User talk:52 Pickup/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Flag

I noticed an error: The flag is the flag of France - not the flag of the Confederation of the Rhine. I presume, that the confederation has never had an own flag. But the different member states of the confederation used their flags for themselves. The member states of the Confederation of the Rhine had not been part of France, but had accepted Napoleon in his function as "protector". This fact doesn't make the Confederation of the Rhine a part of France. So the flag of France is no official symbol for the Confederation of the Rhine! The member states had been co-founders of the Confederation of the Rhine. So they had been subjects not objects of international law. Formally they kept their sovereignty and were no client states of France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.181.26 (talk • contribs)

The Flags of the World site says that the French flag was used for the Confederation of the Rhine. Member states did use their own flags, but the Confederation itself used the French one. Using the French flag does not necessarily imply that the Confederation was part of France. - 52 Pickup 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry,52 Pickup, but the honoured tricolor is not the flag of the Conf. of the Rhine. I can't remember clearly but I THINK it was orange-ish and had sort of a white rising sun. Main point: That is not the right flag. I wikianswer-ed it and found this out.Philippe Auguste 01:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A flag allegedly used by the confederation
A flag allegedly used by the confederation
The only other flag that I have seen is this one on the right, but it is stated in many places (e.g. [1]) that this was only allegedly used and not used officially . On FOTW it says "The Confederation of the Rhine had no flag but the French [flag] and the Imperial Standard of its protector (Napoleon)." And other sites use the French flag to represent the confederation (eg. [2]). If you have references for this orange flag of which you speak, I would be interested to see them. But as far as the info looks right now, the Confederation was represented either by the French flag or by none at all. - 52 Pickup 07:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand, I stated no sources therefore what I say isn't reliable. But that flag is one I've seen before used for the Conf. of the Rhine. The other one I said I saw before in an almanac somewhere. How'd you find/make the flag here? Maybe I could show you what I saw.Philippe Auguste (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Dutch Infobox former country

Dear 52 Pickup,

Yesterday you offered help in updating the Dutch nl:Sjabloon:HistLand if you had the time. I'd gladly accept that offer, as I have basically no knowlege of template coding. Anything you can do to build a not too complicated (The English infobox, while great, is a bit much) infob modelled after the English one would be great. I've started a traslation of the French infobox that can be found here: nl:Gebruiker:Sir Iain/Kladblok It displays a few problems as shown here: nl:Gebruiker:Sir Iain/Kladblok2. If you could modify nl:Gebruiker:Sir Iain/Kladblok so that it works properly, I'd be very glad. :)

Thanks in advance: 213.10.202.180 09:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC) nl:Gebruiker:Sir Iain

Thanks very much for the work you've already done on that infobox! But could you help me just a bit more by fixing voor1/na1 of the last part? I can finish the rest myself. There's no need to bother you with more tedious work. 213.10.202.180 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC) nl:Gebruiker:Sir Iain
I've finished the infobox myself. Thanks for what you've have done!

Dank je wel! 15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)nl:Gebruiker:Sir Iain

Geen probleem! Unfortunately I hadn't had time over the last few days to do that last bit, so thanks for taking care of it. If you have any other problems, just let me know. - 52 Pickup 16:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:GER

Sad to see you go. I was just about to badger you about the possibility of making alternative English entries in the Location template, but that certainly is not urgent or even that improtant yet. I know how being busy in real life takes priority having had a almost break of about 2-3 month myself recently. All the best. Agathoclea 11:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. There has been a lot going on for me over the last few months, and it's not going to stop any time soon. I'll probably remain active on some German articles, but mostly within the scope of WP:WPFC. But if there's any way I can continue to help out with templates, that's no problem - it just won't go as quickly as before. What did you have in mind? - 52 Pickup 13:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This should explain it. Something that can't be broken by well-meaning translators. Agathoclea 22:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That entry is cleaned up now. The creation of English names for all the parameters is something that I still plan to do - unfortunately, the code is complicated enough as it is with only one set of names, so it will take a lot of time to get it done right without breaking the template. - 52 Pickup 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Navbars

It's an interesting issue you raise: I find the navboxes more attractive and easier to create, while the navbars may be more functional. I'll see if I adopt navbars as my future standard; I certainly won't object if my navboxes are transformed into navbars. For the German issue in particular, here is the current situation: Saxony and Baden-Württemberg are navbars, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern are yet to be created, and the rest lack navbars. Would you perhaps be willing to help me transform some of these last into navbars? Biruitorul 06:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Report

