This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hallo MB-one, besten Dank fürs detaillierte Kategorisieren meiner Bilder. Ich konnte das W108 Cabrio nicht richtig einordnen, da ich die älteren Modelle nicht im Detail kenne. Bei Gelegenheit lade ich noch mehr nach Commons. Gruss, Noebu17:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted image Zidane-Materazzi.jpg
Hi, I've deleted this image because it's a copyright violation, the user that put it on Flickr had no right to tag it as cc-by-sa because it's obviously a professional pressfoto. The user on flickr has uploaded more of this sort of images, please verify that they are not copyvio's first before uploading them to Commons. Thanks in advance. NielsF17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you tagged (and the image was subsequently deleted) the Lickr image Image:Small handgun.jpg as a copyvio due to the fact that the Flickr author had changed his or her licence. Just to avoid any further images being deleted the template {{flickr-change-of-license}} should be used instead of the image getting deleted. Any image uploaded by the FlickrLickr account/script was definitely uploaded under an acceptable licence, and shouldn't be deleted as a copyvio due to a change of licence (see Image:White tigers drinking.jpg as an example) - instead just tag with the above template and if the photographer definitely wants the image deleted then they can contact Eloquence and state their case. Once something is published under a CC licence it can't be taken back - even if they change the licence at some later date. It is not the best situation in the world, but it is the best that can be done until/if Flickr decide to show each photos licence history. SFC939411:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, you are right! No B737, there are two B767, my fault. I thought, only british carriers, must be in the United Kingdom. --MB-one12:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and very new to the Commons. I am in the process of shooting/uploading photos of various toy model cars into the Commons for use in articles in various Wikipedias, mainly the English and German ones for now. (Others can follow if other people want to use the photos.)
I didn't understand how to categorize at first, but somebody categorized my first photo (Matchbox-2006-StarsOfCars.jpg) for me, putting it in the category "toy cars". You then moved it to "model cars". I would just like to know what the correct category is...and why. Because based on the old categorization, I put 5 more photos in under "toy cars". Now it seems that might not be correct. Can you give me some guidance here?
(PS - Is your Wiki name any indication of an interest in Matchbox? Und verstehe ich es richtig, dass du [auch] deutsch sprichst? Ich suche nämlich jemanden, der mir hilft, den mäßigen Artikel über Matchbox in de.wikipedia auf den Stand des guten Artikels in en.wikipedia zu bringen.)
Ja, ich spreche (auch ;-) ) deutsch. Nein, mein Wiki-Name hat nichts mit Matchbox zu tun, ich bin überzeugter Siku-Anhänger. Zu meinen Verschiebungen: Die Kat „model cars“ ist eine Subkategorie der Kat „toy cars“. Daher habe ich die Bilder verschoben, da es sich unstreitig um Modelle existierender PKW-Modelle handelt, was bei Spielzeugautos nicht unbedingt der Fall sein muss. Aber es stimmt schon, dass in dem Bereich noch keine gefestigte Kategorienstruktr existiert.
Zu dem Matchbox-Artikel in de.wikipedia: den kann ich mir gerne mal anschauen, allerdings bin ich weder spezieller Experte, noch Fan von Matchbox (mich hat das Fehlen eines einheitlichen Maßstabes bei PKW und LKW schon als kleines Kind gestört, so dass ich mich schon mit vier oder fünf auf Siku-Modelle konzentriert habe). --MB-one13:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Air China, China Southern Airlins question
Hi MB-One,
I don't understand why you continue change the pages Air China and China Southern Airlines, modified previously by me, like this deleted which I have written.
If you want write your contributions, don't edit more the pages edit by me, please.
Hello MB-one! Please, when you upload images from the en.wikipedia, always remember to place the tag {{subst:ncd}} in the original image, for example, here and here. If you change the name of the image, you can use the tag {{subst:ncd|image:new name}} . Thank you, Alfonso18:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint. But as you can see, I'm doing so normally. In this special case, I forgot it. --MB-one20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted Category:RENFE Class 103 again, this category must include photografies of this *train*, and AVE is not a train, AVE is a comercial name of high speed trains services of Renfe Operadora.
—the preceding unsigned comment is byYrithinnd (talk • contribs)
I know about these facts, but in my opinion the categorization of images should be simple and logical. AVE is the name of a train system and the trains are part of the system since they are exclusivly used by this special system. The name "AVE" is printed on the cars! The diffentiation between trains and system is only for professionals and enthusiasts obvious, not for other.
