User talk:Gürbetaler

Welcome to the Commons, Gürbetaler!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file 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 #wikimedia-commons. 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 Graphics 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, write this: `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, it makes this: `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?)

Please give images better names[edit]

العربية ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ עברית ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ magyar ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

I noticed you've uploaded some images and I thought I should turn your attention to a common error.

Please give uploaded images meaningful names. Otherwise they are difficult to track and it is hard to tell what the image is about without actually looking at it. I suggest you rename each image with an intuitive name that describes the image itself. Thanks, and happy editing! Christian Nurtsch ^TM 22:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to give "better names". If I call them "Swiss train" they would all have the same name. If I put the abbrevation of the railway company, you wouldn't find it helpful either. I think it is far more helpful to put these pictures in categories that help to find them. I do so and also help categorize other's pictures. Furthermore these photos are used for several articles in German and English Wikipedia and they would all loose the link, if I rename them.--Gürbetaler 10:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need MEANINGFUL names. Links are rerouted automatically with the {{rename image|new image name.jpg}} tag. Please have a look at the example I have given for meaningful names of your images. And BTW: Nice photos! --ALE! ¿…? 22:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing those wheel arrangement categorizations[edit]

I'd clearly misinterpreted a photo and got the arrangement wrong. Thanks for fixing! Morven 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Navizence Station Haaksbergen.jpg[edit]

I finally answered your question on my discussion page. Tubantia 22:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give images better names[edit]

العربية ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ עברית ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ magyar ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

I noticed you've uploaded some images and I thought I should turn your attention to a common error.

Please give uploaded images meaningful names. Otherwise they are difficult to track and it is hard to tell what the image is about without actually looking at it. I suggest you rename each image with an intuitive name that describes the image itself. Thanks, and happy editing! ALE! ¿…? 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File names are filenames and categories are categories and descriptors are descriptors. It isn't a good idea to mix it all up. Why should I name a picture, that contains, clearly visible on the thumbnail, a panoramic coach with "panoramic coach"? I spend much time to categorize correctly my pictures and many pictures of others. That's much more helpful than renaming files without a clear concept. For me, the coach number and perhaps the owner is important, for another user it is important to know what coach it is, the next one wants to know the builder and the last one is only interested in location and date. So, for whom of all these lovely people should I decide? I have made my decision: helpful categories, correct captions, if possible in several languages, and the file name remains what it was on my computer.- Gürbetaler 19:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2007 07 01 vivat viadukt 27.jpg‎ und weitere Bilder[edit]

Hallo, danke für die Korrekturen bei der Einordnung in passende Kategorien. Ich war mir da doch sehr unsicher und hatte schon user:Gunnar1m um Hilfe gebeten, der sich das ansehen wollte. Gruß, --R. Engelhardt (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte. Ich bin zufällig drauf gestossen, weil ich von Zeit zu Zeit die Hauptkategorien anschaue. Dort hat es meistens Bilder, die eine genauere Kategorie als z.B. "Trains" verdient haben. Man sollte in der Regel so viel wie möglich länderspezifisch einordnen, ausgehend z.B. von Category:Rail transport in Germany. Dann einfach auf die + klicken ... -- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preempt sorting[edit]

Hello Gürbetaler - thank you for your large amounts of work in the railway cats - but can I ask you please to not remove preempt sorting? There are a few types of subcategories that are intentionally at the very front of any category. These include mainly "Category:X by Y" "Categoy:X in X", where this category using the "by" or "in" descriptor is moved to the very start of the category listing - i.e. "Category:Rail transport by motive power" goes to the start of "Category rail transport". As you can see, this is not an arbitrary choice, but a relatively simply rule for the "in" and by" subcategories.

This is used everywhere on Commons (just look at the "by country" categories, or the subcategories of "vehicles" - so please do not undo these. This should be consistent to help users find the most important subcategories. Thank you. Ingolfson (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't find time for Commons a few days. I am very much aware of the usefulness of preempt sorting and I have done it in many places. But in the Rail transport category we have a total of only 28 categories but you have put 9 or one third before the A. We have 26 letters and the letters do help finding categories. But having one third before the alphabetical sort and only two thirds within doesn't help the user. Furthermore, your choice isn't logic, why should "Rail transport in art" be a more important category than Rolling stock? I think preempt sorting should only be used when it really helps to structure and in Rail transport it doesn't.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rail cars / Rail bus[edit]

Hi - in case you aren't watching the page, I have made a comment and a compromise proposal. Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/01/Category:Railways[edit]