26 article titles Ammerthal Beindersheim Birgland Bischberg Ebrach Engelsberg Ensdorf, Bavaria Frensdorf Fußgönheim Gerach Großniedesheim Hanhofen Heuchelheim bei Frankenthal Hochdorf-Assenheim Kleinniedesheim Lauter, Bavaria Memmelsdorf Oberhaid Otterstadt Pettstadt Rattelsdorf Reckendorf Rödersheim-Gronau Schallodenbach Selters (Taunus) Stadelhofen

Template: History of Germany

Historically, the changes you made, are absolutely correct, but do you think it to be convenient to make a period of history as the Third Reich, which contains about seventy percent of the articles about German History as a subsection?--Thw1309 09:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

While there are a huge number of articles about the Nazi period in comparison to the rest of German history, the period of Nazi rule was still only 12 years long. So placing Nazi Germany as a subsection of the German Reich seems perfectly reasonable. I think it's best to go with what is historically correct instead of the article count - that helps in setting a clear framework and can prevent future disputes. - 52 Pickup 10:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Novemberrevolution, because this in difference to the other content no period of time, but a single event, which was only important, because it relieved the imperial government from the responsibility to have lost the war and gave the Nazis the possibility to destroy the Weimar Republic.--Thw1309 14:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Weitnau

Dear 52 Pickup, thank you for improving my rather amateurish German location template, couldn't quite figure out how to do that! The Weitnau article is the first one that I've worked on and pretty important to me cause I live there! I would next like to add a picture gallery of the Hirnbein-Erlebnisweg, is there a good site that explains how to do that? Or could you help me doing that? Thanks again and greetings,
Bluemate 09:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. For more information regarding the use of the infobox, see the instructions or look at some of the articles that use the infobox in its more detailed forms (eg. Frankfurt, Bremen, Mainz).
As for a gallery, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean something like Wikipedia:Gallery tag? - 52 Pickup 10:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I guess thats what I mean, I'll give it a shot one of these days! Thanks again
Bluemate 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Former Country: Free Imperial Cities

I tried to add an automatic status_text for Reichsstädte, but I can't get it to work. Any chance you could add this functionality for me, please? — OwenBlacker 14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you find any bugs. - 52 Pickup 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks great, though I'm gonna restore the link to the HRE (if I can get it to work), as just Free Imperial City feels a little unclear; it'd be better if people can see that's a part of the HRE without having to click through, dontcha think? — OwenBlacker 15:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, specifying HRE in the text might be a good idea. I have one suggestion: please do not place the infobox on articles for modern cities (eg. Wangen im Allgäu). Apart from having multiple infoboxes on the one page (always to be avoided) it makes it unclear what the article is actually talking about. It is always best to create separate articles for these former city-states (eg Free City of Lübeck, Free City of Frankfurt) - 52 Pickup 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, d'you think? I was adding it to the History section of each Free Imperial City, with relatively brief information (much more brief than I usually add), to provide some historical context, where there's not really enough information to create a stub about the original Reichsstadt. Do you think that's too untidy?
Certainly, where there's an article about the Reichsstadt itself, I'd put it there (see Bishop of Sion, for example), but where there is no such article, I quite like a smaller version of the infobox appearing in the History section — particularly given that it then adds the appropriate categories without cluttering up the categorisation area at the end of the article.
Can I not persuade you on this?  :o) — OwenBlacker 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm not the one that needs to be persuaded. I don't really mind either way, but there are many others who see multiple infoboxes as a problem. There is a huge problem with this regarding biographical articles (now that's a real minefield). Also, see WP:ATC. In the case of what you are doing, I have no problem with it - so long as it isn't too obstructive (so no problem if the article has enough content aside from the infoboxes) - but some people miht object and these extra infoboxes may be removed. So be careful. - 52 Pickup 16:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see the point they're fighting against at WP:ATC, though I'm not sure it's pertinent in this instance. I'll remove some of the redundant content from the box I added to Wangen im Allgäu and I've already done so on the one I've been creating for Warburg. I'll bear it in mind in future. Thanks for the heads up!  :o) — OwenBlacker 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

New map North German Confederation

Dear 52 Pickup, in your new map for the North German Confederation, the south German states, that later became part of the German Empire are displayed in color, but Alsace-Lorraine, which became part of the German Empire as an imperial territory in 1871 too, is simply shown with the background color. This seems to me misleading. I would prefer to show it in a different color, to make it clearer, that it became part of that empire as well. Blinder Seher 20:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't colour that in at first because I wanted to differentiate the imperial territory from the German states themselves and I couldn't think of a suitable colour. I think I've got it sorted out now and will upload a new version. - 52 Pickup 06:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me out on the Kingdom of Bavaria page?

