User talk:MB-one/Archive 2

Havel lakes

Laß bitte die betreffenden Seen in der Category:Lakes of Brandenburg. Category:Havel lakes in Brandenburg ist zum Suchen bzw. Auffinden der entsprechenden Seen wenig hilfreich. Der Begriff Havelseen ist darüberhinaus nichts Definiertes, sondern eine Trivia. Außerdem ist die Sortierung von ein paar Seen in diese Cat. völlig subjektiv - es gebe noch weitaus mehr Kandidaten. Die „Kategorie:Havelseen in Brandenburg“ kann nur eine Nebenkategorie von „Seen in Brandenburg“ sein. --Botaurus (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, aber „Nebenkategorien“ gibt es nicht, nur Unter- bzw Überkategorien (ich kann nur noch einmal die Lektüre von COM:OVERCAT empfehlen, bei Fragen helfe ich auch gerne weiter). Wenn du der Meinung bist, dass die Kategorie Havel lakes in Brandenburg (bzw. Havel lakes) an sich ist falsch oder überflüssig, dann kannst du sie zum löschen vorschlagen. Bis das entschieden ist, stell aber bitte den alten Status wieder her. Beste Grüße --MB-one (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ergänzung: solche Änderungen bitte auch vorher absprechen. Und das hier ist noch ein klassischer Fall von Überkategorisierung. Bitte rückgängig machen. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Mit Dir muß ich gar nichts absprechen. --Botaurus (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nicht mit mir alleine, eher mit der Allgemeinheit. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Höre endlich auf, das Kategoriesystem durcheinanderzubringen. Es handelt sich um parallele Themenkategoriebäume, die sich logischerweise irgendwann treffen oder auch mal kreuzen. Dein ewiges "Overcat"-gedunsel kannst Du Dir sparen. Du vermischt administrative Themen mit geographischen, die nicht zu vermischen sind. Bleibe lieber bei Deinen Autos, von Gewässerkategorien verstehst Du nichts. --Botaurus (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hallo,

im Gegenteil, ich ordne lediglich. Langsam frage ich mich, ob du das Kategoriesystem insgesamt überhaupt verstanden hast. Die fraglichen Kategorien sind eben genau nicht parallel sondern hierarchisch gegliedert. Beispiel: Die Uckermärkische Seen sind in die Oberkategorie Seen in Brandenburg eingeordnet. Die Einzelnen Seen müssen also nicht mehr in die Oberkategorie, sie sind ja bereits enthalten. Es ist nicht nur sinnlos, sondern hinderlich Dateien oder Kategorien doppelt zu kategorisieren. Das habe ich nicht so entschieden. Abgesehen davon möchte ich dich bitten, grundsätzlich erst zu diskutieren (im Sinnen von, die Diskussionsseiten benutzen) und dann erst ggf. Reverts oder größere Änderungen (z. B. Katredirects bestehender Kategorien) vorzunehmen, sonst artet das schnell mal zu einem Edit-War aus. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Was sind denn „Uckermärkische Seen“ für eine Unterkat von Lakes of Brandenburg?. Es ist ein eigener Kategoriestrang. Die Kat enthält auch mecklenburgische Seen und die Uckermark reicht mit ihrem Gebiet nach Pommern rein. Wenn Du gerne sortierst, solltest Du lieber diese hier enthaltenen Seen in Seenkategorien packen und diese dann unter „Lakes of Brandenburg“ kategorisieren. Einen Editwar sehe ich bereits - jedoch von Deiner Seite und ab jetzt scheinst Du auch noch mein Stalker zu sein, wie ich gesehen habe. --Botaurus (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Das erklärt ja schon einiges. Also ist die Sortierung der entsprechenden Kat falsch, das lässt sich ja zum Glück ändern. Bleibt noch das Problem Überkategorisierung im Bereich „Bodies of water in Potsdam“ („Havel in Potsdam“ ist eine Unterkategorie) und die Frage, ob die Kategorie „Havel lakes“ sinnvoll ist. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Android_and_cupcake.jpg

File:Android_and_cupcake.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!

Blurpeace 07:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Android_at_google.jpg

File:Android_at_google.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!

Blurpeace 07:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Silver_Porsche.jpg

File:Silver_Porsche.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

DieBuche (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Zeichen 206

Category discussion notification

Category:Zeichen 206 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!

-- Docu  at 13:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Thai Airways

Category discussion notification

Category:Thai Airways 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!

--Benchill (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:E46M3LagunaSecaBlue.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:E46M3LagunaSecaBlue.jpg, 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!

High Contrast (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Holden categories

Hi, can you please stop editing Holden/HSV categories unless you know what you are doing? Let me give you some examples, because you seem to think you know best when you probably know very little about these cars.

• HSV SV6000: this page was in Category:HSV vehicles and Category:HSV Z Series but you insist that any Holden/HSV category that is placed in any more than one parent category is a gross violation of Commons:Overcat. The SV6000 is a "HSV vehicle" hence its occupation of that category. It is also part of the "Z Series" model (2004–2006/7). SV6000 is a Z Series-only model so there is no need to disambiguate with a "HSV SV6000 (Z Series)" subcategory.

• Holden VE Berlina: the Berlina is separate from the Commodore, and thus should be placed in Category:Holden VE. It is also placed in Category:Holden VE Commodore as many people consider these to be the same cars (they are except by name). Why you removed "Category:Holden VE" from "Category:Holden VE Berlina" is beyond me. "Holden VE" is the model code, and there are VE versions of Commodore, Berlina, Calais, and Ute.