The problem is that in other countries, there are only one kind of train, Germany has ICEs trains, France TGVs. On Spain exists 7 different trains, (2 more coming soon) and 4 differents companies (Alston, Siemens, Talgo-Bombardier and CAF). Probably Category:High speed trains of Spain and Category:AVE should be unique category, in this case High speed trains of Spain is most explicit name. Yrithinnd20:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not correct. There are five different types of trains (DBAG Class 401, DBAG Class 402, DBAG Class 403, DBAG class 411 and DBAG class 415) in the german ICE system and at least five different types of TGV trains. All TGV related images are categorized simply as Category:TGV, which is a subcategory of Category:High speed trains. On the other hand the AVE is not the only high speed train system in Spain, because of the Euromed. The merger of the two categories isn't reasonable. --MB-one11:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This is reasonable :P. I'm going to add services offered by each train class. This form, on the one hand will be categorized all high speed trains, on the other trains will be categorized acording services offered. Ok?. Yrithinnd19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
NttDoCoMo So505i
It is warning。
Your incomprehensible editing is unpleasant. Please stop it.Because Sony Ericsson is one company of the maker which offers a Mobile phones to Japanese NTT DoCoMo（So505i）, there is it as well as a category--Kure05:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Without your understanding the situation of the Japanese mobile phone. You should not do a Japanese mobile phone brand, a category classification.
Only as for the production → Sony Ericsson.
So505i→Sale and support→NTTDoCoMobrand→So505i
You deleted NTTDoCoMo in what did a category of 2 of Sony Ericsson and NTTDoCoMo many times. A mistake of MB-one that this does not understand the situation of the Japanese mobile phone.
You should not classify a Japanese mobile phone brand, categories if you do not have the information that you do not understand the situation of the Japanese mobile phone definitely.--Kure17:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Despite, I'm not an expert in the japanese mobile phone market, I know about some facts of this special model. Once again, the SO505i is manufactured by Sony Ericsson, not by NTT DoCoMo! NTT DoCoMo is the reseller. The phone has to be categorized as Sony Ericsson mobile phone as well as NTT DoCoMo mobile phone. I will recategorize the two images, please accept this. A newly revert, is vandalism and I'm not willing to tolerate it. Regards --MB-one18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
So505i → * Sony Ericsson. It was the category of the *NTTDoCoMo,2 unit.
If MB-one apologizes; So505i → * Sony Ericsson. I admit that I make it the category of the *NTTDoCoMo,2 unit
In the Japanese user, we have article recognition of NTTDoCoMo in So505i. It is the destructive act that is crazy that MB-one deletes a category of NTTDoCoMo.
The independent category of So505i is not necessary. It is good to be only the So series of NTTDoCoMo--Kure18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Black and blue
This is not black, this is deep blue :-)... red and blue are the official colors of the Carabinieri Corp.
No, I don't mind. I didn't know about the specific colors of the Carabienieri and the photograph suggests a black varnish. Thank you. --MB-one13:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Reply
Absolutely not. As was discussed on the English Wikipedia, many of the subcategories are impossible to navigate for uninformed users. Putting the images in both the main and subcategory allows for users wanting specific generations to get to them while allowing for the more casual searcher to browse through images rather than menus. I will re-revert if necessary. IFCAR21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I'm not involved in the english Wikipedia and don't know about such a discussion. This is not the Wikipedia, this are the Commons and such edits has to be discussed here! Your scheme of categorization is against the policies. --MB-one21:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please stop reverting then while it is discussed. It is a waste of both of our time to go back and forth in the meantime.
Any image has to be put only in the category most specific (sometimes there are more than one most specific category). Your logic would lead to put an image in the category "BMW E93" and - for the "uninformed users" - additionally in the category "BMW 3 Series", "BMW vehicles", "Automobiles" (not all users know about all these brands), "Vehicles" (not all users know about the exact definition of an automobile) , "Manufactured goods" and so on. All missing infomation of platforms, model generations, etc. could be found in the wikipedia by the "uninformed users" and it isn't impossible to navigate. --MB-one21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Make and model is easy. But even I don't know some of the various platform codes. I click on a link "Wikipedia Commons has media for the Cadillac Escalade" and see a set of alphanumeric codes regarding different generations and body styles.
