User talk:Markscheider

Return to "Markscheider" page.
Filing cabinet icon.svg

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 30 days. For the archive overview, see Archiv.


Hi. Please, when you create a new category combining two or more criteria, categorize it by both (all) of them. For example, if you created "Steam mining locomotives", categorize it not only as "Mining locomotives by motive power" but also as "Steam locomotives". If you create a category "Hungarian mining locomotives", it's evident that it should be categorized not only as "Mining locomotives by country" but also into some categories of Hungary (Locomotives of Hungary, Mining in Hungary etc.). Try to respect the logic of categorization. --ŠJů (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a lot of work, but i will try. Btw, i'm not quite sure if Category:Mining locomotives of Hungary is that much better. I'm trying to explain: the vehicle in question (EL-9) is/was only operated by some hungarian mining company, but originates to germany. Therefore i meant Category:Hungarian mining locomotives as mining locomotives, used in hungary. Category:Mining locomotives of Hungary, as suggested, implies for me mining locomotives, built in hungary. The same, of course, applies for the other Countries. Last, but not least: i'm not the great categorizer, but only a miner, who sees the work if it's need to be done. And maybe you can help me with a still unsolved problem: there's underground and above-ground mining (i.e. open pit mining in most cases) and locomotive types differ in size and construction for their respective uses. Category:Underground Mining locomotives was easy, but what about the other ones? TIA, --Markscheider (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Country categorization is an old problem of vehicle categorization. See this proposal and its discussion – probably more discussions passed, not only this one. However, new categories should be as much as posible compatible with the existing category system and naming conventions. There exist Category:Locomotives by country and their country subcategories are named "locomotives of ..." and combine together all three local criteria - 1) where the vehicle was photographed, 2) where the vehicle or the operator were registered, 3) where the vehicle was produced. The third criterium should be applied preferably through manufacturer subcategories. The first and the second criteria are difficult to separate - the best way is to use double-categorization in case of vehicles photographed abroad, or categorization through operator subcategories. Fortunately, most of mining railways are not international. Thus, a photo of a locomotive should by categorized by country where the photo was taken (which is often identical with country of operator) and paralelly by type→manufacturer→country of origin. (See also subcategories of Category:Buses in Poland as other examples. --ŠJů (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to get along in the future.--Markscheider (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


Hallo Markscheider!

Woher weißt du das? Ich vermute dies ebenso, nur aus sicherer Hand könnte ich keine Quelle nennen. --High Contrast (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Daher. ;) Ich habe da ein wenig Arbeit reingesteckt, möchte aber nicht generell ausschließen, daß ich das eine oder andere falsch einsortiert habe. Bleistiftsweise habe ich im Netz ein Foto einer MiG mit der Bortnummer 503 gefunden, die der polnischen Luftwaffe zugeschrieben wird. File:RAF Museum Cosford - DSC08458.JPG zeigt allerdings den ungarischen Stern. Ob das nun dieselbe ist, kann keiner sagen. Ich halte es prinzipiell für nicht unmöglich und -wahrscheinlich, daß ein Museum so einen Vogel umlackiert und umkennzeichnet, wie hier geschehen. --Markscheider (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC) ist eine verlässliche Quelle. Gute Auffindung! Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Ich schaue da weniger auf den url, sondern versuche das, was da geschrieben steht einzuschätzen. Und das kam mir in dem Fall plausibel vor. --Markscheider (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Selbstverständlich sollte beides in die Beurteilung einfließen. Viel Spaß --High Contrast (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Landmines at the Panzermuseum MunsterEdit

What's the sense of this category? You created a lot of useful categories for AFVs, but IMHO this one is absolutely needless! It's highly unlikely that there're some other landmines in the museum than this one and somebody will make further photos. And I'm not talking about the fact that you didn't added specific category (Landmines) to this cat, as well as a lot of anothers. I think that too much categories are almost as bad as few categories. Ain92 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It was a whole lot of pics in Category:Panzermuseum Munster, virtually all of them named "Panzermuseum Munster nnnn.jpg". Nobody would've found there anything. It was whole lot of work, too. Besides, i've still not finished the job. Maybe you've noticed, that i've begun to add parent categories to some of them, tanks first. Rome wasn't build i a day, so it goes. Now for the landmines: when i created this cat, i did not have fully ovelooked all files, because there too much of them. Now we can go into details, switching files to other cats, if i've made some mistakes (and i'm sure, there are some). If there are cats like this, with just 1 file - i would be glad, if you or someone else would go ahead and recat them into the main cat or wherever it may fit. Last but not least - if i had fine tuned every cat i've created at the spot, i would not hve come that far as i'm now. And the last part will be to upload my own pics. This i will do only, if they are of better quality or show some details we still miss. --Markscheider (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I could wait for some time, maybe a week or about that (I could forget about it for a longer period). I think it'ld be great if you notice me after you finish all the work and then we could check it together. Ain92 (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, thank you after all for categorization, I underestimated your work at first. ;-) And why do you think that tanks in the Panzermuseum Munster are not tanks of Germany? Ain92 (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Categories containing only one file causes the greatest inconvenience because one can't see the preview icons of images. Personally I usually create a category if I'm sure that it'll contain at least about 5 files and it'll be added in ≥2 accurate categories. Ain92 (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. All tanks are AFVs, but most AFVs aren't tanks. Also IFVs are usually not considered to be APCs. P.P.S. I tried to add this berore your answer, but you were faster. =)
While i do agree with you in generell, this case was different. You can't handle some 500+ Pics in this kind of way. I rather choosed to sort them roughly first and fine later. Errors and mistakes occur, both ways. I think, you'll help and already begun. For the tanks cat: i've pondered a while, because i see it like you do. But than - it's a _tank_ museum, and i -OTOH- didn't wan't its probably most sought after cat too deep bunked. --Markscheider (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Of course 500+ pics are obviously too much. However, one could view all photos in three clicks that is sometimes easier than going deep in the wilds of cat tree. I'm ready to wait and help you, moreover, actually I've already started. =) For the tanks cat: I think that in this case we should not violate the principles of categorization but use a template like {{cat see also}}. Ain92 (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed.--Markscheider (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Mining categoriesEdit

Hi - You've moved some images from Underground mining to Mining schemas and diagrams. Since the latter is a more general category including also mining machines it is not really an either-or situation. We could add back the underground mining category to the diagrams or better we could split the schemas category up with Category:Underground mine diagrams or something similar. I do not have time for the latter project. If you do, you could also consider splitting Category:Roof support into architectural and mining subcategories. If you do not, then I will at some point find the time to add underground mining back to the underground mine diagrams. Regards Dankarl (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There are too few files in Mining schemas and diagrams for a split, i guess. I'll add underground mining back. --Markscheider (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Last modified on 7 January 2014, at 19:47