Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Te750iv!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Contents

Reversion of your edit on Shake'N'Bake fire test pictureEdit

Please have a look at my reason for reverting you: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Shakenbake_001.png

Further, the information concerning the presence and crucial use (Crucial, because removal of those insulations would be a listing violation, which leads to building code violations where these systems are used....) of various types of insulation are shown at the top of the following page:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shake-N-Bake_Fire_Test

--Achim Hering (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Achim Hering, sorry, i hope, you find a way to add this different insulation case to the disambiguation Category:Insulation. I wasn't able to find a useful hint neither at the image description nor at Category:Shake-N-Bake_Fire_Test. --Te750iv (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Even when I reversed your edit, it did not show back up again. One of those useless clusters?--Achim Hering (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Achim Hering, disambiguation categories are hidden by default. Please see the checkbox "Show hidden categories" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. --Te750iv (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Drensteinfurt, Rinkerode, Hemmer -- 2014 -- 3929.jpgEdit

Hallo! Ich sehe deine Änderungen schon ein paar Tage. Vielen Dank für alle deine Korrekturen. Gerade bei dieser Datei hast du dir viel Mühe auch bei meiner eher ausführlichen Art der Beschreibung gegeben. Auch hier besonderen Dank. (Ich kann mir in etwa vorstellen, was du dabei gedacht hast. ;-) ) Ehrlich gesagt macht das meiste davon mein Bot. Manuell wäre mir das zuviel. Also keine Sorge wegen dieser Beiwerke. --XRay talk 04:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

VerificationEdit

This is correct

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Veluz330 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Electricity pylonsEdit

I think your efforts to categorize all possible electricity pylons in Russia or elswhere, are going too far. Here on this picture, the pylon is hardly visible; at least, it is no more significantly present than the car, the road sign, the building at the left, the advertising billboard,... Consequently, this all stuff has to be categorized?? And you put it all to "industry buildings", which is wrong, as electricity pylons are far from being buildings... --A.Savin 03:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

thought about the "industry buildings" categories, too. The structure was already in use when I started. Possible alternatives would be "structures" or "infrastructure" (category scheme inconsistent and underdeveloped for many countries), or "towers" (but definition not true for low or guyed pylons), or something else? Do you have an idea? --Te750iv (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:High-voltage overhead power lines by country / Category:Overhead power lines by countryEdit

Hi Te750iv,

when starts a power line to be high voltage?--Stella Liebeck (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

depends on definition and context. often, per IEEE > 1 kV AC or > 1,5 kV DC, in EU grids usually > 100/110 kV, here someone defined > 30 kV. categories are inconsistently used, unfortunately. --Te750iv (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Umspannwerk GarenfeldEdit

Hallo Te750iv, vielen Dank für deine Erstellung der „Category:Umspannwerk Oege“ und den zusätzlichen Ergänzungen. Ich bin in dieser Beziehung leider Laie und deshalb besonders dankbar. Nun habe ich gerade die „Category:Umspannwerk Garenfeld“ angelegt und wollte sie auf „High-voltage substations i. N. R-W.“ unter G eingliedern, was mir aber leider misslang. Ich würde mich nochmal über deine Hilfe freuen. Vielen Dank und Gruß --Bärwinkel,Klaus (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

LocationEdit

Thank you very much for catching the location mistake. I am just curious about how you realized it. Thank you!--Jetam2 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jetam2, i created Category:Malženice power plant and therefore looked up the location. Openstreetmap [1] is a great help. --Te750iv (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh great! Thanks for your work!--Jetam2 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The/theEdit

