User talk:MB-one/Archive 4

File:1998 toyota camry.jpg

File:1998 toyota camry.jpg 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 file, 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

OSX (talk • contributions) 13:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Males_with_baseball_caps

Males with baseball caps 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!

Themightyquill (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:DBAG_Class_103

DBAG Class 103 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!

31.2.102.50 12:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Freightliner trucks

Hello!
Before we start to endlessly undo the previous undos, it's certainly better to try to understand each point of view about that "problem" ;)

I know that the usual rules in Commons requires that category redundancy should be avoided, and I usually stick to it. But having here the concerned model categories of Freightliner trucks both in the Freightliner trucks parent category and in the Freightliner conventional cab trucks subcategory doesn't sound illogical. At least for me :)

I can't remember when, nor which category was concerned, but all I know is that my immediate reaction the first time I saw such an equivalent subcategory "duplicate" was certainly to delete it (and I surely did it). I then noticed later that contributors just "threw" pictures (or whatever they want to publish in Commons) directly in the main category because the standard name they were looking for wasn't visible, "hidden" in a subcategory. After lots of recategorizations, some times with explanations about the subcategories written in the description of the main category, I just came to the conclusion that people were too lazy or just unable to understand that they could dig a bit to better categorize their media.
As I am lazy too, as I don't want to spent my time making too repetitive work in Commons, and as I find such subcategories really useful (long lists of conventional cab models from a same truck make are better gathered in a common category, for example ;) ), I just left the "double-categorization" when present. I eventually even created some of them, and if I can't give exact statistics about it, I really feel that it avoids lots of recategorization work for me and for other people contributing like me...

This said, "duplicate entries" are apparently regularly used in Commons, in fact, at least for vehicle categories. See the Bentley Mulsanne category (both in Bentley automobiles and in Bentley sedans direct subcategory), the Renault 17 one (Renault automobiles and Renault coupes), or the Saab GT750 one (Saab automobiles and Saab 93). These examples are just what I found after a quick search, there must be several other ones...
So why not keeping the "dual entry" for the Freightliner trucks?
Regards,
BarnCas (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Paul-Lobe-Haus, Berlin (20160209- DSC6169).jpg

File:Paul-Lobe-Haus, Berlin (20160209- DSC6169).jpg 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 file, 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Code (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Einladung zur Teilnahme an Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in Deutschland

Hallo MB-one!

Du erhältst diese Nachricht, weil du bei Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 teilgenommen hast.

Auch in diesem Jahr beteiligt sich Deutschland wieder am internationalen Fotowettbewerb rund um Bau- und Kulturdenkmale. Bisher wurden bereits mehr als 18.000 Bilder hochgeladen – und wir würden uns sehr über weitere Bilder von Dir freuen. Noch bis zum 30. September 2016 kannst Du Deine Bilder hochladen. Alles Wissenswerte erfährst du auf der Mitmach-Seite.

Außerdem möchten wir Dich einladen, ab 12. September 2016 an der Vorjury teilzunehmen. Diese sichtet und bewertet die hochgeladenen Bilder und ermittelt so gemeinsam mit der Jury, die im Oktober tagt, die Sieger von Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in Deutschland.

Für Rückfragen steht das Organisationsteam gerne auf der Support-Seite oder unter infowikilovesmonuments.de zur Verfügung.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg wünscht im Namen des Organisationsteams
(DCB, 18:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Renault Duster Techroad 20150922-DSC05979.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 07:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Freightliner FL-Series out of the Freightliner trucks category

Hallo MB-one!

I come back here as you never answered to my previous question about it: why do you want the Freightliner FL-Series category, and apparently only this one, to be out of the general Freightliner trucks category while all other conventional cab trucks stay in it? This is really not logical, all the more as doing it this way gives the impression that the FL-Series trucks don't exist...
BarnCas (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi BarnCas,

The reason is COM:OVERCAT.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I know this rule, understand it and agree with it. And I apply it most of the time. But my question is: why applying it only to the FL-Series and not to other categories of Freightliner conventional trucks? And thinking about it twice, isn't this "conventional cab" category useless, in fact? In most other truck makers categories, only the "COE" sub-category appears...
Regards
BarnCas (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to not apply this rule to other categories. As for the category itself, I don't think it is useless and it exists for many other manufacturers as well. --MB-one (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo

Hello. About this Category:Pinacoteca do Estado: This designation is wrong and meaningless, there are more States with pinacothecas in Brazil, it's not only São Paulo. But even if it was right, it should never be moved manually as you did. Instead, the old category name should be moved to the new name, in the same way as a file, to preserve the History of the page. All the best, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi DarwIn,

I know, it is not the only "Pinacoteca do Estado", but by far the most significant and is often referred to by the short name. Anyways, I created a disambiguation on Category:Pinacoteca do Estado, that's probably the best solution.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"Pinacoteca do Estado" only has any meaning for someone inside São Paulo State, I believe it's kind of meaningless outside that context. At least Amazonas and Rio Grande do Norte have their pinacothecas as well. Even if the one in São Paulo is the most important, nobody can assume you are speaking about that one if you are in a different state. Anyway, a disambiguation there would probably be useful.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beech and bench (20150503-DSC04975).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Monument istoric

Hi MB-one. I reverted your edit to that template because you changed the label for Bucharest to English, leaving the rest of the counties in Romanian, which in my opinion is a degradation of the current situation. If you want to see the county names in your language, I suggest you include them in the translation somehow (not sure how right now).--Strainu (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Strainu,

I am not aware, that other romanian counties do have english specific names (except for Bucharest of course). However, while I do agree, that the template should be translated to other languages, the default language on Commons is english. Hence, the default wording in the template should be in english as well.

Regards, --MB-one (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The prefix ("județ") is in Romanian. AFAIK the only place where commons demands English-only is categories, the rest should be multilingual, so the correct solution would be to somehow included in the translation.--Strainu (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I brought this issue to the talk page of the template. Maybe we can get some translation experts to look at it. Cheers --MB-one (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Sony ericsson K700i.jpg

File:Sony ericsson K700i.jpg 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 file, 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Jcb (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2016 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2016 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear MB-one,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2016 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eleventh edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2016) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

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

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 20 April 2017, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
--Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 08:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Former jails

Former jails 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!

--Sionk (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Buses in Ile-de-France

Hi

I do not know if you are familiar with regional transport in the French region named "Ile-de-France". But I see that you are doing some wrong categorizations. Like "T Zen - Buses Line 1" into "Buses in Île-de-France " whereas "T Zen lines" are already categorized as "Île-de-France" buses.

I do not see any issue for classification of buses into manufacturer categories, but for cities/regions buses. --Poudou99 (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Poudou99,

it seems, like Category:Buses T Zen is about the whole BRT system, whereas Category:T Zen - Buses Line 1 is for the actual buses. If that's correct, T Zen - Buses Line 1 needs to be categorized as Buses in Île-de-France, because the parent category is not (and shouldn't).

Regards --MB-one (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. "Buses T Zen" is a new bus transport system in Île-de-France Region. "Buses Line 2" and "Buses Line 4" will come soon (under developement). --Poudou99 (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Where exactly do you disagree? --MB-one (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Poudou99, Maybe a short description in each category would clear things up a bit. --MB-one (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You cannot categorize "T Zen - Buses Line 1" directly under "Buses in Île-de-France" since "Line 1 of T Zen system" is a sub-category of "T Zen lines" in this category is already a sub-category of "Buses in Île-de-France"

Please confirm you know the categorization of bus transports in Ile-de-France region. Else, please let the local categories as they are. --Poudou99 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Poudou99, rest assured, that I have sufficient experience with the category system in Commons. But I don't understand what you mean. Specifically, a Category:T Zen lines does not exist right now. Do you intend to create it? And if so, for what purpose? --MB-one (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have also "sufficient experience with the category system in Commons" (since year 2006)

I am also very familiar with transport systems in France (buses, train,...)