Hi Gürbetaler - thanks for your comments, I have responded on the page. Basically, I am hoping we can get agreement that having the OPTION of functional categorisation (passenger, freight, military...) is preferable to having no ability to categorise rail transport in this way / preferable to having everybody make up his own function structure / preferable to have people add less overarching cats like "freight train" to an image. To avoid that is why I would like to include this matter in the category scheme. As for the "railways" issue, I agree fully with you. Ingolfson (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These two categories appear to be the same: "Narrow gauge railways in the United States":"Miniature railways in the United States" Rklawton (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow gauge stands for anything smaller than 4'8½" while "miniature railway" stands for gauges not normally exceeding 50 cm or about 1'8". Miniature railways mostly go with models of standard gauge locomotives, e.g. in 1:3 scale.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:KTX[edit]

Category:KTX has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

--Peremen (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Driving railway coaches[edit]

Category discussion notification

Category:Driving railway coaches 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R/r[edit]

Isn't some mistake that the Category:Multiple units, motor coaches and Railcars by country don't take name Category:Multiple units, motor coaches and railcars by country? I think, "railcar" isn't a proper noun. --ŠJů (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you are right. I was mislead by the Category:Railcars (self-propelled)... Gürbetaler (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a rename request at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. --ŠJů (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Hallo Gürbetaler:
Ich habe gerade neue Bilder hochgeladen (s. Galerie "Gotthardbahn", Excursions). Als ich dann so anfangen wollte, richtig zu kategorisieren, fand ich natürlich das Chaos wieder vor. Du hast mich ja auch schon darauf hingewiesen. Es gibt bei den Eisenbahnen sicher ein paar Paralleluniversen bei den Kategorien, und zwar weltweit.
Ist aber eine Sisiphusarbeit. Ich könnte mich sicher mal darum kümmern, aber erst, wenn ich 2016 pensioniert bin. Inzwischen denke ich, dass wir damit leben müssen.
Herzliche Grüsse --Lord Koxinga (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Schreibe Deinen Kommentar einfach hier oder auf meine Diskussionsseite --Lord Koxinga (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Das Gesamtchaos bringen wir nicht so schnell weg, aber mit einer minimalen Logik können wir verhindern, dass es noch chaotischer wird... Eine möglichst zutreffende Kategorie, die man dann verschiedenen Hauptkategorien zuordnen kann, ist m.E. derzeit der beste Weg. Diesbezüglich habe ich aber ein Problem: "Gotthardbahn" ist einerseits ein ehemaliges Bahnunternehmen, andererseits eine heutige Eisenbahnstrecke. Sollte man die zwei nicht unterscheiden? Z.B.

Gotthardbahn
Gotthard line
Gotthard Rail Tunnel
Gotthard Base Tunnel

Gürbetaler (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Gürbetaler:
Danke für den Eintrag. Ich denke, Deine Aufteilung ist ein guter erster Ansatz. Leider bin ich im Moment beruflich ziemlich beschäftigt. Deshalb kann ich mich im Moment nicht darum kümmern.
Das gleiche Chaos haben wir übrigens, bezogen auf Eisenbahnen, auch in den Wikipedia Seiten, wo ich – vor Allem in Deutsch, aber auch ein wenig in Englisch – unterwegs bin. Ich denke aber, dass es im Moment einfach wichtig ist, viele gescheite Links anzubieten, damit solche Seiten gefunden werden können. Ich denke, da hilft es auch, wenn der User auf seiner eigenen Seite diese Links zeigt, wenn es sich um seine Einträge handelt. Ich klicke mich sehr viel über die History von Einträgen zu einzelnen Usern, um einen Background zu bekommen.
Im Übrigen:
Machen wir weiter so. Unsere Kinder (meine zwei Söhne machen das schon) sind froh, dass es heute eine so einfache Quelle gibt, um an Informationen für die Ausbildung zu gelangen.
--Lord Koxinga (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Narrow gauge railway lines[edit]

Category discussion notification

Category:Narrow gauge railway lines 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Industrial rail transport[edit]

Category discussion notification

Category:Industrial rail transport 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Railbus vs Railcar dilemma[edit]

Hey Gürbetaler, how you doing, I have recently given my opinion on Category:Rolling stock discussion page! I hope i´ve made sence, Category:Rolling stock looking good by the way, i will review it and give my thoughts again shortly.