For some reason, wikipedia is not automatically putting a table of contents down on the page. I've seen a way to put one into the article, but unlike the automatic one, the manual typed table of contents can be deleted. Could you help to get wikipedia to put an automatic table of contents on the article Kingdom of Bavaria? User:R-41

Good work :)

Like the userboxes, may adopt a couple of them myself in coming days. Orderinchaos 17:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm working on a few others for some other subprojects. We've got a helluva lota subprojects, so maybe we need to put all these useroxes in one place somewhere so we can see what we have. It looks like some people have made up multiple manual ones for the one project (eg. WA) - I've got some ideas about creating some conditional userboxes that would combine them (1 template, 2 designs). It's part of some other template things I'm working on, and userboxes are a nice harmless place to experiment :)
I like the idea that someone had in setting up Category:WikiProject Western Australia members with the pseudo-userbox. I thought that was kind of cute, so I've set up the same for the NSW category. - 52 Pickup 18:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Conversion of Infobox Govt Agency to wikitable syntax

Hey, thanks for the offer last night to convert the above template to wikitable syntax - if you've got some time free i'd love to take you up on this offer. I've performed the bulk of the work I need to this template, so it's all yours for conversion. The rest of the work I can happily leave until afterwards as it's non-core stuff. Thanks for your help, and look forward to seeing the template cut back a few kb. Thewinchester (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'm on it right now. - 52 Pickup 13:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Deutschland Besatzungszonen 1945 1946.png

I saw you'd converted Wikinights map of the German occupation zones, so I just thought I'd for your information put a copy of my humble request to him here also:

....I was just hoping that you could have the time to make another version of the map Deutschland Besatzungszonen 1945 1946. A version that also includes the territories that at the Potsdam conference of August 1945 were placed "temporarily under Soviet and Polish administration". With the expulsion of the original population from these territories in the years 1945-1950 they de-facto became Polish and Soviet property, but the border was not accepted by West Germany until 1970, and not legaly accepted until the peace treaty of 1990. I'm thinking the map could look like any of these original maps

Best Regards, --Stor stark7 Talk 21:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I thought about making such a map earlier, but didn't have the time. Thanks for letting me know. - 52 Pickup 07:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a final version. Suggestions welcome!
Not a final version. Suggestions welcome!
Actually, I decided to give it another go. This time it didn't take as long as expected. It is at Image:Map-Germany-1945.svg. The subdivisions within the zones are not shown - i thought that would clutter up the image too much. If you have any suggestions for the image, please let me know. When it is finished, I'll then move it to the Commons. - 52 Pickup 09:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the source website that you mentioned - there could be a licensing problem. Otherwise looking good Agathoclea 11:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Map images based on information from this particular site have been made on various wikis for a long time. For example, see en:Province of Hesse-Nassau, de:Hessen-Nassau and nl:Hessen-Nassau. The images from the website have not simply been taken, but they were used as a starting point. The only difference between the Dutch/German versions and the English version (done by me) is that I've actually stated where the information came from (the other versions simply say "own" work). - 52 Pickup 11:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I am by no means an expert - The way it is worded suggests the possibility that an existing image for that site was the base. On the other hand it could be a different base image filled with data from there. Agathoclea 11:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Me neither, but I wasn't sure what to say. This page contains a labelled map (which I did not use) and a couple of download links. I downloaded one of the postscript files, modified it, coloured it, added some flags, and uploaded it. Maybe it would have been easier to say that it is entirely my own work, just as the German and Dutch ones have done. I hope I haven't done anything wrong - I've made a lot of these maps over time (see my commons page) - 52 Pickup 11:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If there have been no complaints at commons I doubt there is a problem. Agathoclea 13:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Good enough for me :) Many of the maps that I have made have been used on various other-language wikis, and there have never been any complaints. Let's hope it stays that way! - 52 Pickup 13:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the note on my talk page, I'm in Wiki only intermittently lately so I would have been unaware of your great work otherwise. My comments/suggestions/general musings.: Much of what is to be shown on the map depends on which time periods one intends to portray, and "political considerations". Usually the borders used are the 1937 borders, since then you don't have to include the Sudetenland as a lost part of Germany, and also naturally not Austria that was annexed. Although the Sudetenland was Internationally recognized as a part of Germany, it was through some very dubious legal maneuvering declared void after the war. Two interesting papers on the Sudetenland issue:

Another area that might merit inclusion in the map, with more basis for inclusion than the Sudetenland, is the Danzig area.