I am also concerned and involved in road transport in Île-de-France region

If you want to make a new categorization of buses in Île-de-France region it would be better to discuss that before you do it

Regardind "T Zen" system :

"T Zen" is the name of the new bus system in Île-de-France (Bus rapid transit). For the moment only one line is in service (T Zen line 1), four are under construction (T Zen line 2, T Zen line 3, T Zen line 4, T Zen line 5). It not necessary to create a category named "T Zen lines" since these lines belong to "T Zen" category and this category is under category "Buses in Île-de-France". --Poudou99 (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Poudou99, I think there is some misunderstanding here. There is no disagreement about what T Zen is, or how many lines are currently in service. The fact of the matter right now is, that we have a category (T Zen - Buses Line 1), showing images of buses. These images should be categorized in Buses in Île-de-France in one way or another, which is also not disputed, if I understand you correctly. The easiest way seems to put T Zen - Buses Line 1 directly in Buses in Île-de-France. If you have a better idea, I would love to hear about it. Cheers --MB-one (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Currently we have :

• "T Zen - Buses Line 1" under ==> "T Zen ligne 1" under ==> "Buses T Zen" under ==> "Bus rapid transit in Île-de-France" under ==> "Bus transport in Île-de-France"
• "Buses in Île-de-France" under ==> "Bus transport in Île-de-France"

Do you see the issue ?

If you put "T Zen - Buses Line 1" directly under "Buses in Île-de-France", you will create a double link to category "Buses in Île-de-France" for category "T Zen - Buses Line 1"

But if you want to do this double categorization ( "T Zen - Buses Line 1" under "T Zen ligne 1" and under "Bus transport in Île-de-France") why not, but not sure what will happen in the future when T Zen Lines 2,3,4 and 5 will be put in service.--Poudou99 (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Poudou99, to remedy the situation, I propose to create a Category:T Zen buses, which will include all vehicles, regardless of the specific line, and put that one in Category:Buses in Île-de-France. Would you agree to that? --MB-one (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Very good and excellent idea. I was thinking on a proposal like this: having a category with all "T Zen" buses whatever the line is and new extensions or new T Zen buses forecasted. Thank you for this suggestion.--Poudou99 (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Poudou99, done --MB-one (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Difference between V251 and W251

Hey there - I was trying to figure out where to categorize this photo that I just transferred from the English Wikipedia, and I found that Category:Mercedes-Benz R-Class has two subcategories: Category:Mercedes-Benz V251 and Category:Mercedes-Benz W251. However, the English Wikipedia page for the R-Class only mentions the W251 platform. What's the difference between them?

I put that file in the parent category in the meantime because I'm unsure. Thanks! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Logan,

The V designates the extended wheelbase version. In the US market that's usually the only available version, but I'm not sure, if that's true for the R-Class.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Diesel-hydraulic_vehicles

Diesel-hydraulic vehicles 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!

Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello MB-one, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done --MB-one (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

A Little Help

Firstly, thank you to the properly categorization to pictures I have uploaded. As you seem to be an expert on police and military cars, I ask for your help in categorizing pictures this category that I created. Regards, Sturm (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sturm,

I wouldn't call myself an expert, more like an enthusiast. I took the liberty of linking your category to the relevant maintenance cat. Without giving a specific commitment, I will definitely have a look at some of the images.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Museu da Cidade and Fundação Casa de Jorge Amado, Salvador.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment - MB-one, you need to link at least the first part of your scope to the relevant Commons category. You can see how it's done by looking at other nominations in edit mode. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing the scope. However, after looking at w:pt:Largo do Pelourinho, I consider File:Salvadorpelourinho.jpg, the photo in that article, to be a more useful depiction of the plaza as a whole. Therefore, I  Oppose your nomination in this scope. However, this photo may be the most valuable image of the Salvador Museu da Cidade and Fundacao Casa de Jorge Amado (please pardon any spelling mistake), so you could consider changing the scope. If you want to do that, there are instructions at the bottom of the nomination page (see "Changes in scope during the review period" or the equivalent text in your language). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• ----

Scope changed from Largo do Pelourinho to Museu da Cidade and Fundação Casa de Jorge Amado, Salvador --MB-one (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support - Best in this scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of Carmo (Olinda).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Mercedes-Benz_Sprinter_Transfer

Category:Mercedes-Benz_Sprinter_Transfer 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!

–Davey2010^Talk 12:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Airports in France métropolitaine

Your revert without giving a reason in Category:Airports in France métropolitaine.