Unnecessarily complex categories can always be made, does that mean the media must be sorted into them? For example, "Category:2002 Dodge Stratus". What's next, "Category:Maroon 2002 Dodge Stratus SXT sedan with optional sunroof and alloy wheels"?
Make and model is a logical standard, and the other categories are there for finding specifics quickly. IFCAR21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
In this case, all categories more specific than model has to be deleted. A compromise could be a gallery linked instead of the category in the wikipedia articles, e.g. Porsche 996. Such galleries could guide through the different platforms, trims, specials, etc. Once more, your proposition is unacceptable. --MB-one22:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say subcategories don't have their place. But they often make it too difficult to find what you're looking for.
A compromise could be showing a few of the images from the subcategory next to its link, so users can know what to expect from it. Also, particularly in cases where the platform code is less commonly used (something more like GMT804, less like E46), switching to or also including descriptors like "First Generation" or "Convertible" would be appropriate.
To show an example image near to the subcategory will be a technical problem, but I would accept it. I prefer the solution with image galleries, linked in the wikipedia articles instead of categories. --MB-one17:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Galleries often don't fit the format of Wikipedia articles, which is why even the most useful ones are often deleted. I'm not sure how my solution would be a technical problem, but if it is, is it a solvable one?
And is there someone else's opinion I need to get before doing that, lest someone else go through and revert? IFCAR17:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about galleries here on the Commons, not in the article namespace of the wikipedia. The gallerie BMW 3 Series exists already. Such galleries are also existent in other branches of the Commons and I didn't hear about any of them was deleted. --MB-one11:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you've uploaded one or more images and I thought I should turn your attention to a common error. Please give some thought to writing a good description of uploaded images. This ensures that they can be used. It also helps those that review and improve categories do a better job, which also ensures that images will get used in novel and interesting ways. Thanks, and happy editing! __ ABF __ϑ15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
If you created this image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Habe festgestellt, dass Du die Kategorie Cities in Germany wieder aktiviert hast. Da vor einiger Zeit sämtliche deutschen Orte nach Municipalities of Germany mit Unterkategorien verschoben hatten, wollte ich Deine Änderungen nicht einfach kommentarlos rückgängig machen, sondenr nach dem Grund fragen. -- Rüdiger Wölk15:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Das die Kategorie schon einmal bestand wusste ich nicht. Jedoch sind ja nicht alle Gemeinden Städte daher habe ich die Kat abgelegt. --MB-one19:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Offenbar wird für alle Länder zwischen Städten und Gemeinden unterschieden, warum also nicht für deutsche? --MB-one22:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Warum? Alle Städte sind gemeinden, auch alle Dörfer sind Gemeinden. Es gibt halt sehr große Gemeinden, die heissen dann Großstadt. Und es gibt halt auch sehr kleine Gemeinden, die heissen Dorf. Gemeinde ist der Überbegriff und keine Unterscheidung. Die deutsche Wiki hilft im Zweifelsfall weiter. Grundlage ist die deutsche Gemeindeordnung. -- Rüdiger Wölk12:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Das ist schon richtig, jedoch besitzen die Städte immerhin einen Sonderstatus unter den Gemeinden, der IHMO eine eigene Kategorie rechtfertigt. Aber ich sehe, du hast schon alles rückgängig gemacht, dann bleibt es eben so. --MB-one12:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Referring to the images above, there may be a bit of a problem excluding Category:Toyota Aurion. Though only one generation of Aurions were released at present, the Aurion-based Camry is marketed as member of the longer running Camry line in East and Southeast Asian market, parallel to the JDM and North American releases (hence the inclusion of "sixth generation" in the title). And while the image was uploaded before my revelation the car was simply a rebadged Aurion, the categorisation of images should also take into account the image's description, which in this case points out the car's relation with the Aurion rather than the original Camry.
Listing the image solely in the Camry category implies that the car was and is always been a JDM/North American Camry, disregarding its indirect evolution. Both the front and rear shots of this car are used in en:Toyota Aurion, so the categorisation of the images into the Aurion cat seems reasonable for maintenance purposes.