The Oder-Neisse Line (click to enlarge)
The Oder-Neisse Line (click to enlarge)

The Danzig area could be shown in a different colour as it is shown on the map to the left. Then there is the question of the Saarland. I saw that in the German page you use as source it was stated that the map depicts the situation in September 1, 1945 and that the Saarland was cut out from Germany as a result of the Potsdam Conference. I believe that to be in error, although I cant be certain. I do know that the French were not invited to the Potsdam conference, and although they did want big chunks of Germany including the Saarland I cant in a quick scan find anything to say that this was agreed upon at Potsdam.

  • French proposal regarding the detachment of German industrial regions September 8, 1945 (requires flash player)
  • The Saar (protectorate) was not broken off from the French occupation zone until late 1947 if I remember correctly, so you might perhaps want to take that into consideration in the map somehow, with explaining text or something. Under the Monnet Plan the French also wanted control over the Ruhr area, but in the end they had to settle for economic control through the International Authority for the Ruhr, which later became the European Coal and Steel Community.
  • Then there's the question of the other borders in the west, affected by plans such as the Bakker-Schut Plan. Reading the interview provided in the "external links" one sees that there was a large number of small scale landgrabs. I hope they are to small to be relevant for this overview map though.
  • To summarize my suggestions: be careful with how you label the Saarland/dates, and perhaps include also the Danzig area.