Now i need for you to give your insight in the discussion on the Railbus discusion page on whether Railbuses and Railcars are the same thing and if they should be separate articles or not, the article still needs to be polished for better clarity, i will also be adding data on the obscure and vague information on the development of Railbuses in Latin America, cheers ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SBB Bt[edit]

Hallo (mein Deustsch ist nicht sehr gut, entschuldigung)

You proposed to rename File:SBB Bt.JPG in SBB BDt EW2.JPG. I will do it but before could you give a little description explaining what SBB means ? Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 11:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SBB is the name of the railway company (abbrevation for Schweizerische Bundesbahnen), see the category where the picture is placed: Category:Rolling stock of SBB-CFF-FFS. BDt is the type designation of the coach depicted and EW2 identifies it as a Swiss Mark II coach.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, hanx, done. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 07:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway lines[edit]

Category discussion notification

Category:Railway lines 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to inform you that I have given you Autopatrolled rights. This does not affect your editing, but makes it easier for users watching Special:RecentChanges to find unhelpful edits. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this info.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Category: Railbuses[edit]

Hello Gürbetaler, just to inform that I've taken the liverty and added a much needed new cat → Category:Railbuses, for better clarity on the subject. I also believe that all Railcars that are called Railbuses by manufacturers and enterprises should be directed to → Category:Railcars (self-propelled), (aka Triebwagen), for example Coche Motor Ferrostaal (FCOSA) 01 is called “Ferrobus” by Ferroviaria Oriental when is is really a Railcar (Automotor or Coche Motor in Spanish), even though it is single engine diesel powered. I do understand that there may be some overlapping on the subject. Some corrections and adjustments may be necessary in existing Categories data and Wikipedia articles of corresponding subject-matter. Please go over it and let me know your thoughts, kindly, Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brussels metro vs. Category:Metro of Brussels -- Why?[edit]

Back in Oct 2009, you created the category Category:Brussels metro, as a supercategory of the existing Category:Metro of Brussels -- but you didn't give any explanation of why. I don't understand what the intended distinction is, and since there are only three images currently in the category, I've nominated it at CfD. JesseW (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, I should better comment the things I do. Sorry. - Looking at Metro categories I found that the standard is to name it (just a few examples) Saint Petersburg Metro, Prague Metro, Paris metro (and Paris RER), Munich U-Bahn, Lille Metro etc. Thus I think it would be better to keep Category:Brussels metro rather than Category:Metro of Brussels.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brig Bahnhofplatz Okt 2005.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Zwei schliessende geschweifte Klammern haben gefehlt, nicht die Lizenz. Korrigiert.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railcars[edit]

Hi. As I can see, you reverted some of my edits aiming for simplification and cleaning of category structure of motorcars.

I understand you try to distinguish motorcars more precisely by type. However, I doubt that we can be able to find universal distinguishing criteria usable for all countries and compatible with their local traditions. We have three or even four sets of categories (railcars - motor coaches - railbuses - multiple units) combined with three types of propulsion (diesel, electric, steam). However, the distinction between railbuses, motor coaches and railcars and their definitions seems to very vary by country (and they are not really distinguished and distinguishable in some countries). It is unsustainable to maintain such complicated and unclear category tree and prevent its inconsistencies and duplicities etc. Do you have some proposal how to solve the situation? Do we have hope to advance through some new discussion? --ŠJů (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have a proposition and have started earlier with the the main categories. I introduced Category:Multiple units, motor coaches and railcars by country which prevents you and me to have to decide if it's the one or the other. Now in a first step we could rename all collecting categories to (example) Category:Electric multiple units, motor coaches and railcars by country. After that it could be discussed which country categories should be put together to (example) Category:Electric multiple units, motor coaches and railcars of Spain.

I can add that for German speaking countries the problem exists as well. Triebzug is one variety of Triebwagen but most vehicles are just called Triebwagen. A two-car unit is a Doppeltriebwagen and an articulated EUM is mostly a Gelenktriebwagen and not (but also correct) a Gelenktriebzug. For the distinction between motor coach and EMU in Switzerland I used the principle that all motor coaches with only one cab (thus always needing a driving trailer) are categorized EMU. But that's just an assumption, there is no official rule. And there are hundreds of two-cab motor coaches which are sometimes used like a locomotive and then again in multiple unit with more motor coaches and driving trailers, typical example Category:SBB RBe 540 -- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Czech Republic, we can easily distinguish stable multiple units (which include articulated vehicles) and motor coaches (which include railcars, railbuses etc.). However, some trains with motor car and controll car can be comprehended as multiple units also, even they are more variable (the count of inserted trailer cars is not stable and the motor car can be used separately). The distinction between railway coaches, railcars and railbuses have no tradition here (those all are called "motorový vůz"). The only type which was not designed to be able to pull train (and have no couplers) was en:Slovenská strela (en:ČSD Class M 290.0). However, I think, it is not a typical light "railbus". I tend to group all types of motor cars together with railbuses and motor coaches, and to separate multiple units only. However, some newest type families have simple, double and triple variants of identic type and it seems to be strained to separate them. --ŠJů (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interlaken Ost[edit]