Given the unusual development of the car, however, there are a few solutions I can think of:
Is it correct, that the current Camry and the Aurion shares the platform XV40? In this case, it would be best, to create a category for the XV40 platform and categorize both (Category:Toyota Camry XV40 and Category:Toyota Aurion) as Category:Toyota XV40. But a categorization of a single image in Aurion and Camry seems not logical to me, because a single exemplar can't be sold under both labels. Oh, by the way what means JDM? I dont't know the term. --MB-one16:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Excuse my belatedness. Yes, as far as Wikipedia's Aurion article is concerned, the Aurion is merely a facelifted version of the original XV40 Camry for localised markets. If a merge of categories is needed, you may want to bring it up among maintainers of these categories for confirmation. JDM stands for Japanese Domestic Market, referring to products (including road vehicles) exclusively used in Japan. - Two hundred percent11:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Audi 100 2d
I see you categorised an image I uploaded. Thank you. However, you categorised it as a silver car. Actually it was a green car. Gruen bedeutet Hoffnung... Still, the picture is faded a bit. I guess if it looks silver to the objective viewer, silver it is.... Regards Charles0119:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If you created this image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
As a followup to the edit summary you left on the image when removing the {{Copyvio}} tag, it is a derivative work. Yes, it's a photograph to which you own the copyright, but the thing you're taking a picture of—the bottle's label—has a copyright, too. Take a look at the derivative works guideline to see what I mean. Cheers! Esrever(klaT)03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
As Durova noted in the deletion discussion, the image on the label is copyrighted. Since the label is itself the focus of the image, it's a derivative work. And I'm sure that Category:Liquor bottles is chock full of copyvios, but that's not a reason to keep this particular image. This is the one I happened to stumble across, so it got tagged per policy. It's nothing personal against you in any way. It's just that this image isn't acceptable on Commons.
And you're right: I should have noted above that you're not the one who took the picture, just the uploader to Commons. Cheers! :) Esrever(klaT)18:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Holden Statesman
Please stop changing the Holden Statesman-related categories to Holden Statesman/Caprice. This is an incorrect title and they should not be named this way. See the English Wikipedia entry on Holden Statesman for more information. No one has been sent to an early grave with that title so it should remain consistent here. Furthermore, VFACTS which is published by he Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (an Australian Government agency) classifies the Statesman and Caprice as the same car. I would appreciate it if you would repair the categories to their previous state. OSX07:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, it is the same car, with two different names. But a Holden Caprice is only marketed as Caprice, not as Statesman. Even under the Statesman marque, they was sold under two names I wouldn't be correct, to sort Caprice vehicles in a Statesman category. At first, I looked for different categories, but you reverted. So I thought, a common cat for Statesman and Caprice is the best solution, but it has to be named like both models. It should be easy, to change the commons links in the wikipedia to the new category.
I preferred it when they were two separate categories over the new naming system. On the English Wikipedia this method is discouraged and articles mention alternative names in the introduction. OSX03:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as though you've taken no action, I've fixed up the categories myself. Please DO NOT revert before further discussion. Regards OSX06:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
So, you want two different categories (Statesman & Caprice)? But why did you simply revert to the former state instead of create the new categories? --MB-one11:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
(indent reset) I said I preferred the two category system OVER the Statesman/Caprice system. However, I still wanted the category system back to its original state. OSX05:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Berlin-Mitte
Hello MB-one, thank you for relocating Category:Sculptures in Berlin-Mitte-Tiergarten-Wedding as the new Category:Sculptures in Bezirk-Mitte. You could at least have given time to react on the talk page. But you were apparently in a great hurry.