• Holden VE Calais: ditto.

• Holden VE Commodore SS V: the SS V cars are separate models to the regular SS offering. In fact they even have their own specification level code (Commodore (excluding SS V) = 8VK, Commodore SS V = 8VP, Berlina = 8VL, Calais = 8VX). They are included in both categories for convenience. Having the car listed under two categories is not excessive. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, did you ever read (and try to understand) the article Commons:Overcat? If not yet, please do so. Then will be no further discussion be needed. Best regards. --MB-one (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising the category pages. If I have to revert one more time, I will be reporting you to an administrator. This is ridiculous, you clearly do not understand how the Holden model codes work, so please don't touch them.

Also, Commons:Overcat only applies to the individual images, and not categories. Even in the way that you have manipulated the guideline, overcat would only cover categories such as Category:Holden VE Commodore SS V; it does not give validation to edits such as this. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That the overcat rule only applies to images and not categories? Where did you get that? The reasons for this rule are explained there and thus also apply to categories. My edits are not so ridiculous and it does not matter how much I understand of the matter. Even if I should be completely wrong with my interpretation of the rules, maybe you should ask first before you revert several times. Because that and nonsense reverts like this is what I like to call vandalism.

• Holden VE Berlina: You should decide if the Berlina is separate from or a derivative of the Commodore and use one of the categories (applies to all Berlina/Calais/etc. in any series).
• SS/SS V: it's very kind of you to place "convinient" categories, but not nessecary, even annoying. Like above, choose one parent category and we're good.
• 1980s revert: if the respective articles in Wikipedia are correct, these series where built only in the 1980s. If you know better, please improve Wikipedia first, revert second.

Best regards --MB-one (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Overcat: "Over-categorization is what happens when an image is placed in several categories within the same tree"—it says nothing of categories.

• Holden VE Berlina: it is not up to me to decide this—it would conflict with the policy of neutral point-of-view. Technically, Berlinas are not Commodores, but most people don't know this, so having this category under "Holden Berlina" and "Holden VE Commodore" makes sense. Holden blurs the lines even further by listing "Berlina" under "Commodore" on their website. However, all Commodores (except the SS V) are represented by the letter "K" in their VIN and internal model codes. Berlinas are designated by the letter "L", "X" represents the Calais, and "P" represents the Commodore SS V. In other words, Holden considers them as separate models despite them being essentially the same.
• SS/SS V: it's two categories, not excessive at all. If you are that fussed about it, leave "VE Commodore SS V" under "VE Commodore" and remove it from "VE Commodore SS".
• Erroneous edit: sorry, that was a mistake.

Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Community bicycle programs

Hi! As stated in my edit summaries, please don't remove Category:Community bicycle programs from Categories which are in Cyclocity but not in Category:Community bicycle programs by country. Cyclocity refers to the system/operator and is not sufficient for locating a community bicycle program based on geographical location. Thanks. --Elekhh (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Community bicycle programs isn't a geographical category either. The usage of both categories is a classic overcategorization. --MB-one (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No is not. You seem to be forgetting that the role of categories is to allow easy navigation. Nobody will find Category:Citybike Wien‎ in Cyclocity which is a company system by JCDecaux operating in several countries. Until Category:Community bicycle programs in Austria is created the best place for the category is in Category:Community bicycle programs. --Elekhh (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

To solve this, we should simply create the categories, you proposed. D'accord? --MB-one (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

File:F575MM.jpg

File:F575MM.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

KALARICKAN | My Interactions 10:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz R230 SL 55 AMG

Ciao. Credo che tu sia in errore [1] : la Mercedes-Benz R230 SL 55 AMG non è una "Coupé", ma una "Roadster". --Ligabo (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC) [Hello. I think you're wrong: the Mercedes-Benz R230 SL 55 AMG is not a "Coupé", but a "Roadster".]

Well, it's both, due to it's foldable roof. This one is currently closed, hence a coupé. --MB-one (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Berlin, Littenstrasse, Gedenktafel Hans Litten 008.jpg

Hello!

The plaque commemorating Hans Litten, right?? --Starscream (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No doubt about that, but the whole Littenstraße commemorates him and the plaque is already sorted as part of the Littenstraße. Best Regards --MB-one (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Car identification

Hey, thanks for some car identification you did in images I did!--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Flo rida kfest.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Flo rida kfest.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:Flo rida kfest.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!

----Motopark (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cities and villages by lake Constance - Arbon