Erm ... why do you think this locomotive was not photographed at Interlaken Ost? The Flickr description states that, and also clicking on the geocoding I cannot find a place called Spiez. If this was de.WP, I would revert commenting Belege fehlen ... |FDMS (WP: en, de) 01:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ich wohne in der Gegend und es gibt Dinge, die erkennt man, wo sie sein können und wo nicht. In Interlaken Ost gibt und gab es rund um den Bahnhof nirgends einen Hang an dem oben Häuser stehen, es ist dort ziemlich flach und hinter den Normalspurgleisen ist der Schifffahrtskanal. Würde man vom Schifffahrtskanal her schauen, hätte es hinter den Normalspurgleisen noch die Gleise und Perrons der beiden Schmalspurbahnen (Brünigbahn und BOB). Aber einen Hang hat es dort auch nicht und schon gar nicht einen mit Häusern oben dran. Dazu kommt noch, dass die Ae 6/8 in der Regel nicht nach Interlaken fuhren, sondern am Lötschberg eingesetzt waren, also eben auf der Strecke Bern–Spiez–Brig. Und in Spiez hat es tatsächlich einen Hang hinter dem Bahnhof, der ist zwar beim Umbau zum Teil einer Mauer gewichen, aber grundsätzlich stimmt die Situation für Spiez und das angegebene Aufnahmejahr. Der Fotograf hat sich beim Beschriften der Fotos zu Hause schlicht und ergreifend geirrt. Da war er nicht der erste und er wird nicht der letzte sein, zumal GPS noch nicht zur Standardausrüstung jeder Kamera gehört. Der Beleg ist die Foto selbst.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für die Erklärung, klingt (und ist) überzeugend. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 00:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe heute in Spiez (zwischen zwei Zügen) kurz nach oben geschaut, das Haus steht noch. Ich werde noch eine Foto davon hochladen, der Standort Spiez ist damit gesichert.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dankeschön. Sehr hübsche Gegend! |FDMS (WP: en, de) 20:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolut eindeutig, sogar die Vorhänge sind scheinbar gleich geblieben. Außerdem interessanter Vergleich, ich würde ihn jedoch nicht in die Bahnhofskategorie setzen ... |FDMS (WP: en, de) 22:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sondern in welche Kat?-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hätte die Bahnhofskategorie rausgenommen und die Vergleichskategorie rein. Spiez hätte meiner Meinung nach bleiben können. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 16:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn du es anders besser findest, kannst du es ja noch ändern.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indexing subcategories correctly[edit]

Subcategories that are dedicated to representations of the subject in e.g videos, art, sound, documents and logos (as opposed to those dealing with actual elements or behavior of the topic) are indexed as a separate sort group (second-top, mostly) and not by their default alphabetic key. So this edit is incorrect. Thanks. Cheerz. Orrlingtalk 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind and point me to a place where this "rule" can be found? It doesn't really make the subcategory tree easier to read!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. There's quite much sense in setting aside entries that don't concern the actual topic, in a fashion that allows alphabetically-listing only those that deal with the topic itself - it's how indexing is actually made here. For example: Category:Fish in art, Category:Christmas in art.. It essentially echoes the fact that "Rail transport in art" is not in one line with e.g Rail transport companies and History of rail transport. Orrlingtalk 20:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the difference you want to make, I don't see this as a general rule and other views are possible. Usually on Wiki, different views are discussed and a consensus is sought. I would still be interested to know if such a consensus was found and if yes, where.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the policy here. That is, how things are done since very long, with a very wide acceptance, which evidently indicates some form of concensus. Using one top group for "X by Y" (metacat) subcats, and another for "X in art/maps/quality images/photographs of/audio" etc., is one of the very basics of category display management, which I personally agree with. In case you don't, you can of course open it for discussion at the Village Pump. Let me know. Orrlingtalk 22:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dateinamen[edit]

Hallo Gürbetaler; erstmal vielen Dank für deine wertvollen Beiträge! Du lädtst allerdings manchmal Fotos mit nicht gerade aussagekräftigen Namen hoch... wie File:20060909S047 8.jpg, darunter kann man sich ja nicht viel vorstellen ;-) - aufgefallen ist mir das gerade in Category:Stansstad railway station. Das sind ältere Uploads, aber wie ich sehe, machst du das immer noch gelegentlich, aktuelles Beispiel: File:20110703Y347 231.jpg. Ich würde gerne mal zumindest die Fotos in der Stansstad-Kategorie umbenennen, was würdest du von einem Schema wie "Stansstad railway station September 2006 01" etc. halten? Gestumblindi (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manchmal vergesse ich beim Upload noch den Namen anzupassen, und dann kann ich es halt nicht mehr ändern, ausser jemand gäbe mir die Umbenennungsrechte... Generell lade ich meine Fotos mit deutschen Titeln hoch und stelle in der Regel die Bahn und die Fahrzeugnummer auch dazu. Ich mache zu Stansstad mal Vorschläge.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank für die Vorschläge; wie ich sehe, hat Marcus Cyron sich darum gekümmert :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ich wäre auch für Vorschläge für deine Aufnahmen in der Category:St. Gallen railway station dankbar, hier oder per template … FDMS 4 07:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kategorie verschieben[edit]