Now everybody in the whole world does understand. I tried to divide Berlin in the twelve new Bezirke by combining the old names. Not everybody visiting Wikimedia Commons comes from Berlin or even is German. I could understand renaming it: Category:Sculptures in Berlin-Mitte (without the word Bezirk) like the other ones. --Gerardus13:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
All subcategories of the Category:Berlin should be sorted like City, Borough, Quarter. Since the are no boroughs named e.g. “Mitte-Tiergarten-Wedding”, I recategorized the sculpture categories. --MB-one13:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
On whose authority my dear MB? Und auch in Berlin sagt man nur Berlin-Mitte und nicht Bezirk Berlin-Mitte! Was hast du dazu zu sagen? Du kannst doch erst mal richtig überlegen und dann etwas tun und dass ohne Krieg. Ich warte mal ab was du noch zu sagen hast.--Gerardus13:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ganz einfach: die Kategorieordnung besteht so aus guten Gründen. Ich habe lediglich die „Sculptures“ dem angepasst. --MB-one13:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Du redest nicht, das sehe ich schon. Aber Wedding gehört doch auch zur Bezirk Mitte :(Liste der Bezirke und Ortsteile Berlins - Wikipedia ). You make it so easy for yourself, but you ignore others. Don't forget we have to do it together on Wikimedia!--Gerardus13:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Na und? Wedding ist doch unter Bezirk Mitte eingeordnet. Achtung: Bezirk Mitte und Berlin-Mitte ist nicht das selbe! --MB-one13:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
OK MB-one, go ahead and relocate all twelve categories as Bezirk. But, please do me as favour and let the undercategories exist as they are. It took me a few days to sort all images from sculptures in Berlin and place them in the categories which I had to create myself (not knowing Berlin at all). What I still don't understand is, why such actions must take place in a hurry and without visiting a talk page. I felt sick for a few moments after all the work I had done and I was very angry.
I'm sorry, that you felt sick. I'll resort the categories step-by-step in boroughs and quarters. The quarter categories, they will still exist as they are, only sorted in their respective borough. --MB-one14:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can remember, and both the [Panavia_Tornado#German_Air_Force_.28Luftwaffe.29 English] and [Panavia_Tornado#Tornadotypen_der_Deutschen_Luftwaffe German] wikipedias the Tornado was in use by the Luftwaffe? With the Naval Tornado squadrons having been recently retired. Would you disagree with a reverting to the inclusion of the Tornado as a Luftwaffe type. KTo28801:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I would because, the current state isn't the only state. As you can see, some of the Tornados was used by the navy and so the images of this time don't show Luftwaffe aircrafts. regards --MB-one13:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay this was the same problem we had for the Tornado category to start with all of them were being categorised as being in service with the RAF, Italian air force etc without being specific which were which. The solution then was to split into sub cats per country. I guess it should be okay to split the German Tornado category into two further sub categories, one for the Navy and one for the Luftwaffe with the present category remaining where it is and the aircraft of those services being categorised under those services.KTo28810:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hallo MB-one, schau mal bitte hier vorbei, ich habe deine Änderung rückgängig gemacht (es fehlte eine Begründung), dann aber gerade Berlin-Gesundbrunnen entdeckt - was ist denn jetzt richtig? Falls ich falsch lag, meine Änderung einfach wieder rückgängig machen; Und falls dich die doppelte Aktion nervt: kommentiere einfach deine Änderungen - das spart dir Mehrarbeit und hilft anderen; Grüße, -- Schusch13:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Du lagst falsch, aber das kann man dir nicht anlasten, da ich tatsächlich vergaß, eine Begründung anzugeben. Daher habe ich meine Änderungen wieder vorgenommen und entsprechend begründet. --MB-one17:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ich sollte mich mal bedanken für Deine Fleißarbeit zu den Panke-Bildern, ja klar ist die Category Gesundbrunnen wesentlich besser und dann auch für die Mühe nicht die Panke für alles zu kategorisieren. --Paul - eine Silbersonne18:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'd be grateful if you could stop reverting my edits - I'm cleaning up the mess here and I have in mind quite a reorganization (similar to the one I made in Lancers photos). Just be patient. Regards, Maggot666PL22:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sorry. I didn't mind this special model. I only saw the T4 and T5. I knew, that they are/where mainly build in Hannover, so I deleted them all. It seems, with the Caddy, I was wrong. --MB-one (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course, there is a special reason. The car isn't a police car, but a car of the trade union for police officers („Gewerkschaft der Polizei“). Hope, I could help you. --MB-one (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
In that case you were definately right in what you did. Please add that Union information in the picture for convenience of categorisers later. I'll have a look tonight whether or not I have made the mistake before.--Stunteltje (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The police was real. But the car is borrowed from Lamborghini and just pasted up with some checkered stickers and a removable lighbar. And that's for only one day as an eyecatcher, not for daily use. That's no real police car. Best regards --MB-one (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The case was, that the Fiat Coupé used straight-4 engines as well, not only straight-5s. And there are way more car models that used straight-5s. For instance many Mercedes Diesel models of the 90s like the E-Class, the G-Class, etc. Only as petrol engine this type is rather rare. Kindly regards --MB-one (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree both of your points, but still consider that Fiat coupe belongs in this cat. As a petrol engined car engine, this is a rare usage (thus worthy of categorisation) and I can't see a more specific example (e.g. engine bay photo) of the engine itself. Similarly for the Volvo 850. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Generally, I'm not against such categorization. Not even if we're talking about usual engine types. But IMO all engine variants (if there is more than one) of a model must fit in the specific category. In this case, it's possible, that a straight-4 engined Coupé is categorized as straight-5 and that's not correct. Hope, you got my point. Regards --MB-one (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. While you're absolutely right, we now get to an issue of interpretation regarding the restrictions of MediaWiki's categorization mechanism. Does placing a sub-cat into another super-cat mean that allmembers of that sub-cat must be members of the super-cat? Or does it merely mean that the sub-cat itself has some definable member of the super-cat? Now as these features are quite limited, I don't believe we can work as usefully with the first interpretation as we can we the second. In this restricted toolset, we're better off taking the second, broader interpretation - Let alone without the general unreliability of folksonomy categorizations reducing our confidence in absolute reasoning based upon them! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You did so without addressing my concern that "Air tanker" was a poor name, for several reasons.
