The fossil cliffs of Steigerberg, discovered in 1997, is a 35 million years old geotope located in Rheinhessen, Germany. It covers an area of approximately 40 × 70 meters and a height of about 15 meters. In 2002, the cliff was because of large damage caused by frost covered with sand to protect against further erosion. The images show some characteristics of a fossil cliffs as hollow throats, swirl holes and abrasion surfaces. Unfortunately this wonderful site is now covered.
Info It is difficult to find the correct category/scope, the only one I found its "Geology of Germany", but there its no subcategory defined, which could be "tertiary sea" or "fossil cliff". -- Arcalino (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info found a german category, which also links to a german wikipedia article, but can´t link it to the scope: Steigerberg. -- Arcalino (Diskussion) 14:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
An English Wikicommons category has been created for these images and linked to the VISC. The first image has been tagged with the new category Category:Rock formations in Steigerberg. Please tag the remaining images in the set and then it will be a properly formatted VISC. Regards-Godot13 (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A set should be a package of images which are each necessary to illustrate the scope, which can't be covered by one VI. E.g. the two (or three) sides of a coin. Thus it's distinct from a gallery, which is a compilation of many images, as they happen to be available, none of them useless, but neither indespensable. This is a pure gallery IMO. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info to Ikar.us "A VIS (criteria in commons) is a set of images illustrating some scope in such a way that the set, when taken as a whole, is significantly more valuable than a collection of individual images".These 14 carefully selected images is a set out of approx. 70 pictures taken more than ten years ago from a geological site which is now gone (covered with sand). Each of these images is indispensable because of the unique view or detail it shows. After the upload a geologist thanked for the images and pointed out several details on them. I think your review does not hit the thing comprehensively and perhaps you can think about your vote. -- Arcalino (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The images don't have titles. Their names are just numbers. Their pages have all the same text. They have all the same location. The set isn't prepared comprehensively. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Ikar's point. I believe that if you were to choose the three or four most representative images, and briefly explain for each image why it is included in the abbreviated set it would be a much improved VISC. -Godot13 (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've noticed that you're uploading duplicates of your files, using them with different names in different places, which makes cleanig it up tedious. Please stop these actions and clean it up yourself. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Ikar.us. Until the duplicate files are cleaned up I have to hold off on my support and give Neutral. Have the duplicate files deleted and I will support the newer brief VISC. --Godot13 (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please refine/define the scope. As worded it does not exist.-Godot13 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