Reason? --Uli Elch (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Uli Elch,

All Category:Airports in France métropolitaine are in Europe, while not all french airports are.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Lakes of Outaouais

Category:Lakes of Outaouais is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: Empty Category If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

File:White Volkswagen Santana 2000.jpg

Hallo MB-one, ich habe die Kategorie dieses Autos komplett ändern müssen. Das ist eindeutig kein Santana, sondern ein Jetta II. Dieser wurde in China unheimlich lange (bis nach 2010) gebaut. In der Hoffnung, dass du meiner Berichtigung zustimmst, OnkelFordTaunus (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@OnkelFordTaunus: ,

Du hast völlig Recht. Danke für den Hinweis. Habe Dateinamen und Beschreibung angepasst. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:WikiCon 2016 Bar jm21777.jpg

can ypu give any clue, what you are meaning ? --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 15:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Joergens.mi: The image lacks proper categorization. I'm tagging many WLC images, so we can see, which images need further attention. Cheers --MB-one (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@MB-one: What is missing or wrong --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 15:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Right now, there is no category indicating, what's in the image, just where the image was taken. --MB-one (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask the same thing about the pics you tagged that I took. I did not add any more categories than WLC, as I do not think that these images should be used for anything else but documentation of the Meetup and the Project. Why do you think this kind of pictures from projects should have more categories? --Kritzolina (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kritzolina: Shouldn't the images serve more that one single purpose? Many of the images in question, could very well be used to illustrate various topic in other projects, but without proper categorization, it is unlikely that anyone will find them. --MB-one (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I did not look at the other pictures, but those that I took are not of high encyclopedic value. One of them mainly shows the volunteers involved. I do agree that some of the other pictures do have high encyclopedic value, like this picture of pears.

But this one already has additional categories. But I do agree that some of the pictures of drinks could well use additional categories. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

And now it has the most relevant one (Category:Glass bowls with food) and is therefore checked. --MB-one (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

---

File source is not properly indicated: File:Banco do Brasil logo.svg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Banco do Brasil logo.svg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 --MB-one (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Cats

Can you stop over-categorising everything ?, The image only needs identifying if it's close to the camera which for all the images you've categorised they're not close at all, Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 23:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Davey2010,

I'm afraid you are not aware what over-categorising actually means. It's a practise, where images and categories are additionally categorised in parent categories of their own categories. However, objects, which are clearly visible and identifiable in images can and should be categorized. Please do not further revert such useful edits. Thank you very much. ----MB-one (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

No they shouldn't when they're far away ..... We don't categorise images that are far away so again stop with the over-categorising, Revert again and you could be blocked for edit warring, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Davey2010,

just because you don't categorize that way, it doesn't mean, it shouldn't be that way. Again, please stop reverting those edits. Otherwise, I'm afraid, you could be blocked.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, The vehicle(s) are too far away from the camera so as I said it's pointless categorising them, If they were closer then obviously I wouldn't care less but they're not ....., Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"Too far" is utterly subjective. It may be "too far" and therefore pointless to you, but that doesn't necessarily apply to other users. If you think these categories have no value, that's ok. However, repeated removal of those categories is objectively disturbing. Because it creates unnecessary work for others (in this case, these images will pop up as improperly categorized images of buses in my maintenance list). Cheers. --MB-one (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree - As a whole the buses aren't the main subject of the image however if you want to crop the images of the vehicles then please by all means do that but the buses image aren't the main subject (and IMHO are too far away) so they don't need categorising, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC),

It doesn't matter, if they are the "main" subject (also quite subjective). And even, if in your opinion, they don't "need" those categories, that doesn't mean, it is ok, to revert. --MB-one (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well yes it does matter ..... we don't need to categorise every little detail in an image, As I said if you want to crop them all then please do, Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 20:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You are entitled to your personal opinion. But please do not keep edit warring based on this purely personal view. Otherwise, I would need to report that as an act of vandalism. Cheers. --MB-one (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "purely personal view"... it's common sense but as I said for the 40 thousandth time if you want to crop the images then do so, Hahaha no sorry category disputes aren't "vandalism" and you can report me as much as you like - You're disruptively editing the project, If you want to add these categories then you either crop them or you seek consensus at 30 or similar, Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 21:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe , there's any point in keeping this discussion going any further. Have a good day. --MB-one (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Kategorieprüfung bei Fotos von der Fahrzeugausstellung im Juni 1986 im Bw bln-Ga

Sagst Du mal gelegentlich, was das Einbauen dieser Kategorieprüfung soll? Bisher war ich der Meinung, dass die Kategorien und die Bildbeschreibungen eindeutig und ausführlich genug sind. Es gibt zehntausende beschreibungslose Bilder, an denen nicht nur Du Dich austoben kannst. –Falk2 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Falk2,

den Grund hatte ich in der Bearbeitungszusammenfassung geschrieben: es fehlte die Bezirkszuordnung. Das Problem hat sich für die genannten Bilder inzwischen erledigt.