Keep up the good work, --Stor stark7 Talk 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You have brought up a lot of interesting points. To respond (and i'll probably think of more points later, but don't know when i can add them or clarify what's written below):
  • You are right in that the borders shown are pre-1937, and that it will always be a problem to decide what point in time the "before" map comes from. If starting with a map after 1937, then you get the problem you describe as to which things to include, and what not. Following the legal declarations made by the Allies regarding pre-war German annexations (such as you have mentioned regarding the Sudetenland - also the Moscow Declaration of 1943 declared the Anschluss void), and naturally the Allied refusal to recognise any gains made during the war (Danzig, Poland, etc.), it is perhaps simpler to stay with the pre-1937 map, illustrating that the Allies reset Germany's territory to before 1937 (after regaining Saar and before the annexation of the Sudetenland or Austria) and then divided it. Not sure, I might see things differently later on.
  • A second map comparing the full extent of Germany (c.1943) with the post-WW2 borders would be nice - something for much later on :)
  • If Danzig is included, then you probably need to include everything annexed before that, legally or not. If we use the pre-1937 map, then Danzig should probably not be included since this map is primarily dealing with the territorial changes of Germany, not Poland, and we should probably keep it as simple as we can.
  • The depiction of the Saarland is a tricky case. For the moment, I thought it best to give it a different colour to the rest of the regions (which could then be explained away in any subsequent captions). The German wiki is not too clear on the matter, only saying that the borders of the Saarland were modified (within the French zone) in 1946, a customs border was placed around the region at the end of that year, and the French protectorate was formed a few months later. Various documents regarding the Saarland can be found here in German and French (unfortunately, my French is lousy). Perhaps explanatory text is the way to go here, and perhaps instead of a different colour, maybe an overlaying pattern, similar to Image:Deutschland Besatzungszonen 1945 1946.png
  • Yes, the territorial changes following the Bakker-Schut Plan are tiny - there's a list at de:Niederländische Annexionspläne nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg#Übersicht der 1949 annektierten Gebiete (von Nord nach Süd)
In the near future I expect to be away from Wikipedia a lot, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to get back onto this. In the meantime, if you have any other points that you would like to bring up, please do so. - 52 Pickup 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, in the meanwhile, just to muddy things up even further, a quote from 1944 from a note to the President by Henry Stimson, the U.S. Secretary of War [3]
"We contemplate the transfer from Germany of ownership of East Prussia, Upper Silesia, Alsace and Lorraine (each of them except the first containing raw materials of importance) together with the imposition of general economic controls. We also are considering the wisdom of a possible partition of Germany into north and south sections, as well as the creation of an internationalized State in the Ruhr. With such precautions, or indeed with only some of them, it certainly should not be necessary for us to obliterate all industrial productivity in the Ruhr area, in order to preclude its future misuse. Nor can I agree that it should be one of our purposes to hold the German population "to a subsistence level" if this means the edge of poverty."
So apparently at least late in the war the U.S. seemed to recognize the German speaking territory of Alsace-Lorraine as a part of Germany to be taken away after the unconditional surrender. I think I read somewhere that it was formally made a part of Germany in 1943 or so.--Stor stark7 Talk 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Another thing, there were other more or less temporary changes in the Western frontiers, not just the Bakker Schutz land-grab by the Dutch but also grabbings by the rest of the gang. I dont know how large they were or how long they lasted.
Well, I can no longer give you the details, they are all in the record someplace, but the Dutch wanted adjustments here, two or three kilometers or miles in this direction, and along this railway, or this road, completely within Holland, "and after all," they would say, "the people in this area are mostly Dutch," -- you know, [130] all the standard stuff that has come out in every boundary change in history I suppose. "This was strategically a little easier to defend." Such nonsense, and so forth, and so on. In the end we agreed on a number of changes on the Belgian, Dutch, Luxembourg and French frontiers, involving some thousands of Germans, and some, I don't remember, some unremembered amount of territory, not large, no Alsace-Lorraine or anything like that, not even a Saar settlement, but still an unpleasant business. So I went as far as I had to go, you know, throwing cold water on every proposal as far as I could, but having to give in in the end. There was no denying them. It was just like misers with a pot of gold in front of them, they couldn't keep their hands out of it (I'm sorry to put it that way, but it was a rather unedifying spectacle to me). [4] --Stor stark7 Talk 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've put up a new version. The main difference here is a clearer differentiation between parts of Germany placed under foreign occupation and those placed under foreign administration and later annexed - otherwise some might think that there was a Polish zone of Germany (as someone already commented on the image's talk page). Having done this, do you think that the Polish flag is still needed, or is it too confusing? Also, I've recoloured the Saar to something close to (but not the same as) the French zone. Placing a pattern of some sort will have to wait a while. This will probably be the last change that I will make to the image for some time (start a new job next week). I haven't found any further information about the extra minor territory changes you referred to in your recent comments.
Thanks for all of the great quotes and references that you have provided so far. Most of it is new to me so I find it all very interesting. Are you still interested in creating a dedicated entry for 1945-49/54 Germany as discussed here? Time permitting, I can help out with going through any German documents if you like. - 52 Pickup 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you found the quotes interesting. I'm still interested in creating an article. I created a section in my sandbox for the sake of collecting possibly relevant documents User:Stor_stark7/Sandbox/German_Eastern_Territories_temporarily_under_Polish_and_Soviet_administration, but then I've had quite a lot to do in the real world. Unfortunately I expect it will be a few months before I can put any effort into it, for now I'll just collect documents of interest as I come across them. I made some entries using documents I've found in the talk page of the article that promotes the Polish viewpoint Talk:Recovered_Territories#Poland.27s_western_border.
Regarding the changes to the map, yes I saw that Molobo was back from his one year administrator-enforced vacation from Wikipedia. Lets hope he's learned his lesson and is less belligerent this time around. Don't be fooled though, he's not as confused by the map as it might seem by his question on the picture talk page. His main activity seems to revolve around editing articles relating to German-Polish questions, and he has for instance been quite active in articles such as Recovered_Territories and Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII, so he's well aware of how the borders have changed.--Stor stark7 Talk 20:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. It's a shame that Wikipedia is used by some to push their own POV. I guess this is why references are so important. I was planning to gradually work on a translation of de:Deutschland 1945-1949 as a starting point, add references as I find them, link to the relevant pages, and eventually set up that entry as the page that goes between Nazi Germany and East/West Germany (instead of Allied Occupation Zones in Germany). My draft is at User:52 Pickup/Drafts/Allied-administered Germany but, like your situation, it will take a while to get done. - 52 Pickup 09:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Serious help needed for article on Serbia in WWII

Hi 52 Pickup, there is a controversial page called "Nedic's Serbia" about Serbia in World War II, when Nazi Germany invaded and destroyed Yugoslavia. Some claim that a puppet state of Serbia did exist, others claim that it is a complete falsification and that Serbia was under German occupation only, without a local administration. Those who have put information about the supposed regime, do not have enough reliable references while those who oppose it, have little reliable references either. In addition there have been manipulative edits and some discriminatory and perhaps racist comments on the article itself, with some wierd editor claiming that the substance entire article is based of off "Albanian propaganda" from an "Albanian marketing firm". Others on the discussion page attack the page for being "Croat propaganda". Anyway, I've seen that you've taken a look at the page, could you help find some other editors who do not have allegiances to states in the former Yugoslavia (the reason is because the former Yugoslav people have been ridden with war in the past ten years which radiated national hatred, and a number on wikipedia have been known to display their national hatreds towards rival ethnicities). This page really needs help and I would appreciate your help and if you could notify other trustworthy editors to help repair this page, or possibly renew it as "Serbia under German Occupation in World War II" or something, if not enough evidence arises showing that there was a puppet state. Thank you for reading. User:R-41 August 11, 2007