Is there some place where a discussion took place and the decision to perform this redirection was made? If so, where? Geo Swan (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't read your comment on the discussion before, sorry. Feel free to redirect Air Tanker to Waterbomber. --MB-one (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
File:CLK_320.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!
I have a question concerning categories for people. Is the convention that we create a category by name when the individual has 2 or more photographs? What is the forumla for deciding when someone gets their own category? Thank you (Mind meal (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC))
IMO numbers
The category:Ships by IMO number is nominated for deletion. I created that category to group the files of ships and to make the information on ships easy to find. But I am aware of the fact that not every user has an idea of the IMO system. You added categories to the IMO category, but I think it is not so useful to work with IMO categories the other way around. I assumed the best way of using is putting the IMO category to the individuals ship file only. I didn't rever your additions, because it is a suggestion. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hallo MB-one,
wieso hast du hier die Kategorie wieder entfernt? Ich bin mir sicher, dass noch einige Dorotheenstraßenbilder aus dem Bundesarchiv/der Fotothek dazukommen werden. Ich kann damit leben, würde nur gerne deine Begründung für die Entfernung und die Löschung wissen wollen (denn eigentlich ist dafür ja der Editkommentar gedacht...) --Jcornelius (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hallo MB-one, mir ist nicht klar, was Du hier vorhast. Jugendherbergen werden allgemein als Sonderform von Hotels angesehen. In Category:Hostels by country siehst Du hierfür reichlich Beispiele. Lediglich in Deutschland ist von Dir Hostels direkt unter Accommodation buildings gestellt. Meine Korrektur hierzu hast Du mehrfach rückgängig gemacht. Worum geht es Dir? Denkst Du, dass Jugendherbergen in Deutschland grundsätzlich anders kategorisiert werden müssen als im Rest der Welt? Willst Du die von Dir erzeugte Category:Accommodation buildings in Germany vielleicht nur künstlich füllen, weil es außer Category:Hotels in Germany anscheinend keinen weiteren sinnvollen Inhalt gibt? Gruß -- Ies (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hallo, danke für die Kategorien-Erweiterung bei ECLA. Als Notiz für später die Anmerkung, dass die räumliche Zuordnung unter Vorbehalt ist. Das eine Gebäude, das ich fotografierte, ist in Niederschönhausen (Kuckhoffstraße), aber das ECLA nutzt wohl mehrere Gebäude, bei denen ich nicht weiß, ob sie alle in Niederschönhausen liegen. Ich schaute auf der Homepage der Institution nach, dort ist aber kein Lageplan. – Wie findest Du eigentlich die korrekte Bezirks-/Ortsteil-Zuordnung eines Objekts heraus? Ich habe online noch keine gute Karte mit allen Grenzen gefunden und bin drauf und dran, ein Vermessungsamt einer Bezirksverwaltung aufzusuchen, um mir mal eine gute Berlin-Karte zuzulegen. Jochen --Iotatau (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Auf Niederschönhausen bin ich über die Postadresse des ECLA gekommen. Bezüglich der Ortsteilzurdnung kann ich die Karten der BVG empfehlen, die enthalten alle Bezirks- und Ortsteilgrenzen. --MB-one (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
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!