Grüße --MB-one (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Interviewing you about Structured Data on Commons

Hi MB-one,

Firstly, I should introduce myself. I'm Jonathan Curiel with the Wikimedia Foundation, and I'm helping to work on WMF's Structured Data on Commons project. At Wikimania in Montreal, I'm interviewing Commons users about the project, and I'd like to interview you. I'd ask about implementing structured data into Commons, interacting with structured data, how best to involve the community, and other questions. Would you have 30 minutes at Wikimania? I'd try and accommodate any time you have available there.

Thanks so very much for your consideration. Appreciate any time you have. And I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

All my best,

Jonathan JCuriel (WMF) (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan,

I will gladly help you. To schedule the interview, you can contact me via e-mail (matti.blumewikipedia.de).

Cheers

--MB-one (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Affected:

• File:Staatl. Fachingen 2x.jpg

Yours sincerely, Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For getting us to Iceland!

Cirdan (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Coding da Vinci 2017

Dear MB-one please see here: Commons:Coding_da_Vinci_2017/Prepare_Your_Data-Workshops_for_GLAM Regards --Sargoth (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Smart fortwo Cabrio electric, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A1891).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Peulle 23:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! IAA 2017,Frankfurt 2017 (1Y7A1792).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 03:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A1914).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --XRay 22:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Volkswagen press conference, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2075).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Autos und Weitwinkel...

.. passen selten so recht zueinander. Warum hast du hier nicht etwas rangezoomt, wenn du nicht weiter weg gehen konntest? Weitwinkel sieht immer so verzerrt aus. Und ein paar Zentimeter nach rechts, dann hätte man schön ohne das andere Auto beschneiden können.

Ich habe das mal sehr schlampig geändert, mein gefälschtes Bild ist indiskutabel. Brennweite kann man auch mit Photoshop nicht nachträglich ändern oder nur mit riesigem Aufwand. Ich will nur zeigen, was ich meine. Bei dir ist der rechte Scheinwerfer größer als der linke, der Schatten unter dem Auto säuft ab, Rad und Untergrund werden eins. Das ließe sich alles relativ einfach vermeiden bzw. ändern. Ich mag kein kontra geben aber optimal finde ich es auch nicht ;) --Ralf Roleček 21:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Danke für die Hinweise. Kann ich bezüglich des Aufnahmestandorts gut nachvollziehen und werde in Zukunft verstärkt drauf achten. Nicht nachvollziehen kann ich jedoch den Zusammenhang zwischen dem Schattenwurf und der Brennweite (habe 39 mm sowieso immer eher für eine Normalbrennweite gehalten). Den Schatten kann man in Lightroom wohl noch retten. Auch der die Größenverhältnisse der Scheinwerfer kommen erst durch die perspektivische Verzerrung aus dem Lot. Im Original wird der weiter entfernte Scheinwerfer natürlich auch kleiner abgebildet. Werde mich wohl morgen nochmal dransetzen und eine verbesserte Version hochladen. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Der Schatten hat nichts mit der Brennweite zu tun, das war nur eine zusätzliche Beobachtung von mir. Und ich weiß sehr wohl, meckern ist immer viel einfacher als selbst besser machen. Normalbrennweite bei Vollformat ist 50mm, bei Cropkameras ist es irgendwas im mittleren 30er Bereich. Verstehe mich nicht falsch, das soll nur konstruktiv sein, keine Meckerei. --Ralf Roleček 22:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BMW Concept Z4, Frankfurt (1Y7A3563).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Freddy2001 16:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wolfgang Durheimer, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2150).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2244).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wolfgang Durrheimer, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2179).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 20:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porsche Cayenne, IAA 2017 (1Y7A2256).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Pretty good shot but there's quite a lot of chroma noise in the lower sections, particularly on the black areas. Fixable?--Peulle 21:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC) @Peulle: Should be fixed now --MB-one 21:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC) A'ight.--Peulle 20:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BMW M5, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3537).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 16:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz, IAA 2017 (1Y7A2959).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Strong color noise and a disturbing dark ? on the left rim - can you correct that? --PtrQs 15:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC) @PtrQs: should both be fixed now. --MB-one 17:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Good Quality -- PtrQs 20:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Category for Velar