Wollte nur mal nachfragen, warum Arbon aus Category:Cities and villages by lake Constance entfern wurde. Arbon ist zwar auch in der Unterkategorie Category:Cities by lake Constance vertreten, gehört aber doch klar AUCH in die Kategorie "CITIES and villages by lake Constance". Die Kategorie "Cities..." habe ich geschaffen, um dem besonderen Status dieser Städte Rechnung zu tragen. Trotzdem fände ich es problematisch, wenn in der Kategorie "Cities and villages..." nicht alle Bodeseegemeinden (inklusive Städte) zusammen aufgeführt wären, da der Kategoriename sonst hinfällig wird. Ich habe die Änderung daher rückgängig gemacht. Wenn du nicht einverstanden bist, lass mich bitte wissen warum. --Pingelig (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wie du schon erwähnst, sind die jeweiligen Städte schon in einer Unterkategorie, also müssen sie nicht auch noch eine Kategorie darüber einsortiert werden. Wieso sollte das problematisch sein sollte, dass die Städte nicht in der Oberkategorie einzeln erscheinen, verstehe ich nicht. Die Städte sind eben nochmal in einer Unterkateorie, das ist doch Okay so. --MB-one (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sie sind schon drin, aber ich habe Zweifel daran, dass jedem klar wäre, dass die Städte nicht direkt in der Kategorie "CITIES and villages..." eingeordnet sind, sondern erst in der Unterkategorie "Cities by lake Constance". Um diese Unklarheit zu beseitige müsste man dann auch die Unterkategorie "Villages by lake Constance" schaffen, wozu ich ehrlich gesagt keine Lust habe. Wenn das sonst jemand übernimmt - gerne.--Pingelig (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

File:BlackBerry_8800.jpg

File:BlackBerry_8800.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Hydrox (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:BlackBerry_8100_(Pearl).jpg

File:BlackBerry_8100_(Pearl).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Hydrox (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:HTC_Herald_PDA_Phone.JPG

File:HTC_Herald_PDA_Phone.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Hydrox (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO number

Can you tell me why you continue to skip the IMO number category for the Deutschland ? --Stunteltje (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The category is redundant, because it is already sorted in Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Baunummer 328, which is sorted by IMO. --MB-one (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Miedecke-NASCAR.jpg‎

Why is it unidentified? --Falcadore (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad. Actually it's identified as Chevy Monte Carlo. Best regards --MB-one (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ships built at and ships built in

You removed the Category:Ships built in Germany, when there is a category ships built at a certain shipyard. Much better. I added the categories by country just by routine in these cases. Is it a good idea to ask for a bot to change these things all over Commons ? --Stunteltje (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. A bot could do this job better. Would you ask for one? Best regards --MB-one (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Stunteltje (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Napier Deltic

Please stop removing categories from this, especially without any explanation. These are all relevant categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not all relevant. Some are redundant (e.g. Category:Opposed piston engines is a subcat of Category:Engines by cylinder layout) and some are contradictory (e.g. Category:Diesel locomotive engines and Category:Marine diesel engines). Thank you. --MB-one (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

All four of those are relevant.

Categorization with MediaWiki is not a detailed means to define the identity of the items categorized. In particular for categories, membership means that there is some strong and useful relationship between the two; no more than this. It is thus often a mistake to follow the most common error of wikipedia editors for categorization, thhat of assuming that all child relationships make the entire parent relationship implicit. Although in many cases a supercat can be removed when a subcat of it is also applied (the supercat is indeed implicit), this is not always the case.

In this case, the Deltic is an opposed-piston engine, but it's also a unique cylinder layout (the deltic triangle) as well. It is wrong to remove either of these.

Secondly, why should the original naval use of the Deltic contradict its notable and by far the best known use, for diesel locomotives?

Andy Dingley (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your view on categorization. The 'categories are just associated relationships' approach causes inconsistency, which can be solved, imo, only by more precision. But in the spirit of AGF, I'll let it stay. --MB-one (talk) 07:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really about categorization on MediaWiki. It's a simple case here, and it's to do with the Deltic, not the ontology tools we use to represent it, and their limitations.

The cylinder layout is because there are two aspects of cylinder layout that are significantly demonstrated by the Deltic. One of these (opposed pistons) is well-known, and so is represented in the category tree already, with other members too. The other is the Deltic's unique "deltic layout". This is not merely a sub-category of opposed pistons, it's actually much closer to "cylinder layouts" than "opposed piston" is. We might create a new sub-category of "box engines" (sub cat of layouts) to include the German / French experimental aero engines post-WW2 as well as the Deltic, but that would merely show the same categorization issue. Making these merely a sub-cat of opposed pistons alone would hide the fact that their layout is remarkable, compared to the Jumo 205 and the Leyland L60.

The issue of marine / locomotive is just an unwarranted assumption that category membership is exclusive, i.e. locomotive engines can't also be significantly used in boats. That's just wrong, long before you get to the tools used to represent it.

Assuming MediaWiki to be a weak categorizational tool (which it is) doesn't cause inconsistency, it helps to avoid it. The way (in any ontology tool) to create inconsistencies and conflict is to assume that the tool is more capable than it really is. Assuming precision that can't actuallly be delivered is what causes the trouble. Our solution for MediaWiki is to recognise that it's only a vague tool at best and not to expect too much from it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

BMW E46/4

Hi, regarding your creation of the category BMW E46/4 and the moving all E46 3 Series sedan images into that category, what does the "/4" represent? Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 08:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, E46/4 is the type number for E46 sedans (E46/3 = wagon, E46/2 = coupe, E46/2S = M3 coupe, E46/2C = convertible, E46/2CS = M3 convertible, E46/5 = compact). --MB-one (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

AIDA passenger ships

Any reason for deleting the nationality of registration of these ships? --Stunteltje (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, as usually: overcat. All AIDA ships are registered in Italy. --MB-one (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Have to realise that the Category:Passenger ships of Italy regards the ships, not shipping lines. Only very seldom we have not the nationality category together wih the ship. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ships of AIDA Cruises is a category regarding ships of a specific shipping line. And the registration in Italy apply to all of those. I don't see a problem here. --MB-one (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the edit fixing my edit to the Chevy Camaro gallery. Must have been an inadvertent mouse click...I was browsing the category but have no memory of making that edit. That's never happened before... I don't think. :-) Fletcher6 (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Deprecated License