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Cadxlr.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Cadxlr.jpg]]).
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!
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!
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!
As you placed several aircraft into city categories, I was wondering if you might be interested in the above request. -- User:Docu at 23:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hallo MB-one,
Kannst du mir ganz kurz erklären, warum du bei der genannten Datei und einigen anderen die Kategorisierung "Boeing 747-400" und "Lufthansa Passage" entfernt hast, weil ich das logisch nicht nachvollziehen kann (es handelt sich ja um den angegebenen Flugzeugtyp bzw. die Airline)? Ich bin nur ein unregelmässiger Mitarbeiter und kenne mich deshalb nicht allzu gut mit der Kategorisierung aus, deshalb meine Frage, erspart unnötige Arbeit, wenn ich das in Zukunft richtig mache. Dank und Grüße Man-ucommons (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Man-ucommons, die Dateien sind über die Registrierung sowieso schon entsprechend kategorisiert. Also müssen sie nicht nocheinmal in diese Kategorien. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hallo MB-one,
Was hat es denn nun mit dieser Kategorie auf sich? Was soll sie enthalten?
1. Da sich in der Kategorie nicht nur Postkarten befinden, erschien mir eine Kategorisierung unter 19th century postcards und Category:Postcards of Berlin zunächst wenig sinnvoll. Dieser Schritt wurde von Dir wieder rückgängig gemacht.
2. Da es sich bei dieser Abbildung keineswegs um eine eine Postkarte, habe ich diese aus der Kategorie entfernt. Auch dies wurde von Dir wieder rückgängig gemacht.
"Berlin in alten Ansichten" ist eine Sammlung von alten Postkarten (siehe buecher-nach-isbn.info); daher die entsprechende Kategorisierung. Was macht dich so sicher, dass es sich nicht überall um Postkarten handelt?
Gegen eine genauere Kategorisierung der einzelnen Motive spricht aber natürlich nichts, da bin ich gerne bereit zu helfen. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Wenn Du die Quelle der Bilder kategorisieren willst, solltest Du Category:Berlin in alten Ansichten nach Category:Image sources verschieben. Die Kategorisierungen unter 19th century postcards und Category:Postcards of Berlin scheint hier wenig sinnvoll. Postkarten stammen aus den verschiedensten Quellen und die entsprechenden Kategorien würden früher oder später vor Unterkategorien wie Category:Alte Ansichten von ..., Category:Alte Postkarten aus... o. ä. platzen.
Auf der anderen Seite stammen bereits zahlreiche Bilder aus der von Dir genannten Quelle (siehe u.a. File:Charlottenburger Bruecke mit Ch.Tor 076.jpg). Ich glaube, dass es wenig sinnvoll ist, all diese Dateien nachträglich in die Kategorie Berlin in alten Ansichten zu stecken, zumal die meisten Bilder bereits in der Kategorie Postcards of Berlin etc. einsortiert wurden.
Dass es sich bei o.g. Bild nicht um eine Postkarte handelt, ist eindeutig (siehe Wikipedia-Artikel Postkarte).
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!
What problem? Create text in this category like: "Mercedes-Benz Tourismo coach built in Germany and Turkey." Answer will by dane in my user talk, not your!!! Marek Banach (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't, because I don't know, what models or types are built in what country. And please, will you get rid of that commanding tone. This is a project of volounteers and not the army. Best regards --MB-one (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Buses
Any chance you can make yourself fully aware of the Category:Buses in the United Kingdom structure before making big changes without consensus? While changing the Southern Vectis categories (even though it makes it all about ten times more complicated and much less easier to use in practice), is fair enough as it was slight over-categorisation, I've noticed some other problems. For example, File:FirstGroup bus 50265 Mercedes-Benz 709D Plaxton N289 JUG in Todmorden 14 May 2007.jpg. Forget about the Plaxton cats as there seems to be confusion surrounding that. However, the Category:Buses in the United Kingdom category is used as a holding place for unsorted files. Clearly, File:FirstGroup 50265... isn't fully categorised, so it is in the main Buses in the UK cat so that it will eventually be categorised fully. If the Buses in the UK cat is removed, then the file gets "lost", only categorised in half the categories it should be. Hope that helps! Arriva436talk/contribs17:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
What I meant was don't worry about the removal an addition of the Plaxton and Mercedes-Benz T2 categories to the said file, I was foucusing purley on the removal of the main buses in the UK category.