Hi MB-one, Category:Range Rover Velar is a redirect to Category:Land Rover Range Rover Velar, so anyone navigating to the former is told to go to the latter. So the images should remain in the latter. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Thanks for the Info. It's fixed now. --MB-one (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

You had it the wrong way around. The cars are made by Land Rover, so the images belong in Category:Land Rover Range Rover Velar. I've fixed it again. Please discuss on Category talk:Land Rover Range Rover Velar if you disagree. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BMW M5, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3540).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --KTC 22:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! McLaren 720S, IAA 2017, (1Y7A3409).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2552).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fischerkate, Am Strom 6, Ahrenshoop (DSC04794).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

 --MB-one (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wiki Loves Cocktails at WikiCon 2017, 2017 (1Y7A1492).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Werry nice --Capricorn4049 20:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)  --MB-one (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bentley Continental GT, IAA 2017 (1Y7A2224).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Peulle 21:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Toshihiro Suzuki, IAA 2017 (1Y7A2392-2).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 --MB-one (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seat Arona, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2246).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Quality --PtrQs 23:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Audi Aicon, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2896).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 06:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 --MB-one (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Photographs vs. Photographs of people

Hello, MB-one. Thank you for helping clear out Category:Photographs by moving files out of it. However, the category you moved the files to, Category:Photographs of people, is also a category that should not contain files. I have moved the files to Category:People instead. Files are OK there, although they should be in subcategories when possible. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I agree, they should be in a subcategory. Now they are in a parent category. How is that better? Cheers. --MB-one (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Category:Photographs and Category:Photographs of people are restricted to categories only, as are most categories whose names start with "Photographs of". Category:People has a note that as many files as possible should be in subcategories, but files aren't actually disallowed. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Files should be in the most specific category possible, not the least specific category. Moving files from one category to a parent category is therefore not helping in any way. If you object, those files being categorized in Category:Photographs of people, please feel free to move them to the best subcategory. Cheers --MB-one (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I see your point, but the "Photographs of" categories have a special use: as the note on these says, the subcats there are for photographs that share some characteristic other than their subject, not for individual photographs as the names unfortunately imply. (There is actually a current cfd along these lines.) So in this case, there's no problem with moving the files from one category to that category's parent. My interest is in removing files from categories that are in Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero. What I did was move files out of an incorrect category to a category that was correct, if perhaps not the best one for each of the affected files. There may not be any subcat of the original category where those files belong. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BMW i Vision Dynamics, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3503).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Honda Urban EV, IAA 2017 (1Y7A2471).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lexus RC, IAA 2017, (1Y7A3393).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Aeou 07:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BMW M2 M-Performance, Frankfurt (1Y7A3529).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mini Electric Concept, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3210).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Aeou 20:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Audi Elaine, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2901).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Мирослав Видрак 14:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Volkswagen I.D. Buzz - front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment There are special recommendations for the scopes of cars, for the orentions of the shots. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question @Archaeodontosaurus: Could you provide a link to the page, where I can find that information? Can't find anything on Commons:Valued image scope about that. --MB-one (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment You're right, I thought we'd added them. Ask our expert for cars We will ask the question to our expert for cars  : @DeFacto: . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archaeodontosaurus (talk • contribs) 08:07, 21 September 2017‎ (UTC)
  •  Comment, I'm no car expert, but I do have an interest in some of them. ;) We did discuss car scopes some time back here, but never reached a formal consensus. However, we do seem to have a working agreement that each visually distinctive car make/model/generation can generally have two scopes - one for a front 3/4 view (front) and one for a rear 3/4 view (rear). So this image could have scope: Volkswagen ID Buzz - front. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• They had it on English Wiki, querter shot was one of them, like this, not bad pic. But i dont remember for other requests. --Mile (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC) p.S. Some crop from left might enfocus it better
• ----