Moin, moin! Was soll mit der Category:Rail motor coaches passieren? Irgendwie ist da nie eine Diskussion entstanden. Magst Du bei den Bahnern mal anklopfen? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In solchen Fällen (die im Bahnbereich nicht selten sind...), kann man sich mit Kategorien-Redirects behelfen, dann geht nichts verloren, aber es wird doch besser gruppiert. Kümmere mich nächstens darum.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects sind schon klar, die Frage ist wo die Dateien selbst am besten aufgehoben sind. Bevor ich verschiebe, haette ich gerne die Meinung der Bahner. Ansonsten verschieben wir die kleine Kategorie wochenlang hin und her. :-) Besten Dank fuer die Hilfe! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 17:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:NS 1113 compared with NS 1122.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:NS 1113 compared with NS 1122.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:NS 1113 compared with NS 1122.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

JurgenNL (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MGB-ABDeh2026-BDkt2232_Visp2015[edit]

Hoi Markus. I ha grad probiert File:MGB-ABDeh2026-BDkt2232_Visp2015.jpg z'verschieba. Aswia isch jetz gar kei Bild meh uma, kei Ahnig was do falsch gloffa isch. Chasch das je noch däm nomol ufa lada?? Sorry und Gruass --Capricorn4049 (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dä Server hät Problems gmeldet gha. Aber jetzt sötts gflickt si. Danke fürd Meldig.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trains vs. Railcars[edit]

Rail transport is a system and we sort it into its components, infrastructure and trains. Trains consist from single vehicles, called rolling stock. If we were very strict, we would classify rolling stock as a sub-category of trains. Likewise we put track and overhead line under infrastructure. But the problem is, that trains are a temporary appearance, after the train has arrived at the final destination, the vehicles my be uncoupled and stand around as "non-trains", but they still are rolling stock. This effect justifies to put trains and rolling stock on the same level. If rolling stock would always be part of a train (as catenary is always part of an infrastructure), I would vote to make rolling stock a sub-category of trains. And finally, sorting principles that no user safe one understands aren't what we need on Wikicommons.--Gürbetaler (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

statements, and feel strongly the current set-up makes little sense, and is counter-instinctive to and for the use of anyone not schooled in railway terminology.

From what I can see, there is still no consensus, so I'm tempted to just reshuffle per the below:

In particular 'Rolling stock' as a term says nothing to schoolboys unfamiliar with the term, and the 'natural name' most people would be looking for in a search would be Category:Trains (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)--assuming they can find 'Rail transport' (another odd unnatural word combination--it's an academic prissy term, if you'll allow! <g>) at all.

Accordingly, I'd suggest begun to suggest this compromise.

BOTH should be subcats of Category:Rail transport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) with a clear box template linking to the sister category. This has the advantage of revealing Rail transport should users search either of the other terms (Hobbyists and rail enthusiasts will have learned the term, but others wouldn't know it as a term at all!) When I was very active here (before 2010) and helping recat the whole map schema, 'that' was our solution for alerting folks that a distinction was being made between old and new maps-and there definition. I can write a box up easy peasy, and since just two sisters are involved, we need not make it a template at all.

That was then, but my solution changed as seen here: category Talk:Rolling stock#Revisiting the issue

I'll give you a few hours to respond, then plan on shuffling as noted there. // FrankB 17:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stadler_Rail_vehicles_by_operator[edit]

Category:Stadler_Rail_vehicles_by_operator 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

FDMS 4 21:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Herisau_railway_station[edit]

Herisau railway station 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Schofför (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team![edit]

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Minor barnstar
	Für die unermüdliche Umbenennung des Rolling stocks in Rail vehicles. Sebari (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.^{[survey 1]} The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.^{[survey 2]} The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

↑ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
↑ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screw coupling[edit]

Some Belgian SNCV/NMVB tram used screw couplers.

--Dldwg (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can be discussed, if this are "trams" properly said or rather interurbans or secondary railways. I would stick to the second, as the name of the company said "chemins de fer vicinaux" and not "tramways"! And then again, even if you classify these diesel motor coaches as trams, the standard screw coupling wasn't there to couple trams but rather for interoperability. The coupling of the "trams", if you like to call them so, was the central buffer screw coupling. I wouldn't oppose to classify tihis coupling system as tram coupler.--Gürbetaler (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:20060218S179 485014.jpg[edit]