---

Hello. Thank you for uploading Image:GeeseMI.jpg, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the image correctly? If you are not able to do this, the image will be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the village pump. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 17:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Erfurt

Moin MB-on, ich hatte extra Erfurt als Cat eingetragen, da ich hoffte das ein Erfurter mit sagen / ordnen kann, was genau auf dem Bild zu sehen ist, jetzt ist zweimal das Projekt vertreten aber keine Cat im Bezug auf Erfurt. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 05:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Ra Boe,

meine Erfahrung mit einer solchen vorläufigen Überkatergorisierung sind leider gemischt bis schlecht. Im speziellen denke ich nicht, dass sich ein Erfurter mal eben hinsetzen und durch über 900 Bilder wühlen will, weil ja vielleicht das eine oder andere ein paar mehr Kats verträgt. Daher schlage ich eine stärkere Differenzierung innerhalb der Kategorie:Landtagsprojekt Thüringen (z. B. Category:Landtagsprojekt Thüringen - Abgeordnete -> Category:Landtagsprojekt Thüringen - Abgeordnete (Linke) ) vor um so zu einer umfassenden Verschlagwortung der Bilder zu kommen. Was hältst Du davon? Grüße --MB-one (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Moin MB-one,

Sorry bin gerade im RL heftig angespannt & Internet spinnt, ich werde versuchen einen Erfurter zu aktivieren (ich hatte da jemanden), ;) da ich die Bilder nach wie vor für verloren halten, wenn sie nur bei Landtagsprojekt landen. Gleichzeitig ist Deine Idee natürlich auch gut. Ich werde mich drum kümmern, dauert aber etwas länger. :) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 23:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Bentley Continental

Hi, Why did you revert my classification? Eddaido (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The sort keys where counter intuitive. So I set them back. Best regards --MB-one (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Then our intuitions lead us to different results! My system worked very simply and it does not affect anyone but a Wikimedia reader seeking the truth (and using my way of thinking, yours too high-powered or something).

But we hit the keyboard at the same time of day, I have just wiped out my intended lengthy message on here. I suppose if there are very few (true) Flying Spurs there are therefore just very few pictures of them - but I guess one day they will accumulate and the uploaders will have to learn to go hunt in S1 S2 S3 Continentals . . .

In addition those expensive publicists will have already lined up for re-cycling other fine old Bentley model-names.
Will leave the matter on my back-burner, for the moment. Eddaido (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft classifications

Hi MB-one, I have noticed that you remove the operator of specific aircrafts. Can you please stick to the guidelines given e.g. [[2]]? It helps a lot to find a particular aircraft if min. the sub-categories "Aircraft by registration", "Aircraft registered in [country]", "Aircraft type" without allocation of the airline and the "Operating Airline" are added to a particular aircraft registration. Please have a look at the given procedure if the operator changes under the same registration (e.g. from Lauda Air to Austrian Airlines). Cheers, Simisa (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about Category:OE-LNT (aircraft)? This aircraft was used by Lauda Air with their livery but is now in service of Austrian Airlines with the Star Alliance livery. Because there are images of both liveries in the category, it can't be sorted in either of the airline categories. But, no problem, the individual images are sorted by their respective airline. Cheers --MB-one (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ships by function and by operator

The German Rettungsschiffe were categorised bij operator and vy fiunction. I reverted the withdrawals. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hatches

I noticed that you went and classified a few old cars as hatchbacks (a Polski-Fiat 126, a sixties Fiat 600). They are not hatchbacks but rather two-door sedans, since they lack a rear door. Please take care in the future. Mr.choppers (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hochhaus vs. Wolkenkratzer

Die beiden Aktionen: [3], [4] sind unverständlich. Die Bilder sind von Hochhäusern wie die anderen Hochhäuserm in Category:Skyscrapers in Wuppertal auch... --Atamari (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ganz einfach. Das sind keine Wolkenkratzer sondern Hochhäuser. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hochhäuser gabs damals nicht, und in der Kategorie sind alles Hochhäuser --Atamari (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Fendt logo

Hallo MB-one, hmm … hast Du denn eine Idee, wie man bei den zahlreichen Fendt-Fotos diejenigen (momentan nur dieses eine) wiederfinden kann, auf denen Schriftzug/Logo und Ackergaul gut zu erkennen sind? Grüße --:bdk: 01:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Da gibt es mehrere Möglichkeiten: die Bildbeschreibung, eine Galerieseite oder (falls es eventuell mal mehrere solcher Bilder gibt) eine eigene Kategorie. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Gut. Kümmerst Du Dich dann bitte auch darum, wenn Du es partout nicht in Category:Fendt lassen willst? So wie's zuvor war, erscheint es mir nämlich pragmatisch und durchaus sinnvoll, weshalb ich Deinen Edit auch ein Mal begründet zurückgesetzt habe (werde das aber sicher nicht mit „Editwar-Gewalt“ durchsetzen). Bildbeschreibungen sind m.E. nur mäßig geeignet, wenn's nicht um sowas wie z.B. Ortsangaben und Typenbezeichnugen geht, die international weitgehend einheitlich benannt sind. Die aktuelle ist nur in Niederländisch vorhanden. In diesem Sinne … --:bdk: 15:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

