Last modified on 1 March 2015, at 08:48

User talk:Markscheider

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)

Category Diving knifesEdit

Correct English spelling would be Diving knives, Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. How comes this consonant shifting? --Markscheider (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It's English, no logic need apply ;-)
Seriously though, the reason is probably historical and complicated, but I don't know what it is.
Thx, this is a hurdle that makes a non-native speaker like me stumble. --Markscheider (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Filterselbstretter 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!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Gazebo (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Herzliches Dankeschön für Deine Fotos zum JahreswechselEdit

Hallo Markscheider,

Snowman drawing.svg

Danke für Deinen Beitrag zum Weihnachts-Fotowettbewerb zum Thema Weinachtszeit, Winterzeit, Wendezeit''!

Mit Deiner Hilfe wurden commons um über 1500 Bilder zu Winter- & Weihnachtsthemen bereichert - mit einer großen Motivvielfalt, die von Weihnachtsmärkten und -dekorationen über Weihnachtsmänner, verschneite Landschaften und Schlössern zu typischen Speisen und Getränken reicht.

Wie Du vielleicht unserem Bericht im Kurier schon entnommen hast, haben wir die Community nun zu Abstimmungen in der Endrunde aufgerufen. Zur Wahl stehen die 14 eingereichten Artikel und 100 Bilder, die bis zum 20. Januar durch die Vorrunde und die Einbindung in Artikel ausgewählt wurden. Für die Gewinner, die bis zum 31. Jänner/Januar mit Eurer Hilfe ermittelt werden, stehen durch Unterstützung seitens von WMDE und WMAT insgesamt 12 Bild- und 4 Artikelpreise zur Verfügung. Da in jeder Kategorie – Bild oder Artikel – nur maximal ein Preis pro Teilnehmer möglich ist, sind die Preischancen groß.

Wir freuen uns, wenn Du Zeit findest, dich an der Wahl zu beteiligen. Du hast beliebig viele gereihte Stimmen, wobei erste Stimmen mehr zählen als nachfolgende (zur Reihung setzt Du einfach eine Zahl vor deine Unterschrift).

Um eine genüssliche Betrachtung der Bilder zu ermöglichen, sind die Finalisten nicht nur auf der Abstimmungsseite, sondern auch in einer Galerie zu finden.

Liebe Grüße und viel Spaß beim Bilder und Artikel bewerten!

Anna reg, Dr. Bernd Gross (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Cottbus 01 (RaBoe)-Cottbus 03 (RaBoe).jpgEdit

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Cottbus 01 (RaBoe)-Cottbus 03 (RaBoe).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 08:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, it's a derivate work of the following files:
  • Cottbus 01 (RaBoe).jpg
  • Cottbus 02 (RaBoe).jpg
  • Cottbus 03 (RaBoe).jpg

I've had some trouble with uploading, particulary "derivate work" wasn't displayed. I tried several times, then gave up. My intention was to settle this later, but i forgot about it. Then in realised, that User:RaBoe has had already done the same stitching and loaded it up under: Cottbus panorama 01 (RaBoe).jpg. So, to make a long story short, my version of this panorama should be deleted. Thanks for reminding! --Markscheider (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Markscheider".