Hallo, kannst Du mir bitte mal den Sinn des sehr schnellen Anlegens und SD-Antrags auf die von Dir angelegten Kategorien mit The/the erklären. Danke. Hystrix (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hystrix, ich hab die nicht angelegt, verschieb die nur weil die Navigation sonst nicht funktioniert ([2] [3]). --Te750iv (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Du hast bspw. Category:Symbols from the Rheinisch-Bergischer Kreis erst vorhin angelegt, und dann gleich wieder SD beantragt. Wozu? Hystrix (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
beim Kategorieverschieben wird eine Weiterleitung angelegt, lässt sich nicht verhindern. steht auch da: Te750iv moved page … "-the". Zum Warum siehe die beiden Links zum Navigationsproblem oder die alte Ansicht mit Doppelungsnotwendigkeit bei [4]. das ist nur bei diesen Wappen/Flaggen/usw-Kategorien so, weil die anders als alle anderen Kreiskategorien mit "the" im Namen erstellt wurden. --Te750iv (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
„beim Kategorieverschieben wird eine Weiterleitung angelegt ...“ Das wäre mir neu. Kannte ich bisher nur von Dateiumbennnung. Verstehe ich es richtig: Du hast die the-Kategorie Category:Symbols from the Rheinisch-Bergischer Kreis verschoben zur Nicht-the-Kategorie Category:Symbols from Rheinisch-Bergischer Kreis? Dann bleibt immer noch die Frage, weshalb hast Du diese the-Kategorie als Weiterleitung angelegt? Diese gab es vorher nicht. Und weshalb dann ein SD?. Weiterleitungen sind doch ok. Nicht alle the-Kategorien wurden von Dir angelegt. Hystrix (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
ich habe die "the"-Kategorien nicht absichtlich als Weiterleitung angelegt! das passiert automatisch, keine Möglichkeit das zu verhindern. Guck bei der verschobenen Category:Symbols from Rheinisch-Bergischer Kreis bitte nach der history, stammt nicht von mir sondern original von 2010. Nicht wieder gelöschte Weiterleitungen führen dazu, dass sich Links in der Navigation verdoppeln (beispiel momentan, solange nicht gelöscht: "Aachen", "Rhein-Sieg-Kreis" und "Rheinisch-Bergischer Kreis" bei Category:Flags_of_Rhein-Sieg-Kreis). Das Problem mit dem zusätzlichen "the" gibt es auch nur bei bestimmten Kategorien (Thema "Symbols" in Kreisen), der Rest ist einheitlich ohne.
Nochmal zu meiner ersten Antwort: Siehe die zwei Links (Vorlagenänderungen von/Diskussion mit Pelikana). Wenn wir die Namen mit "the" so lassen würden, dann fehlen entweder Links in der Navigation oder die Navigation selbst muss verdoppelt werden damit verschiedene Kategorien mit und ohne "the" angezeigt werden können. --Te750iv (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Firewall_Electrical_Substation.jpg&diff=next&oldid=69302712Edit

