More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.
|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
Crane at File:Hkw-west-ffm011.jpgEdit
- Nun, die Bildbeschreibung enthält jedenfalls das Stichwort Kran. --Brühl (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ach - tatsächlich. Danke! Wenn ich en:Crane (machine) (“generally equipped with a winder (also called a wire rope drum), wire ropes or chains and sheaves, that can be used both to lift and lower materials”) und de:Kran („In der Ausführung zum Umschlagen von Schüttgütern wird er meist als Bagger bezeichnet.“) lese, dann würde ich eher nicht sagen, dass man das Gerät als Kran bezeichnen kann. Dennoch könnte man ihn vielleicht als einen bulk-handling crane ansehen, der halt statt einer Schaufel eine Archimedische Schraube besitzt. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea to transfer barges to your new category, unless they are not to trace by name. Unless you have the intension to transfer about 1000 barges yourself to that category. First to find out wether or not old barges were self-propelled by the date of the image. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- In some respect you are surely right. But whenever I searched in Category:barges, I found it not being sufficiently structured. Especially this official types of vessels (page 4) not yet could be found by categories. Auf deutsch gibt es schon seit einiger Zeit den Artikel de:Gütermotorschiff (und de:Tankmotorschiff). Now it makes sense to connect the article Gütermotorschiff and Category:Self-propelled barges by commonscat. Of course, it is not always easy to recognize a barge as self-propelled. In doubt, you simply should avoid any transfer. I especially started to transfer only such vessels that are seen in movement. --Brühl (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
It is usefull to extend the discussion of Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03/Category:Riverboats with also this category. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- @Stunteltje: The discussion linked above was closed in September 2014. Does this one need further discussion or can it be closed? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
As this starts to be a discussion of general interest, I transfer the discussion to the discussion part of the category. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Correction: to the category discussion page. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 01:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
|File:Wappen Erbach.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.