MAN

I think you missed the essence of the category. This is the name of the company, not just MAN. See [5] --Stunteltje (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Airline fleet categories

I have begun a discussion on airline/aircraft fleet categories at Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Airline_fleet_categories. Could you provide input there, and if possible, perhaps let projects on other wikis know, because this will assist them in finding relevant materials as well. russavia (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Honda Civic/CR-X del sol

I can't quite understand why you felt the need to split this into two categories. I know they have a slightly different name, but I can't see how this is important enough to separate the photos? Best regards, Mr.choppers (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Classic Fiat Abarths

Do you have any suggestions for how to best organize old Fiat Abarths? For instance, those based on the Fiat 600 were sold as 750, 850, 1000TC, and countless other names - many of which were also used on other, completely different cars. I suggest creating the following categories: Category:Fiat 600-based Abarths, and Category:Fiat 850-based Abarths. Then, if it becomes necessary, we could create subcategories to reflect the various versions. I haven't quite thought it out yet, and welocme any suggestions for improvements. Cheers, Mr.choppers (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Undoing things

Hi MB-one,

Please avoid removing ship categories, e.g. Category:A (ship, 2008) and Category:CMA CGM Casablanca (ship, 2005). All categories about specific ships should be included in Category:Ships by name. All ships built in Germany in Category:Ships built in Germany unless they are added into a more specific category for the shipyard.

Happy new year. --  Docu  at 10:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Cc-bplrt whole annot.gif

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Cc-bplrt whole annot.gif, 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:Cc-bplrt whole annot.gif]]). 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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories in Manhattan

Why are you removing legitimate categories? Many of your choices have been incorrect, and I've had to revert them. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the streets of Manhattan, but, for instance, Amsterdam Avenue and Central Park West are not entirely in the Upper West Side, so an image can go into either of those categories and the Upper West Side category because one is not the parent of the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. I did it because the street categories where mistakenly sorted in Upper West Side. If that is not the case, they missing cats should be restored. But e.g. this revert wasn't necessary, because the category was (and is once more) clearly overcategorized. --MB-one (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Central Park West is an extension of 8th Avenue, so it's linked to the "8th Avenue" category for that reason, but it is not 8th Avenue, so it also gets categorized in "Streets in Manhattan", the category where streets that are not named "Avenue", "Boulevard" etc. go into. Seems quite clear and logical to me, and useful for the user who may be searching using a number of different search terms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

SIA B747 in Star Alliance livery

Hi! I restored some categories you removed from File:SIA Boeing 747-400, Star Alliance livery, SIN.jpg - Here is why:

• 1. The Singapore Airlines HQ is in the background, so the Singapore Airlines category is needed to categorize it as a photo of the airline HQ
• 2. It's clearly at Changi Airport, and not all photos of this aircraft will be at Changi airport
• 3. If/when the aircraft is repainted in normal colors, then the files in Category:9V-SPP (aircraft) will have to have individual categorization as "Star Alliance livery" photos

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. To get around this, I've created an extra category for the headquarters. Best, --MB-one (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) - Thanks for making the new category! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Kulturdenkmal Berlin - Parameter Ortsteil

Hi, könntest Du die Vorlage so anpassen, dass beim Fehlen des Parameters "Ortsteil" nicht der Kategorie-String erscheint? Es wäre dann mal zu überlegen, ob man mittels Bot-Einsatz den Ortsteil-Parameter überall automatisch einsetzt. Es gibt übrigens auch Denkmäler, die in mehreren Ortsteilen liegen (zB die Reste der Mauer) - was machen wir damit? --Alexrk2 (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, ich bin da leider nicht so stark bewandert, wie man das mit dem "if"-Parameter löst. Bezüglich Denkmälern über mehrere Ortsteile könnte man die Vorlage um optionale weitere Ortsteilparameter erweitern, oder von Hand in die übrigen Kategorien eintragen. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, blick da leider auch nicht so wirklich durch - ich frag mal in der Vorlagenwerkstatt nach. --Alexrk2 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:The gogo-dancers red G-String.jpg

File:The gogo-dancers red G-String.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!

Blue Fox xyz (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

Hi MB-one/Archive 2, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one.
• Please do not tag redirects as {{Speedy}}. Other projects, like InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Escaut

Hello. Do as you like, but please consider that "Escaut" should appear in Category:Rivers of France by name. It is the official name in France and south Belgium. See history of Category:Escaut which cannot be a simple redirect, because redirections don't allow categorisations (discussed with Foroa). Jack ma (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, as the language here is english, categories are named after english designations, which in this case is Scheldt. But if anyone doesn't know, he searches for “Escaut” an is automatically redirected to Category:Scheldt. Best, --MB-one (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that "Escaut" shoud appear in the alphabetical list Category:Rivers of France by name as its French name, Escaut, not Scheldt. I arrive at the conclusion that redirections should allow categorizations (as I did before with Escaut), nothing really wrong with it, and maybe the only solution. A discussion at Template:Category redirect is opened. Jack ma (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there may be a problem with your discussion page, because I have to modify the whole page to modify this subject (there is no "Modify" at each subject, e.g. Escaut). Regards, Jack ma (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What should be the purpose of an unused subcategory “Escaut” in the “Rivers of France by name”? I had a similar discussion with Foroa in which I explained, why I don't believe, that a full list of geographical subjects in a country have to be a category of its own. A list on Wikipedia would do the job even better, as it would solve all problems concerning different names in different languages. But, once again, the relevant language on Commons is english, even in categories about France. And that is why we use Category:Scheldt in France, not Category:Escaut en France or Category:Schelde in Frankrijk. Best --MB-one (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with your last sentence. There is no problem about this. Scheldt is the official name of this river, but Escaut is the official name in France, and is a well known river in this country, has given its name to cities, etc. That's why I cannot find any easy solution for Escaut to appear as such in “Rivers of France by name”, redirecting of course to whole Scheldt (or Scheldt in France). There must be a solution; let's wait, see also with Template talk:Category redirect#Categorization allowed ? ... Jack ma (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Red Porsche.jpg