Scope changed from Volkswagen I.D. Buzz to Volkswagen I.D. Buzz - front --MB-one (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Comment One last detail: it lacks a geocoding in the caption and everything will be perfect. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Archaeodontosaurus:  Done and thanks. --MB-one (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Smart Vision EQ Fortwo, Frankfurt (1Y7A3429).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --ArildV 12:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Opel Grandland X, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3371).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 18:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mini John Cooper Works GP Concept, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3226).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --C messier 11:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kia ProCeed, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3316).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Quality --PtrQs 22:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-AMG Project One, Frankfurt (1Y7A3446).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Comp.is not the best, but ok for me. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 03:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porsche 959 Dakar, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2757).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments If you like them battered and rusty, you can shoot mine too - Good Quality! --PtrQs 20:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alpina, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3110).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 19:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Audi press conference, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2131).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Carschten 15:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Citroën C3 Aircross, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3195).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 19:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Audi press conference, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2112).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 19:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Schweizerhäuser

Schweizerhäuser 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!

FrAnneser (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Audi SQ5 TDI, Frankfurt (1Y7A3497).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments By difficult to assess the lighting on the car. The quality seems fine to me.--Famberhorst 15:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)  Comment. The car is too distorted and the umbrella at the right does not good work. -- Spurzem 20:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Kategorien

Hallo! Ich sehe deine Aktivitäten mit der Auto-Kategorisierung. Aus meiner Sicht wirkt manches umständlich und führt zur Überkategorisierung. Kennst du das Helferlein Cat-a-lot? Dies sah ich bei deinen Aktivitäten noch nicht. Damit kann man direkt etliche Bilder verschieben. Schau einfach mal. Würde mich freuen, wenn ich einen hilfreichen Tipp geben konnte. --XRay ^talk 19:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hallo XRay, danke für den Tipp. Cat-a-lot benutze ich recht viel sogar, aber in diesem speziellen Fall arbeite ich hauptsächlich mit PetScan und VisualFileChange. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porsche GT2 RS, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2769).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 18:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-AMG S 63, Frankfurt (1Y7A3450).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment strong (colour) noise in the shadows --Carschten 15:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC) @Carschten: Thanks, should be fixed now. --MB-one 19:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC) QI for me now --Carschten 00:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Best in Scope --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 21:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas shooting photographs

Hi MB-one. You changed the category of the pictures I edited and uploaded with the explicit intend to illustrate the LAS shooting article, even the ones the only show the festival grounds. Would you be so kind to explain to me the rational for excluding these images from the specific category to a more general cat? FYI the one you reverted is used to illustrate that article. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mariordo: The images are not directly related to shooting, but showing the location, where it happened. The event is part of the location not vice versa. So the pictures should be catgorized according to the locations they're showing, not a specific event, that happened at a different time on this location. Cheers. --MB-one (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

By your argument (I do not agree, the images show the preparations, the stage, etc for the actual festival where the shooting took place), then a specific cat for that location would be a better solution than the general Las Vegas strip cat? Let's say a new cat Las Vegas Village and Festival Grounds""?-Mariordo (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mariordo: That would be a good solution. Cheers. --MB-one (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

QI categories

Please insert your QI categories only where it is the main subject of the photo. --A.Savin 12:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Isn't that a little subjective? All those images where already sorted as Automobiles. Why not as Quality images of automobiles? --MB-one (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

In case someone is seeking QI imagesof automobiles, they certainly are not seeking photos of common street scenes with some passing cars visible. And surely not photos of cats... --A.Savin 12:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@A.Savin: I did not make such assumptions. All I did was inserting the QI category to images that where QIs and categorized as automobiles. --MB-one (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Matthias, Alex hat schon Recht, du hast viel zu viel kategorisiert, in der Kategorie habe ich vieles die definitiv nicht reingehört, von Portraits, über Skulpturen bis hin zu Gebäuden. Poco² 17:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Poco a poco: Du hast recht: Manche Bilder sind durch falsche Kategorisierung offenbar in den Filter gelangt, die dort eigentlich nicht rein gehören. Darum kümmere ich mich grade. Aber darum ging es eben noch nicht, sondern um Bilder die durchaus Autos zeigen. --MB-one (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Verwendung von {{Check categories}}