Grüessdi; gemäss was das hier steht, sollte man nicht ein Dokument sowohl in einer Kategorie (in diesem Fall "BLS Re 485") als auch in einer deren Unterkategorien ("BLS Re 485 in green-grey livery") legen (scheint aber, zumindest bei eisenbahnbezogene Dokumente, eine gängige Praxis zu sein), oder irre ich mich? Schönes Wochenende, NAC (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Das ist grundsätzlich richtig, war aber nicht der einzige Fehler. Bzw. deine Verschiebung hat den Key "|014" ans falsche Ort befördert. Ich habe jetzt die ganze Kategorie bereinigt. Bei dieser Gelegenheit ist mir die von dir erstellte Kategorie Bern-Thun railway begegnet. Kategorien für Bahnstrecken sollten in der Regel als "railway line" kategorisiert werden Category:Railway lines in Switzerland. Ich habe sie dorthin verschoben-- Gürbetaler (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merci für die Bemerkung, die werde ich bei Gelegenheit umsetzen. NAC (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Train carriage model card kit 001.jpg[edit]

Please could you kindly assist in categorising this file for me? I know nothing about railways or model railways, although I have managed to establish the date of this model kit as 1917, and it is British. The item that I have scanned for this file is a small card with the parts printed on. The modeller has to cut them out (very delicately, the pieces are so small) and bend and glue them together. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's now roughly at the correct place(s). -- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Much appreciated. Storye book (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop[edit]

You are renaming a whole bunch of railway gauge categories, defined in and originating in, imperial units to metric names. These are incorrect. They are also undiscussed moves. Please stop doing these. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have ADDED imperial measurements to many categories. It was only a few, very rare gauges that had been in imperial only. Considering that this world is largely metric it is really helpful to find both indications. So please stop moving them to imperial only without discussion!! --Gürbetaler (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andy Dingley, unlike the introduction to your user page which says that you are inactive, I see you are moving track gauges to imperial measurements. [1] clearly says, that you created this page on October 20. I know that many track gauges had originally been defined in imperial measurements. However, today almost all countries are metric and these gauges are measured in mm and no longer in feet and inches. Thus a "normal" user searches for 1676 mm and not for 5' 6". This is why I proposed to put both figures to the category name, considering that this is the most helpful way. It seems that you are not happy with this solution but I don't know yet why. In any case I ask you not to open new imperial categories, as you have done.--Gürbetaler (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By all means create metric categories as redirects to Imperial measurements (although its not an exact equivalence), but the UK rail industry still talks about track gauge in feet and inches. Please don't move stuff without a discussion. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the world is a little bit larger than just the UK (and the US), most rail gauges are measured in mm. Japanese (1067 mm), Chilean or Argentinian (1676 mm) users may correct me!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese railways were specified by British engineers, hence the use of 3 ft 6 in gauge. Argentina used American and British engineers, and the companies were initially British owned. Again, 5 ft 6 in gauge - a round number in Imperial units. Do you seriously think that a metric engineer chose 1067 or 1676 mm? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no debate about historical facts and how these gauges were defined. The question is: Is it reasonable to use historic facts as a category name in Wikicommons, where mainly contemporary media is stored and categorized? Is it reasonable to expect from an average User, not too familiar with railway history and measurements, to know that 1067 mm is 3 ft 6 in? And, BTW, do more than 10% of the inhabitants of this world know that 1 ft equals 12 in (and not 10)?-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue discussion here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/10/Category:Track gauge by size

Already started here: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Edit_warring_over_metricating_railway_gauge_categories_by_G.C3.BCrbetaler Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General discussions should be held on the CfD page, not at the Administrators site.

Your edit-warring over Indian 5ft 6in gauge is a user problem, not a subjective content judgement. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The Category was named 1676 mm track gauge until 20th October 2017 and it wasn't me that moved it without discussion!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crossrail_London[edit]

Category:Crossrail_London 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

ElshadK (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway_signals_related_to_electrification[edit]

Railway signals related to electrification 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Call for discussion[edit]

You redirected Category:Cable cars in Switzerland to Category:Funiculars in Switzerland. I don't think they are the same thing.

I voiced my concerns at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Cable cars in Switzerland. If you think there is a good explanation, please offer it there.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:20190725E627 Bz111-Bz112.JPG[edit]

Copyright status: File:20190725E627 Bz111-Bz112.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:20190725E627 Bz111-Bz112.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 22:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Le Châtelard Emosson[edit]

I'm having trouble with Category:Le Châtelard Emosson. I don't see the name "Le Châtelard Emosson" used much anywhere, and certainly not on the official site of the company. The category itself seems to combine all three attractions. My sense is that it should be renamed after the company and then diffused. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The" company has changed many times and it is not clear if it will change again. We tried to contact them and the information was, that some people left the company. Maybe we will soon see another name coming up. However, the company clearly refers to Châtelard and Emosson in many places and also the inscriptions on their vehicles show this. Otherwise it is always helpful to find the company name somewhere. Thus it should be good to make a category Verticalp but also of the predecessors Parc d'attractions du Châtelard and SATEB. And of course we can define more subcategroies, but as there aren't yet too many pictures, the number should be limited.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alles klar. Mackensen (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Habe jetzt dafür gesorgt, dass sich die Unterkategorien lohnen :-) -- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

siehe Category:Le Châtelard - Emosson funicular and railway -- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DPZ / SBB Re 450[edit]