File deletion warning

File:Red Porsche.jpg has been marked as violating policy, because it is considered unfree. This file has been, or will be soon deleted. The file is licensed under a license that does not permit unlimited redistribution, commercial use or the creation of derivative works. Wikimedia Commons is a free media repository, which means that unlimited redistribution, commercial use and the creation of derivative work must be allowed. See Commons:Licensing for more information. If you want to ask permission from the author of the file, please do so using a template from Commons:Email templates. For images, you may find it useful to read Commons:Image casebook.

Common Good (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Skyline GTR.jpg

File:Skyline GTR.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!

mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 17:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Decategorizations of Category:Napier Deltic

Five times now you've removed entirely correct and appropriate categories from Category:Napier Deltic, all without any attempt at explanation or discussion. Please stop. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not explaining my edit. But it was neccesary, because the deleted categories where neither correct nor appropriate. Some are too specific, e.g. not all Deltic engines where used in a single type of locomotives. The images of these specific engines that are part of a British Rail Class 55 can be directly sorted as such. What's worse, Category:British Rail Class 55 and Category:Napier Deltic are sorted in a circle without any logical reason. The other deleted category was simple overcategorization, because Opposed piston engines is already a subcat of Engines by cylinder layout. Repeatedly reverting without any discussion is also not nice, by the way. Best --MB-one (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You've removed the following:

• Category:British Rail Class 55
• Category:Engines by cylinder layout
• Category:Diesel locomotive engines
• Category:Marine diesel engines

• Category:Engines by cylinder layout

What other engines have this unique and distinctive delta layout?

I presume you removed this because of a transitive relation via Category:Opposed piston engines? That is a common mistake for MediaWiki categorization, both here and at WP. There is a very strong direct relationship for this engine design with the unique layout, and this should certainly be preserved. The cylinder layout is even the more significant feature, rather than the opposed piston or uniflow aspects.

MB-one: It doesn't matter how unique this layout is. If this specific engine is an opposed piston engine, it should be categorized as such. Anything more is overcategorization. The uniqueness can be explained in Wikipedia. Trying to explain something by categorizing here is doomed to fail.

• Category:Marine diesel engines

This engine was developed to a naval requirement, and deployed in several classes of warship. Why do you dispute this?

MB-one: I don't dispute that some of these engines where used in naval applications. The problem is, that not all deltics where used in vessels. Hence, this category is too specific.

• Category:Diesel locomotive engines

This engine had its canonical use in locomotives (multiple classes), to the point of giving the class their common name. Why do you dispute this? You have still explained none of this.

MB-one: Same here, too specific.

• Category:British Rail Class 55

There is I admit some issue with this categorization, as the categorization is currently commutative. However that is largely the real-world situation - the locomotive had as much influence on the engine as the engine had on the locomotive. There is a clear use case in both contexts for showing the other category as a sub cat. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

MB-one: I had to answer inline. Hope you understand. Best--MB-one (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Helvetia (ship, 1964)

I assume you didn't look at the bottom of the page, to the higher categories. Because you categorised her under buildings now!! I think this is definately not correct. Ships are as much as possible to be categorised in ship categories. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't fully aware of the definition of that category. Sorry for that. --MB-one (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry not necessary at all. I am miscategorising too sometimes and alway glad when someone helps. --Stunteltje (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Umkatgorisierung Kreuzfahrtschiffe