No problem. I know very little about Serbian history, but I'll see if I can find some help or any suitable reference material. Thanks. - 52 Pickup 11:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Error in map

Hello 52 Pickup,

I think there is an error in Image:Deutschland Besatzungszonen - 1945 1946.svg. It concerns the Bavarian district Lindau. You show this district in orange (belonging to the American zone), while in fact it belonged to the French zone. So it should be in blue. The image on which you say you based your image, Image:Deutschland Besatzungszonen 1945 1946.png, has this correct, btw. Please correct this map and others done by you which might show the same error. Thank you. Regards --Rosenzweig 00:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You are right, the map needs to be corrected. I'll take care of it when I get time. - 52 Pickup 11:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Puzzled

This puzzled me in as much as the history section got deleted. Intentional? P.S. You are using AWB - is there a way of programming a replace of {{Infobox Ort in Deutschland to {{Infobox German Location? I will clean that up eventually myself, but if articles get touched anyway it might be worth automating it. Agathoclea 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for pointing that out. It's fixed now. This new version of AWB has a feature that I'm trying out (and it looks like it's got a couple of bugs), causing this accidental deletion. For changing the template name, it should be possible to do this with AWB (i know nothing about bots). Good idea. - 52 Pickup 21:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
With AWB it can be done - now only 563 pages to go! - 52 Pickup 21:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD notice

Template:Infobox Village DE NRW

This maybe an infobox that you may want to standardize to your German Location infobox instead of Infobox Settlement. It only has one link. Here's the TfD for it: click here —MJCdetroit 01:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Luksuh 04:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

German Empire maps

Hi 52 Pickup, I know you've made a lot of maps for states of the German Empire, I was wondering what you thought of some of the white and grey colour maps (such as Reuss Elder Line) as I think it's difficult to make out the location with the smaller states when they are in the infobox, do you think it would be worth introducing colour's like the one used in the Principality of Lippe map so it's clearer. - dwc lr 14:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally, the black and white maps are very unclear for these small locations. Unfortunately, I have made colour maps for some of these smaller states and found that that isn't much better, which is the main reason why I haven't uploaded them yet - for the corresponding map for Reuss Elder Line, there is almost nothing to see. The best maps I've seen for these Thuringian states are on the Dutch wiki (e.g. Image:Shield Reuss OL.png) For the moment I would recommend using those maps instead since they are much clearer than looking at Germany as a whole. - 52 Pickup 15:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll change the maps to one's used on the dutch wiki. - dwc lr 15:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Help

Dear 52 Pickup: Please consider to take a look at talk:German East Africa - Infobox. Thanks. --Gamahler 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox German location having problems????

52,

You may want to read/comment on this: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Article not displaying properly as infobox german location is getting the blame. —MJCdetroit 01:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories

If you have time, would you mind offering your thoughts about categories at the Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board? Olessi 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I've just reviewed my userpage history and discovered that Graala had vandalised it a few weeks ago so I just wanted to express my thanks for reverting it back. I know it occurred a while ago but like I said, I only just noticed it. Thanks again. Ryan(talk/contribs) 21:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I discovered the vandalism while doing a recent-change check so I thought I'd fix it. - 52 Pickup 18:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Tibetan towns and villages

Hi I want to create a standard infobox Tibetan settlement for all the towns and villages in Tibet under Template:Infobox Tibetan Settlement. Is there anyway we can have something like this: Domartang but with parameters to include the Tibetan/Chinese language section like on Deleg at the top so it all goes neatly in one box for settlements? PLease repsond on this as soon as you can as I feel it very important thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Something like this:


(template code commented out)

This now appears to be taken care of by Infobox Settlement. See Deleg - 52 Pickup 21:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Former Country

Just to let you know, I've made some edits to the infobox, to make it so that it floats properly, like other infoboxes. I've not seen it cause any problems, but give me a yell if you notice any problems I've missed. Thanks! — OwenBlacker 12:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox German Location}}

Hi, I noticed a problem with the infobox: many districts do not get a link in the box. This apparently only occurs for districts that don't have "(district)" in their article title. See also Template talk:Infobox German Location#District links. Could you fix it? Markussep Talk 08:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Image