Nice catch!--Achim Hering (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

High-voltage transformer fire barriersEdit

Hallo: Ich habe gesehen, dass Du das Link zu dem englischen Wikipedia Artikel entfernt hast. Ging das Link gegen irgendwelche Regeln hier? Ich habe das schon öfter eingesetzt, mit Links zu den deutschen und englischen Artikeln. Wenn es nicht geht, geht es eben nicht. Kein Beinbruch. Ich weiß nicht ob Du auch Wikipedia editierst. Weißt Du um das Regelwerk über diese Wände sowie Ventilhallen etc. in Europa? Meines Wissens nach geht alles über Sonderfälle, anstatt normale Bauordnung, zumindest in der BRD. Wenn Du etwas Näheres über das Regelwerk in Europa weißt, wäre das gut bei Wikipedia einzusetzen.--Achim Hering (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Achim Hering: the link is automatically included by {{Wikidata Infobox}} because it's stored at d:Q53729954. --Te750iv (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, danke. Wusste ich nicht.--Achim Hering (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Nachtrag @Achim Hering: Geregelt ist hier sehr viel: de:Brandschutz#DIN- und EN- Normen listet einiges auf, was auch für solche Anlagen gilt, das kennst Du bestimmt. Aber die Normen sind typischerweise nicht frei einsehbar, muss man sich also immer ausleihen oder kaufen. Zu Trafomauern habe ich vor einigen Jahren mal was gelesen (Fachzeitschrift, weiß aber nicht mehr welche). Grundsätzlich hast Du für Deutschland wahrscheinlich recht. Genehmigungen von Umspannanlagen und Konvertern sind meistens immissionsschutzrechtliche Verfahren (nicht Bauleitplanung), wo dann im Einzelfall Nachweise auch über die Einhaltung diverser technischer Vorgaben beizubringen sind (TÜV, Brandschutz, Statik…). Die jeweils relevanten Normen müsstest Du bei der DKE finden oder erfragen können. Die haben den Überblick. --Te750iv (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Meiner Erfahrung nach versucht man gerne Sonderprüfungen für den Einzelfall aus dem Wege zu gehen. Anstatt dessen zieht man dann Sachverständige zu Rate, um zu beurteilen ob etwas funktionieren würde wenn man es brennen sollte :-) Diese Sachverständigen sind so ein Thema für sich, insbesondere wenn sie selber keine Erfahrung mit Formel und Prüfungen haben. Selbst wenn Sie bei Prüfungsinstituten gearbeitet haben, heißt das noch längst nicht, dass sie die Physik oder Chemie der Materialien so gut verstehen wie sie meinen, da die Formeln in Berlin liegen, beim DIBt und Fremdüberwachungen auf der Basis von physikalischen Eigenschaften passieren, anstatt, wie z.B. bei UL, auf der Basis des genauen Kenntnis des Produktes sind, wobei der Inspekteur 4x pro Jahr kommt, anstatt nur 2x und die genauen Formeln hat PLUS Prüfungen über Materialeigenschaften macht…--Achim Hering (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Smita Nair Jain at book launch in Mumbai.jpgEdit

Dear Sir,

I have added the reference. Please see the source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/smitanairjain/37657250461/in/dateposted-public/ Please tell me how to sign ??? Regards,

Suzanne

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanneKruger (talk • contribs) 10:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Converter station HerdersbrugEdit

I see you're interested, I have some more pics, I'll upload them tomorrow! —M!dgard (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@M!dgard: that's great, thanks! --Te750iv (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@M!dgard: and I noticed the detailed work you've put into the panorama image, well done. Must have been a very interesting visit. --Te750iv (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hoover Dam BypassEdit

Thanks for splitting those two cat descriptions. Could you please use an edit summary though? It would make things much clearer for those reviewing recent changes and seeing a big deletion of content. Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

ok, will try to remember next time. --Te750iv (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

