Talk:Führerbunker

message: What happened to Hitler's remains after burning?
jck 16-Jan-2004
:See Hitler's death which goes into quite a bit of detail about all this. It seems they may well have (eventually) ended up in the Elbe in 1970. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler's remains

message: This [File:Place Of the Führerbunker P7120036.JPG|A side angle view of the site in July 2007] photo adds nothing and the only way you even know its the Führerbunker site is by comparing it to the other contemporaneous photo of the site with the signboard. It should be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You know it's the Fuhrerbunker site because the caption says it is the Fuhrerbunker site. Obviously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I could take a picture of a carpark anywhere in Europe and claims its the Führerbunker site, the only thing that proves that photo is the Führerbunker site is a comparison to the other, much better quality contemporaneous photo of the site with the signboard. Accordingly this photo is of no value and should be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now you're just being asinine.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, its absolutely true. If the photo with the signboard wasn't there to compare it to, how would you even know that it was taken at the Führerbunker site? If a photo is dependent on another photo for its veracity and provides no additional information it is pointless and should be deleted.Mztourist (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The second photo should be kept. The first photo shows a front angle view, with part of the area blocked by the information sign. The second photo shows more of the area and is from a different angle. It is clear what the second photo is and what it shows. Kierzek (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Kierzek please explain how is it "clear what the second photo is and what it shows"? You wouldn't even know it was the Führerbunker site without the first photo with the signboard to compare it to. The signboard photo actually "shows more of the area" and what is the benefit of a slightly different angle here? Mztourist (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo speaks for itself and I have stated my view. I don't have anything to add. Kierzek (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it "speak for itself"? Unless you have been there (I have, twice) or have the other photo to compare it to the photo is meaningless and you are entirely reliant on the honesty of the uploader that it is what it says it is. Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think (by comparing it to the other image) that it is what it says it is. But I agree that it's redundant, as it shows nothing that is not present in the other image, and in fact shows less because the descriptive sign is not included. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: One, I have been there. Two, by looking at it, one can tell is the same place. Three, I think it shows the area from a different angle; more of what is not encumbered by the sign, as I stated above. So no, I don't think it should be deleted.  You have not given any evidence it's not what it says that it is. Only speculation and conjecture. I will go with consensus, but at this point it is not conclusive that the photo is to be removed. Kierzek (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kierzek, and I, too, will abide by consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never said it isn't the Führerbunker site, merely making the point that unless you have been there, without the other photo you would have no way of knowing for certain that it is the Führerbunker site and so it is entirely dependent on the other photo and shows less, so it is redundant and should be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody already understands your point, so there's no need to repeat it. I have no strong feelings about the photo's inclusion. Right now there's no consensus for removal, so it should stay. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of photo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Führerbunker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518232529/http://berliner-unterwelten.de/fuehrer-bunker.328.1.html to http://berliner-unterwelten.de/fuehrer-bunker.328.1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The events in the bunker and the fate of Hitler and his body are well described in this documentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuQAuGO9bnc
The bodies (Hitler & Braun) were burned and charred but certainly not "cremated".
Pzzp (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The bodies were burned to the point where it was much more than just "burned and charred" bodies; but with that said, the remains were not burned to the point that all that was left was basic chemical compounds. As for the old documentary on youtube you link, good in its day for a TV series, but, please don't go citing to it in the article or it will be removed accordingly, per WP:V and WP:RS. Kierzek (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never intended to cite the video in the article since I cannot vouch for the accuracy of its details, only that the combined statements of the various people interviewed suggest an incomplete combustion.Pzzp (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo caption 

message: Why lead with a fake-colorized photo when the original, documentary, black-and-white version is available? 2A02:AA1:1610:2CE4:8020:7637:4BFE:9E64 (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Somone colorized the photo at the Commons. I have reverted that change. You migh still see the colorized version for a while if you are being served a cached version. Thanks for the alert.  — Diannaa (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake photo