Moin MB-one, ich halte die Umkategorisierung der Kreuzfahrschiffe nicht für besonders gut. Zum einen gibt es bereits in einem anderen Kategorienstran die Category:Ships by operator, zum anderen erschwert es die Suche nach einzelnen Schiffen. Beispielsweise muss nun man Fachmann sein um die Pride of Aloha zu finden, denn nicht jeder weiß, dass sie zur Norwegian Cruise Lines gehört. Die Kategorie ist meines Erachtens nicht so groß, dass eine Unterkategorisierung nötig ist. Viele Grüße --Rolf H. (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Auch meine Meinung. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Das Problem kann ich nicht nachvollziehen. Wenn jemand die Pride of Aloha sucht, tippt er das in die Suchleiste ein und findet die Kategorie, sieht dass sie zur NCL gehört und damit ein Kreuzfahrtschiff ist, weil die NCL nur Kreuzfahrtschiffe betreibt. Nach meinem Dafürhalten ist jede Kategorie, die nicht auf eine Seite passt und sich außerdem einfach und sinnvoll weiter unterteilen lässt zu groß. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Solch eine Kategorisierung führt bei Kategorieneuanlagen zu einem heillosen Durcheinander, denn der eine Benutzer wird ein Schiff in die Hauptkategorie setzen - der andere wird wird die Unterkategorie nehmen. Bisher war diese Kategorie klar alphabetisch strukturiert - und so sollte es auch weiter bleiben. Wenn einer alles Schiffe eines Unternehmens sehen möchte, steht im frei die Category:Ships by operator zu nutzen. --Rolf H. (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Guten Morgen, hier einmal ein Beispiel für das typische Durcheinander, das bei einer Kleinkategorisierung entsteht. Ein Großteil der der MSC-Container-Schiffe ist nur noch in der Category:MSC container ships gelistet. Später angelegte MSC-Kategorien tauchen aber auch wieder in der Hauptkategorie auf [6]. Bisher sah man in der Hauptkategorie sofort alle unkategorisierten Bilder - nun muss man mehrere Unterkategorien abklappern um zu gucken ob sich dort eins versteckt. Viel Grüße --Rolf H. (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ich verstehe zwar was gemeint ist, kann aber immer noch kein großes Problem darin erkennen. Letztendlich werden immer auch wesentlich allgemeinere Kategorien abgeklappert werden müssen, um neue Bilder besser zu kategorisieren (bspw. werden immer wieder neue Bilder in Category:Ships einsortiert werden, die eigentlich wesentlich genauer kategorisiert werden könnten). Diese Arbeit wird aber einfacher, je weniger direkte Oberkategorien bei einem Bild (oder einer Kategorie) eingetragen werden müssen. In deinem Beispiel müssten eben die verbliebenen MSC-Schiffskategorien von Container ships nach MSC container ships verschoben werden (ca. 15 Klicks mit Cat-a-lot) und gut ist.

Um meine Ansichten nochmal ganz kurz zu fassen: wenn es genauere Kategorien gibt, halte ich es eigentlich immer für sinnvoller, diese zu nutzen. Und: jedes Bild/jede Kategorie sollte so wenig wie möglich direkte Oberkategorien haben. Könnt ihr dem nicht zustimmen? Grüße --MB-one (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hallo MB-one, leider nicht. Es handelt sich hier um einen separaten Kategorienstrang. Der eine ist Ships → Ships by function → Passenger ships → Cruise ships → River cruise ships, der andere ist Transport → Transport organizations → Transport companies → Shipping companies → Ships by operator. Es kann doch nicht sinnvoll ein, Kreuzfahrtunternehmen unterhalb von Kreuzfahrtschiffen einzuordnen. Die jetzige Untekategorieübersicht ist verwirrend. Man solte auch bedenken, dass die Kategoriebetreuer Stunteltje, Mike1979 Russia und ich lange an der Einheitlichkeit dieses Kategoriestrangs gearbeitet haben und nicht so viel Lust haben andauernd durch 10 bis 12 Unterkategorien zu klicken um nachzugucken ob etwas falsch kategorisiert wurde. Viele Grüße --Rolf H. (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

 Info Hallo Mb-one, ich habe die neue Katgorisierung soeben gänzlich revertiert. Als Alternative zu Deinem Begehren wäre eine Kategorie Category:Cruise ships by shipping company möglich - die dann auch unterhalb der Category:Cruise ships angesiedelt sein kann. Gruß --Rolf H. (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, solange dadurch keine Überkategorisierung entsteht, soll es mir recht sein. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ships by name and Category:Bremen (ships)

Hi MB-one,

I was wondering how we should improve the description of Category:Ships by name to describe that it should only include categories about specific ships and that all these should be included there. Would you have any suggestions? BTW accordingly, I fixed the categorization of Category:Bremen (ship, 1903) and the like. --  Docu  at 05:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Napier_Deltic_in_marine_applications

Napier Deltic in marine applications 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) 21:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Napier_Deltic_in_railway_applications

Napier Deltic in railway applications 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) 21:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Grand Central Terminal MetLife Building Park Ave viaduct Summer Streets.jpg

Please stop removing Category:Grand Central Terminal from this image. It is not "over categorizing" to include the category for one of the primary subjects of the image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

But it was already included. Because MetLife Building is a subcat of Grand Central Terminal. That's what I mean by overcategorization. Best regards --MB-one (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The MetLife Building is not part of Grand Central Terminal, it's built over it. Please not change the categorization of things on theoretical grounds when you don't know anything about them in real life. We're here to help our readers, and no one looking for pictures of Grand Central is going to look under the MetLife Building. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the categorization of MetLife Building under Grand Central Terminal is wrong. Will you fix that, or should I? Best --MB-one (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No, leave it alone. It's built on top of the Grand Central station area, even if not part of the concourse building. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Either one is part of the other, or they are two separate buildings but not both. --MB-one (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't change the categorization, leave it as it is, your hypercorrections are not helpful to our users. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, we need a new category “Grand Central Terminal - Concourse Building”? --MB-one (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't. Again, things are just fine as they are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

An image needs to be overcategorized in order to be correctly categorized. You see the paradox here? --MB-one (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no paradox, because there's no "overcategorization." The image is properly categorized. The category's are properly assoicated. Please drop this, because you clearly have no idea what the situation is. You're trying to shoehorn a real-life circumstance into an artificial scheme when you really don't have a clue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think, "your hypercorrections are not helpful to our users." says it all. You do this a lot. Please don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

== File:1960 Corvair.jpg ==

File:1960 Corvair.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!

 Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO numbers

I realy compliment you for adding all that shipyards to the system. But please, please, realise the use of the IMO number. That number is intended for the lifetime of the ship and for that reason the shipyard has - in my opinion - to be added to the IMO numbers. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --MB-one (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

File:66 El Camino.jpg

File:66 El Camino.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!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Castillo de Hohenschwangau, Füssen, Alemania, 2012-10-06, DD 03.jpg

Hallo, ich habe gestern das von dir wegen der "unglücklicken" Komposition abgelehnte Bild neu hochgeladen. Der Maibaum ist weg und nun frage ich mich, ob noch irgendetwas dagegen spricht, das Bild als gut zu bezeichen. Grüsse, Poco a poco (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! US Capitol Police Cruiser Ford Crown Vic rl.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. --Mattbuck 07:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orange Lamborghini Gallardo LP560 fl.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 21:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Automobilsalon Genf 2013

Hallo Matti

Da du einer der fleissigsten Kategorisierer meiner Autofotos bist, hier schon mal eine kleine Vorinformation: Ich werde am ersten Pressetag des Genfer Automobilsalons (5.3.2013) wieder eine umfangreiche Fotoberichterstattung machen und die Fotos wahrscheinlich recht rasch hier hochladen. Es wäre schön, wenn du wieder beim Kategorisieren helfen kannst. Vielen Dank! Noebu (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ich freu mich drauf. --MB-one (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ship categorization

Please, stop disruptive editing in ship's categories. The principles and rules of ships categorization was explained you here and here.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I don't know, what edits you are referring to. Furthermore, there isn't any consensus on the "by class" categories yet. So please avoid overcategorizing. Best regards --MB-one (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There is consensus on the "by name" categories. So avoid deleting categories "by name" when add categories "by class". And don't delete categories "by state" when add categories "by shipyard", please. User shouldn't know where shipyard is.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding state or country and shipyard, it's irrelevant if users know where a shipyard is there's a search bar in the upper right corner for such problems. At least it is absolutely no reason for overcategorizing.

And please stop using these silly images on this discussion page. Thank you --MB-one (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Search bar is another method of searching. According you we should delete all categories because search bar is. Remember that categorization is for searching and if overcategorizing simplify searching for some users it should be. Your deletions destroy the consensus tree of categories "by name" and harms the work of bots and service pages. For example, Commons:Ships by shipyard.

And please stop editing replicas other users.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for altering your entry. For the future, please avoid using unnecessary symbols in plain text. Ok? Back to topic: Can you please explain what bot needs overcategorizing? User:Category-bot doesn't need it. Even if, it should be fixed, instead of the general rule. Regards --MB-one (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Of cause I prefer templates but I didn't find it on commons. The rule by your link not applicable here because there are different trees of categories: "by name" and "by class" which are connected to each other. And if you read the rule by your link you find that the rule is to simplify the search for users, but your edits complicate the search. This was explained by Rolf H. Docu wrote about the service page.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see, why it shouldn't be applicable. Yes, there are different category branches but they are all somehow linked to each other. That's the beauty of it. Because in the end a file has to be sorted only in a few categories directly. Nevertheless it is sorted both very specific and universally. Secondly, there's a misunderstanding, about what Rolf H and I discussed. Even if it is somehow related to your point (we talked about consistency over the category branch), it's not the same. Though, we reached consensus on that topic.--MB-one (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

At first rule is applicable to files (always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those). So ship's categorization corresponds to the rule, because each file with a ship is in a unique "by name" category except in rare cases with unindefined ships. We discuss about categorization of categories, not files. And this was explained to you by OSX. Second see, please, "Commons:Categories#Improper categorization of categories is a cause of over-categorization". There are different branches for searching in ship's categorization which are connected to each other: Ships → Ships by shipyard → "by shipyards" → "by name" and Ships → Ships by country → Ships by country of manufacture → Ships built in... → "by name". When you replace "Ships built in..." to "by shipyards" you complicate the work with the second branch.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

We obviously disagree on the general overcat rules. In my opinion it is also applicable to categories itself. But, so be it. I will try to avoid further conflict with you. Let's turn to your last point. Hopefully we can at least find consensus on that one. You opt to have any specific ship name directly in the "built in [country]" category, right? I'm sorry, but I can't see any sense in that. Currently we have about thousand direct subcats in Category:Ships built in Germany. Why not use a nice way for better sorting these ships. Since any ship from a specific shipyard is built in the same country. The outcome would be a clean category with a list of shipyars in the specific country plus maybe some ships from exotic shipyards without own category. On the other side, it would be easier to create new cats for ships, since fewer supercats are needed. In conclusion: I see much more use in that solution than your proposed separated branches of categories. As far as I know, User:Stunteltje is with me on this one (User_talk:MB-one/Archive_2#IMO_numbers). Best regards --MB-one (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As I know User:Stunteltje didn't ask you to delete "by state build" category, he asked you to add "by shipyard" cat into IMO cat. I offer to group "by shipyard" categories into new "Ships built in Germany by shipyard" category. So there will be only one subcategory in "Ships built in Germany".--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I already proposed such a category some time ago. It was reverted. But I still think that it would make sense. --MB-one (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

About Category: Trenhotel and Category:Talgo

Created Category:Trenhotel Sud-Express. Category:Sud-Express is not Category:Trenhotel or Category:Talgo. Category:Trenhotel is always Category:Talgo.--JT Curses (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. --MB-one (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)