Hi 52 pickup! Thanks for your great and helpful maps of allied oocupation zones in Germany. I used Image:Deutschland Besatzungszonen - 1945 1946.svg for some improvements on de:Regierungsbezirk Minden. I used your image as a template to create a map of this area as of spring 1947. (by the way: check out the license) I noticed some errors, though (I'm German and so I love to criticize everything :-)). These errors are hopefully not already mentioned above. Your map is supposed to show the states, not yet federal, states of Germany as of 1945/1946. But it doesn't. It shows more likely a map of Germany after January 1947. Let's give some examples:

Lower-Saxony wasn't founded in 1945, yet. In 1945 there were only the states Hanover, Brunswick, Oldenburg und Schaumburg-Lippe that were merged not before November 1946 to become Lower-Saxony. They were part of Prussia, but forget that: Prussia was without any relevance after 1945, though it wasn't abolished de-jure before 1947. There are perhaps some more states that were not founded before 1946 or so - I'm not so sure about that. Should be easy to find that out. Here is another thing I noticed. Your map doesn't show the freestate of Lippe, which was merged with the state of Nortrhine-Westphalia not before 1947 (de-jure: not before 1948). By the way: Northrhine-Westphalia was established in October 1946. Hence your map should show the provinces Northrine, Westphalia and the state of Lippe before October 1946. After October 1946 it is supposed to show the newly formed state of Northrhine-Westphalia and the state of Lippe. If you want to create a map that depicts the situation after January 1947, it should look pretty much the same to the one that is labeled Image:Deutschland Besatzungszonen - 1945 1946.svg.

Greetings from Germany TUBS. Please answer on my user site, if you have any comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.7.148.24 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

CfD that needs your attention.

This CFD needs your attention. Note also this. Agathoclea 15:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask you to help me on infoboxes?

Hi! I see you're good at making infoboxes. I'm working for articles about Algeria, and I've tried to make one, but I found out I can't. If you have some more time, could I ask you to do one (well, three, one for the provinces, one for the districts and one for the municipalities) ? --escondites 21:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For municipalities, I strongly recommend the use of {{Infobox Settlement}}, which offers just about everything you need for municipalities, towns or cities - see Algiers for an example, and see the infobox template page for coding instructions. The special infobox for German locations was made only because we wanted an easy way to copy information over from the German wiki.
For the districts and provinces, I can help out if you like. What information would you like in the box? - 52 Pickup 21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Infobox Settlement can be used for provinces. Here's an example: Adrar Province. It can be used for daira/districts too, but I couldn't find any articles. —MJCdetroit 00:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Yes, but wouldn't it be better with a uniform infobox for all municipalities, districts, and provinces? Because there are many things that are unneeded for Algerian divisions, and many that are present only there... For provinces, following things would be good to put in the infobox:
  • Header:
    • Arabic name
    • English name (in Italic)
  • Maps:
    • An Algeria map showing the province and a caption
  • Unnamed column:
    • Area code (+213 (0) XX)
    • Province code (XX)
  • Administration:
    • Seat (+coordinates link)
    • Districts no. (optional)
    • Municipalities no.
    • Ksars no. (optional)
    • Wāli (+years) (optional)
    • President of the PPA (+years) (optional)
    • PPA seats
    • PNA seats
  • Basic statistics:
    • Area (metric+US)
    • Population (+population year)
      • Density (metric+US)
  • Other information (both optional):
    • Budget
    • Website
  • Bottom (optional):
    • A province map showing the districts and a caption
And for the districts:
  • In the header:
    • Arabic name
    • English name (in Italic)
  • Maps (both optional):
    • An Algeria map showing the province and a caption
    • A province map showing the district and a caption
  • Adminsitration:
    • Province
    • Seat ("capital") (a coordinates link)
    • Municipalities no.
    • District code (optional)
    • District president (optional)
  • Basic statistics:
    • Area (metric+US) (optional)
    • Population (+population year)
      • Density (metric+US) (optional)
  • Maps:
    • A district map showing the municipalities and a caption
I know that's a little bit too much, but I would really appreciate this, and, the few members of WP:Algeria would freak out when they knew there's finally something to put into the "infobox" section. And the inhabitants of Algeria would LOVE you Image:Smile-tpvgames.gif --escondites 10:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Map-Prussia-Hanover.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Map-Prussia-Hanover.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 20:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixable ;). I'll add your PNGs for deletion as "Creator request".--OsamaK (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

