• Das Bergisches Plateau ist die Bezeichnung für ein Neubaugebiet. Ursprünglich ein großer Bahnhof (Bahnhof Wuppertal-Wichlinghausen) beginnend vom Norden von der Straße Am Diek bis zum Süden an dem ehem. Luhns-Gelände und Wicked Woods. Das Gelände wird in mehreren Bauabschnitten als Wohngebiet erschlossen. Der Haltepunkt (zuletzt) vom Bahnhof Wuppertal-Wichlinghausen ist etwas nördlich vom Schulzentrum Ost. Damit ist die Freifläche eher als temporär zu bezeichnen, wann wo welche Häuser bebaut werden ich jetzt nicht. Für eine Commons-Kategorie kann man das aber erstmal machen.
• Die Bezeichnung ist soweit korrekt. Ich sehe (Category:Former train stations in Wuppertal) das Bhf Wichlinghausen noch gar nicht existiert. p.s. so weit meine Erinnerung aus der Literatur ist, wurde ein Empfangsgebäude im Krieg zerstört. Seit dem mehr ein Haltepunkt gewesen.
• Die Parkour Anlage ist so etwas ähnliches wie ein Skatepark (Category:Skateparks in Wuppertal). Einen Parkourpark finde ich jetzt im Moment nich unter Category:Parks by type sollte aber möglich sein (analog zu Category:Skateparks in Wuppertal). Einen Namen weis ich nicht, aber via Google sieht man einige Versionen, wie wäre es mit Parkourarea auf dem Bergischen Plateau (Webserver der Meldung bei Stadt Wuppertal)?
• Viadukt Wichlinghauser Straße Baudenkmal Nr. 1910
• Eine abgebrochene Brücke (ähnlich Freiheitsstraße ) habe ich auch im Schönebecker Busch gesehen, zur Brücke an der Freiheitsstraße habe ich aber keine Infos. Ob [backPid=119&cHash=96a7950f28 die] das ist bzw. gewesen ist?

--Atamari (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Danke! Die Bilder sind für die 01. KW 15 eingeplant. -- Ies (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Fish ladders in Wuppertal

Hallo, die Kategorie jetzt wieder fast leer, sorry aber siehe [1], [2] und [3] (mit Links). Holger1959 (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Die sind auf dem Bild auch nur schwer zu unterscheiden. Eigentlich müsste die Ronsdorfer Talsperre eine Fischtreppe haben, so meine Erinnerung... Der Beyenburger Stausee wurde definitiv vor wenigen Monaten umgebaut. --Atamari (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

am Beyenburger Stausee ist ein Umgehungsgerinne [4]. Bei der Ronsdorfer Talsperre ist der Höhenunterschied ja viel größer, da wär sowas nur schwierig zu machen. Bei diesen treppenartigen Bauwerken kann man sich bei uns dran orientieren, ob man die einzelnen Stufen noch gut zu Fuß gehen könnte (Schritthöhe), dann kanns eine Fischtreppe sein, wenn nicht dann ists fast immer was anderes. Gibt natürlich auch sehr große Fischtreppen, aber die kenn ich nur aus anderen Ländern und eigentlich nur für Lachse (die können gut "bergauf springen"). Holger1959 (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

will nicht nerven, aber ich glaub [5] ist etwas zu speziell. Fischtreppen gibts ja nicht nur bei Wasserversorgungsanlagen (zB Trinkwassertalsperren), sondern generell wenn in Fließgewässern Hindernisse sind wie Stauwehre, Mühlenanlagen usw sind. Holger1959 (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Weirs in North Rhine-Westphalia gehört dann auch nicht in Category:Water supply buildings in North Rhine-Westphalia... --Atamari (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

da hast du recht, das gehört da von der Logik her nicht hin, Wehre können ja aus ganz verschiedenen Gründen gebaut worden sein. hätt ich Mal nichts gesagt ;) Jetzt such ich nach der allgemeineren Kategorie für Wasserbauwerke und find noch mehr durcheinander (auch bei den Wikipedias), schön blöd. Holger1959 (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Und scheinbar gibt es keine Kategorie für Staumauer in Deutschland, dort wird direkt nach Talsperre geleitet.... --Atamari (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

also beim Anblick von Category:Dams by country würd spontan sagen: Redirect bei Category:Dams in Germany rückgängig machen und Kategorie wie die anderen auch benutzen. Hab da direkt was für, neulich erst angelegt: Category:Möhne Reservoir dam. Holger1959 (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)