It seems like Category:SBB DPZ and Category:SBB Re 450 duplicate each other. Is there a distinction that I'm not grasping? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A DPZ is a trainset composed of a Re 450 plus B + AB + Bt Gürbetaler (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks! Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why[edit]

…this edit? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had thought I had reverted but obviously I hadn't. It's now done. Thank you for asking.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway_stations_deserved_by_Südostbahn[edit]

Railway stations deserved by Südostbahn 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Mackensen (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations[edit]

To improve the topic further (before moving on to something else), what do you think we still need to cover?

I plan to work on building types (which isn't that easy, but seems to yield interesting results, try "media search" with deepcat on the building types). Funiculars and rack railways could probably also use some work. Landing stages for boats could be interesting too. Also, I will try to do all predecessors of SBB-CFF-FFS.

In general, shall we create categories for the few missing stations?

I tried to answer your question about the S-Bahn thing on my talk page. Also, maybe there is a way to make these into productive discussions: here and here. Enhancing999 (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the separation between "xy railway station" and "trains at xy railway station" should be continued. Do you know an efficient way to create these categories with cat "xy railway station" and "trains at railway stations in Switzerland|xy"?
Next point we should find better solutions are all the stations which changed their function. A station my be disused as passenger station but the passing loop is still active. Others may be disused for freight but still active for passenger or v/v. The Category:Railway stations in Switzerland without regular passenger service is very clear. But it's not correct to call Blausee-Mitholz a "former BLS railway station" because it still is a BLS station. But not for passengers. On the other hand, Affoltern-Weier really is a former BLS railway station, because it now belongs to Emmentalbahn. I'm still thinking about better solutions but haven't found it yet. Gürbetaler (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input.

Yes, it's worth creating the "trains at xy railway station" categories. Maybe we can monitor the number of files in a category and add a maintenance category once a threshold is reached and the category doesn't exist.

Not sure about the second question. It's not easy to do as stations tend to "die" slowly. Some categorization is probably helpful, but we don't want to make it too burdensome to maintain. If Wikidata had passenger frequencies, we could have high/medium/low/0 passenger frequency stations identified without having to do much. As for stations changing hands (or networks) that is another one. For now, I focused on defunct companies (which can be, but isn't always easy). Enhancing999 (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct companies is very easy with the help of Wägli, Mathys and Zefix. A certain danger is the question if it is a defunct or a renamed company. Example: BDWM was dissolved after the merger, but WSB was renamed AVA. Zefix tells us, the company was founded in 1958, this was the year of the merger of WTB and AS. Thus WTB and AS are defunct companies. But I'm not sure if it is of any use to make categories for those hundreds of defunct railway companies in Switzerland. Example AB ex FW+(AB ex TB+RHB+RhW+(AB ex (AB+AWW) + (SGA+AG))).
Stations that changed hands are not very numerous. We have the "heritage" companies DFB, VVT, SEHR, ST, ETB that took over from FO, RVT, SBB, DVZO/SBB, BLSN. Then we have the Seelinie which had been in the hands of MTHB for a short time. And we have Aarau - Suhr, Reinach - Menziken, Niederbipp, Bremgarten - Wohlen, Lichtensteig - Ebnat-Kappel and the Brünigline ex SBB and Thun will do so soon. All the rest is of the merger type (where I also count the change from Thurbo to SBB). I would propose to restrict the categories of the type Category:Former BLS railway stations to stations that changed hands. Maybe a better category name could be found.
It is necessary to distinguish between disused railway stations having lost all railway functions (Zürich Letten, Beromünster, Bönigen) and railway stations that no longer have passenger service (Därligen, Kerns-Kägiswil, Baden Oberstadt) but exist. What would be appropriate names for these? And don't forget those that never had passenger service (Sulzbrunn, Alp Nouva, Steinlekehr)
to be continued Gürbetaler (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Railway junction stations in Switzerland could be useful. See Category:Railway junction stations in the United Kingdom‎
BTW, "normal gauge" is a unusual wording. "Standard gauge" is the term used. Gürbetaler (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I skip "junction station" as it seems to be something that can evolve, at it if you distinguish it from Category:Connection train stations. Not sure what definition they are using for the UK, as all seem to be called "Junction Station". I did make Category:Connection railway stations in Switzerland and Category:Intermediate railway stations in Switzerland. Especially the later could interesting, as everything else should be a connection or a terminus.