Hallo MB-one,
ich habe gesehen, dass du bei einer Serie von Fotografien mithilfe von VisualFileChange die Wartungskategorie "check categories" hinzugefügt hast. Dazu erlaube ich mir ein paar Anmerkungen:

• der Stapel solcher mit Zeitstempel markierten Überprüfungen ist mittlerweile so groß, dass er über 9 Jahre zurückgeht: Wie du in der Wartungskategorie Category:Media needing category review by date siehst, sind die ältesten Dateien mit August 2008 markiert.
• Kein Mensch arbeitet diesen Stapel ab, tendenziell wird er weiter anwachsen. Ich habe eine Zeit lang einige Dateien sortiert und irgendwann aufgehört, weil es wesentlich Wichtigeres zu erledigen gibt und zudem das Abarbeiten extrem mühselig ist, weil alles kreuz und quer zusammengewürfelt ist.
• Die wenigen, die in diese Wartungskategorien schauen, finden alles quer durch den Gemüsegarten. Kaum jemand davon wird zufälligerweise unidentifizierte Orte in Berlin erkennen und kategorisieren können. Sprich: Das Publikum ist das falsche. "check categories" ist nur sinnvoll, wenn einer Datei generell keine passenden Kategorien zugewiesen sind. Die genaueren Kategorien "Unidentified ..." sind zumeist die bessere Wahl und bieten sich anstelle von chc an.
• Bitte "check categories" nur hinzufügen wenn überhaupt eine Chance besteht, dass eine Identifizierung möglich ist. Bei den "Unidentified locations in ..."-Kategorien bin ich mir selbst noch nicht ganz darüber im Klaren, wann es wirklich sinnvoll ist, ein Bild dort einzusortieren: Generell lässt sich sagen, dass durch Hinzufügen von Bildern in solche Kategorien, der Stapel an unerledigten Arbeiten weiter anwächst.

• 
• 
• 
• 

Bei Durchsicht dieser Bilder frage ich mich, wie diese alle jemals identifiziert werden sollen. Die Hausfassade erkennt vielleicht wer, aber der Rest? Aus meiner Sicht ist dies nicht möglich, außer der Hochlader selbst liefert diese Informationen nach. Dann wäre es aber vernünftiger, ihn auf seiner Diskussionsseite anzuschreiben.

• Die in obiger Gallerie dargestellten Fotos habe ich im Übrigen alle schon mal angesehen und nach Möglichkeit kategorisiert. Außer dem genauen Ort sollten die Kategorien passen. Deshalb geht es mir jetzt insofern auf den Geist, dass jetzt wieder jemand daherkommt und diese Dateien (erneut) dem Backlog zuweist.
  

Zusammengefasst: Ich bitte dich, die Funktion "check categories" mit Bedacht zu verwenden und von voreiligen Massenzuweisungen Abstand zu nehmen. Vielen Dank und Beste Grüße --Zaccarias (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zaccarias: Mir ist die Größe des Backlogs sehr wohl bekannt. Jedoch ist das kein Grund, Dateien nicht zur Wartung zu markieren. Ja, es ist viel zu tun, aber die Augen zu verschließen und so zu tun, als sei alles OK, bringt nichts. Besser, wir haben wenigsten etwas Überblick darüber, was zu tun ist. Du hast die genannten Dateien ja offenbar schon mal angefasst, dann frage ich mich jedoch, weshalb sie nicht bereits in der Kategorie Unidentified locations in Berlin (alternativ wäre theoretisch auch Location not applicable denkbar, hie speziell aber eher ersteres) drin waren. Von daher bitte ich Dich umgekehrt keine Bilder als kontrolliert zu markieren ([1]), deren Kategorisierung noch eindeutige Mängel aufweisen.

Grüße --MB-one (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: bedenke bitte auch den Unterschied zwischen {{Check categories}} und {{Uncategorized}}. --MB-one (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Danke für die rasche Antwort und danke für den Hinweis auf Location not applicable, diese Kategorie kannte ich noch gar nicht. Ja, du hast Recht: Zumindest bei einigen Dateien hätte ich Unidentified locations in Berlin hinzufügen können. --Zaccarias (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)