As it says at Category:Buses in the United Kingdom, each file can be categories under the sub cats of: Manufacturer, Region, Type (single-deck, double-deck etc), Use (public transport, private hire etc), Date of photograph, Date of Registration, and Operator.
However, some files are only in some of those categories. Therefore, they remain in the main Category:Buses in the United Kingdom category, so that eventually someone (likely me), can come round, and categorise it fully under all of the 7 sub cats (though region is sometimes missed out if the operator cat is already in the region cat). If the image is left in only, say, 3 of the 7 sub cats, and it is taken out of the main Buses in UK category, then it will be "lost". That is, there will be no way of finding that it's only in 3 of the 7 sub cats, and therefore it will permanently be in only 3 out of 7 sub cats. Hence, it temporaily should stay in the main category.
I'm not sure what you mean by "It would be more simple to add the missing cats, then add an overcat". I can only take it to mean to add the missing subcategories. For which, there needs to be some way for it to be found, hence is temporarily stays in the main Buses in UK category! Arriva436talk/contribs19:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Berliner Gedenktafel, Ortsteile
Hallo MB-one,
musste leider nochmal den Ortsteil für die Kreuznacher Strasse berichtigen. Der Ortsteil ist definitiv Wilmersdorf. Für die anderen Berichtigungen danke ich Dir.
--OTFW (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hallo OTFW,
du hast natürlich recht. Das hatte ich beim ersten Durchsehen auf der Karte verwechselt. Danke und Gruß --MB-one (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you've uploaded File:IFA 2009 n-tv Messestudio.jpg and I thought I should draw your attention to a common error. Please give some thought to writing a good description of uploaded images. This ensures that they can be used. It also helps those that review and improve categories do a better job, which also ensures that images will get used in novel and interesting ways. Thanks, and happy editing!
Automet buses in Poland is the correct cat for model and place, but it isn't correct cat for model. Good category for Automet models are: Automet Apollo and "Category:Automet Mercedes-Benz Sprinter" (or maybe: "Category:Automet Mercedes-Benz Sprinter buses", "Category:Automet Mercedes-Benz Sprinter (2006) buses"), "Category:Automet Volkswagen Crafter" (or maybe "Category:Automet Volkswagen Crafter buses")!!! Automet produced buses like "Automet Feniks" and buses base on "Iveco Daily", "Mercedes-Benz Vario", "Volkswagen LT". In this moment no theirs foto in Wikipedia Commons. For this models category "Automet buses in Poland" is uncategorized category for model!!! I thank you for experience with categorization and over categorization!!! I created category "Automet buses by country". Its not over categorization for category "Automet buses"! But why you uncategorized this foto and don't speired me why I create this "over category"? Why you don't created category "Automet buses by country"? Marek Banach (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Now, what you mean is, that there should be a category for the respective models of Automet buses in which they are sorted? Then, yes, you're maybe right. But why didn't you simply create such specific categories instead of reverting to a suboptimal status? And sorry for the syntax fault on your discussion page. Best regards. --MB-one (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You brought this discussion here, not me. Anyway, would you please answer my question? Otherwise I will have to revert the respective image categories. Best Regards --MB-one (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
1) I'm in Wikipedia from several years. You are first person which answers on my questions in yours "User talk". I think, that this is inappropriate. 2) Yes, I think there should be a categorys for the respective models of Automet buses in which they are sorted. 3) I don't create such specific categories, because I don't known which from above mentioned is the best. If you know, you can it create. Best regards. Marek Banach (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, we are used to different discussion schemes; that is not the point. I understand, if you don't want to create new categories. But in the currrent state, we have an perfect example for overcategorization and that is not acceptable. As long as there are no specific model categories, the images can only be sorted as "Automet buses in Poland" plus their respective base model cats. I hope you understand. Best regards --MB-one (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
_(front),_Serdang.jpg_and_Image:Toyota_Camry_(sixth_generation)_(rear),_Serdang.jpg){kind=link}
Your incomprehensible editing is unpleasant. Please stop it.--Kure 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It is warning。
_(front),_Serdang.jpg){kind=link}
_(rear),_Serdang.jpg){kind=link}
_(front),_Serdang.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(rear),_Serdang.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