AWB Issue

Sorting out issues with the infobox I ran into a little snag with piped categories see this. I remembered that you had done that before and also removed the {{coor}} template at the same time. Any advise you can give me? Agathoclea (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've used AWB (and it's probably had a few upgrades since then) so I'm not too sure how it goes. For removing piped categories, I had to do each category separately. The normally-useful feature of skipping-articles-where-there-are-no-changes-to-be-made needed to be disabled since this did not cover adding/removing categories. To remove the coord templates, I could not really automate that and in the end it was better to just look out for it when checking every article. Sorry that I can't be any more help at this point. - 52 Pickup (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Population_as_of in Infobox German Location

Hi, I noticed something funny about the population date in the Infobox German Location. When there is only a year (no month and day) given in the field "Stand" or "population_as_of" (happens mostly with former "Infobox Town DE" boxes), it doesn't render that year, but the present date. Any idea why that is, and how to fix it? BTW I've copied and adapted the infobox to make it work for Austrian places, see {{Infobox Town AT/Test}}. There may be some redundant features left (don't know what I can remove safely), but it seems to work fine, for both the old Infobox Town AT and data from German wikipedia. Markussep Talk 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That comes from the #time code in this section - see meta:Help:ParserFunctions for more info. I've just attempted to correct this but it is likely that there may be errors. If you find any faults, please let me know. - 52 Pickup (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Addition to Aussie userboxes

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that I added {{User Australian states and territories visited}} to your User:52 Pickup/AU userboxes page. Please feel free to revert if you feel this was in error. Thanks! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. My page is mostly used to store userboxes that might be used later on, but having any Australia-related ones there can't hurt. Thanks. - 52 Pickup (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Input re banner required

If you have a moment, could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany/Transportation - thanks Agathoclea (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. The new code is in the template's test page. The separate transportation template can then be replaced with {{Template:WikiProject Germany|Transport=yes}} - 52 Pickup (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Germany!

If you are confused mate, just look it up in Wiki. The flag is supposed to reflect the legal entity of the state, not be simpler to comprehend. This is supposed to be a historical article and not Lonely Plant guide. There had never been a Nazi Germany except in Allied propaganda, so the use is wrong on at least two counts. Besides that only a relatively small number of Germans were members of the Nazi Party, never mind Austrians who were tarred with the same brush. Please change it back. Same goes for the Federal Republic. Thank you...from where you come from :o)--Mrg3105 (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused at all. I know perfectly well that there was never a state officially known as "Nazi Germany", just as there was never a state known officially as the "Weimar Republic". The empire, republic and Nazi-ruled Germany were all various periods of the German Reich (1871-1943/5), and the template is designed to illustrate this and allow people to access the articles that discuss the relevant periods. The fact that not all Germans were Nazis is well-known and the contrary is not implied here. So while your edit was well-intended and I can understand your reasoning, it would be wrong to rename only the Nazi period to "German Reich" without doing the same to the German Empire and the Weimar Republic. But then to have multiple entries in a list with the same name defeats the purpose of the template (i.e. easy navigation). That is why these entries are listed under a subheading entitled "The German Reich". As for the Federal Republic, "Federal Republic of Germany" redirects to "Germany", so I simply piped the text to prevent unnecessary redirection. I hope this helps. Thanks. - 52 Pickup (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
So why not pipe the others to their relevant articles and skip the very general Germany article? In any case, don't you think the big red flag with a swastika is not a clue enough that something was different? What it does is promote what is a completely wrong impression of Germany for that period. Its unhistorical even if it serves navigation convenience. The point of the encyclopedia is to inform by giving accurate information, not click fewer links or cater to lowest common denominator. --Mrg3105 (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at {{History of England}} - should all of those entries be piped so that each line contains just the word "England"? Of course not. As for renaming "Nazi Germany" to something else, or for this name presenting an unhistorical view of Germany during this period, this is not the right place to discuss this - instead go to Talk:Nazi Germany where the name is constantly debated. Until the name of that article is changed, the list entry here should remain, otherwise this debate will just go round and round in circles. - 52 Pickup (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox question

Hello. I have a question regarding Infobox former country. It offers to add information about the population, which is good, however it adds "est." after inserted year. Problem is when population data were based on national census, then it should not be "est.". Could it be altered to reflect that situation? Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The template has so many parameters already, so having the option to remove "est" is more fine tuning than really necessary. Furthermore, if a value is given for a certain year, then the population will not stay constant for the entire year - so it is still an estimate, isn't it? - 52 Pickup (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)