I will fix the terminology. Category:Metre gauge railways in Switzerland might be worth expanding.

For former ones, I'm currently focused on the 19th century, I find the ones that are shared by several companies a bit more complex. I did notice that FOB is now called MGB Infrastructure.

(to be continued). Enhancing999 (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Junction is the technical term, not connection. At Junction stations you get a connecting service! Gürbetaler (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm still learning about the terminology. It seems to fit the definition found at the English Wikipedia article (en:Junction station). Maybe the interwikis to de:Trennungsbahnhof should go elsewhere as distinguishes it from a few others that are all vertices with more than two edges. Are all railway en:Interchange stations junction stations? I got the impression that some of the terminology may date from the early days of railways with little relevance to today. Sometimes it can fit (or not harm) Commons categories, but sometimes lead to more problems than actual ways to browse categories (and images). Enhancing999 (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all junction stations are interchange stations. Except stations where freight lines branch in, e.g. Sursee. Locarno is an interchange station without being a junction. There might also be freight interchange stations (Landquart). In other words: junction is a layout (at least three lines coming in), interchange is a function (change trains). Gürbetaler (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I had avoided using "interchange station" as it can be understood as an interchange with another mode of transportations, but in general, wouldn't we want a station that connects to at least three different ones?

Is there a term that could apply to Locarno + the others? Obviously, if the only exception is Locarno, "junction station" should do. (We can look at freight later.) Enhancing999 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are stations with two different gauges! Locarno, Grindelwald and Lauterbrunnent being the three interchange stations, that are not junctions. Add Tirano in Italy... Special case is Zermatt, where goods wagons can continue and twice or so a Pullman coach went through, but for passengers it's rather an interchange. Gürbetaler (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Locarno and Zermatt don't have three edges, so I wouldn't consider them.

To the other question, for "Trains at", I added a threshold of 70 images before the template adds the maintenance category. I noticed that you also add the category manually to one with just 9 images (and 2 of trains). Supposedly we have something different in mind. If you prefer, I could easily create the subcategory for all stations or for those with at least 9 images. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a question of the number of images. But it's the question of pictures that don't show the station but the vehicles. I put the maintenance category manually in cases wehre I think it would be good to sort out the vehicle pictures. But your thought that 70 pictures are enough to have the category divided is reasonable. Gürbetaler (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BLS_S-Bahn[edit]

Category:BLS_S-Bahn 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Mackensen (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funiculars[edit]

Hi Gürbetaler,

When revising the list at Wikipedia [2], I noticed that much of the list had been your work (> 10 years ago). A few new ones were built since. I left short summary at [3]. What do you think? Enhancing999 (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Touristic_trains[edit]

Touristic trains 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.

[2] Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

[survey 1]

[survey 2]

User talk:Gürbetaler

Please give images better names[edit]

Thanks for fixing those wheel arrangement categorizations[edit]

Image:Navizence Station Haaksbergen.jpg[edit]

Please give images better names[edit]

Image:2007 07 01 vivat viadukt 27.jpg‎ und weitere Bilder[edit]

Preempt sorting[edit]

Rail cars / Rail bus[edit]

Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/01/Category:Railways[edit]

Category:KTX[edit]

Category:Driving railway coaches[edit]

R/r[edit]

Categories[edit]

Category:Narrow gauge railway lines[edit]

Category:Industrial rail transport[edit]

Railbus vs Railcar dilemma[edit]

SBB Bt[edit]

Category:Railway lines[edit]

Note[edit]

New Category: Railbuses[edit]

Category:Brussels metro vs. Category:Metro of Brussels -- Why?[edit]

File:Brig Bahnhofplatz Okt 2005.jpg[edit]

Railcars[edit]

Interlaken Ost[edit]

Indexing subcategories correctly[edit]

Dateinamen[edit]

Kategorie verschieben[edit]

File tagging File:NS 1113 compared with NS 1122.jpg[edit]

MGB-ABDeh2026-BDkt2232_Visp2015[edit]

Trains vs. Railcars[edit]

Category:Stadler_Rail_vehicles_by_operator[edit]

Category:Herisau_railway_station[edit]

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team![edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

Screw coupling[edit]

File:20060218S179 485014.jpg[edit]

File:Train carriage model card kit 001.jpg[edit]

Please stop[edit]

Category:Crossrail_London[edit]

Category:Railway_signals_related_to_electrification[edit]

Call for discussion[edit]

Copyright status: File:20190725E627 Bz111-Bz112.JPG[edit]

Category:Le Châtelard Emosson[edit]

DPZ / SBB Re 450[edit]

Why[edit]

Category:Railway_stations_deserved_by_Südostbahn[edit]

Railway stations[edit]

Category:BLS_S-Bahn[edit]

Funiculars[edit]

Category:Touristic_trains[edit]

Navigation menu

Search