License attributionEdit

Hello. I noticed that you recently changed the attribution requested by the uploader at File:Hoovernewbridge.jpg, and added a specific attribution requirement to File:Mike O'Callaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge (Hoover Dam Bypass).jpg and File:Мост_через_Колорадо_речку_возле_Лас_Вегаса.Ноябрь_2008._-_panoramio.jpg. The attribution requirement of the Creative Commons licenses are part of the legal license offered by the author of these works, i.e. these license requires that "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author". When editing files please don't modify the attribution requested by the the original author without good cause. Similarly, please don't add a specific form for the attribution unless you have reason to believe the author explicitly requested a specific form for the attribution as part of the license to their work. —RP88 (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@RP88: Hi, i can stop such edits for now, but I don't think you are right in the given cases (= your reverts are not properly justified).
At the bot-transferred File:Hoovernewbridge.jpg there is no indication that Stubbleboy, the author and original uploader, required an additional "at English Wikipedia" in attribution. Now you reinserted this string[5] without plausible reason (some may even regard this as unintended Wikipedia promotion, but that's not my point; it's simply not the way Stubbleboy specified his authorship, which was originally Author=~~~, and nothing else).
At the other two bot-transferred files, I also followed the attribution in the manner specified by the authors (here: name, no pseudonym, no supplement) provided by the original sources (here: panoramio/flickr). My view is, that such edits actually are improvements, and not "unwanted modifications", as you seem to regard them. Parameter usage in license tags is common for many bot uploads from free sources, too; and relevant name strings are automatically added on upload. See e.g. all geograph.org.uk files. In these cases, where the uploader (prominently listed in file history section) is not the author, it is an easy way to allow better differenciation. Improved visibility of the required attribution (here: actual author's name) should help with choosing the correct part. In past discussions, such clarifications have been described as wanted or "much needed". Did that assessment change?
Finally, your above comment suggests, that there are possible variants (more than one specific form) of attribution in the above cases, and that I inappropriately "modified" something. But I did not. See for example Ken Lund's images. The name "Ken Lund" is required (name form specified through flickr; you also have to check out the /people/ subpages there, and sometimes may find additional/deviating requirements). A modification of the name (or, in other cases, a nick) would be a shortening to "K.Lund", a reverse order like "Lund, Ken", or whatever else. This is not allowed. Attribution has to follow the form originally chosen/given in a source. --Te750iv (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
To be clear when I said "don't modify the attribution" I was only referring to the first example (where you changed it from "<author> at <wp>" to "<author>"). If the author actually requested "<author> at <wp>" as their attribution, changing it to just "<author>" would be incorrect. I don't have the necessary rights on en.WP to see the now deleted en.WP file description page for en:File:Hoovernewbridge.jpg, so I can't see if the uploader originally requested a specific attribution. However, I have been able to confirm that at the time of the transfer the {{Self}} template on both en.WP and Commons did not forward Self's author parameter into the CC license attribution parameter like it does now (this feature was added on 10 January 2010 on Commons). So it is probable that the "<author> at <wp>" attribution that I restored is incorrect. While I can't be sure without the ability to examine the now deleted content at en.WP, examining contemporaneous uploads from the bot, I believe that as the templates worked at the time the original uploader's CC license probably didn't show a specifically requested form of attribution. Without additional information, I think your choice of just "<author>" is the better choice.

Similarly, I was unduly harsh with regards to the other two examples. I think setting the attribution parameter to a specific value tends to imply that the original author has specifically requested a particular form of attribution, but in the case where only the author need be identified the CC licenses are actually quite flexible with regards to manner. For example, I think it would be OK for a reuser, who otherwise complies with the CC license, to identify the author of File:Mike O'Callaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge (Hoover Dam Bypass).jpg as "K. Lund" since there isn't a request at the source for a specific form of attribution beyond that of identifying the author. On the other hand, when the original source does request a specific form of attribution I think it is not sufficient to just identify the author. However, I think your edits are consistent with the CC licenses and are reasonable in circumstances where you think a potential reuser might be confused as to the name of the author, and for this I apologize. I'm going to revert my edits. —RP88 (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@RP88: thanks. I'm not sure about what you said about flexibility and abbreviations when a name or nick is clearly given (I guess you won't be happy yourself if someone attributes you as RP8 or RP only). But anyway, it's obvious we both are trying to be careful and make improvements. --Te750iv (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Power lines in EthiopiaEdit

Why did you empty this category? This is clearly disruption what you're doing. --A.Savin 09:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

there are only photos of Overhead power lines in Ethiopia, see there. --Te750iv (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The correct way is this one rather than emptying the category and create a de facto redundant one. I think you have been long enough here to understand it. Please refrain from that kind of edits, otherwise I'll block you. --A.Savin 09:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
You made one edit adapting categorization, wow, great. (not the only existing and correct option, as you call it, but ok)
Before you made two reverts[6][7] where you removed a more precise and correct category, and reinserted a (in case of Ethiopia's infrastructure as of 2018, and in the foreseeable future) rather superfluous general one. You did that using unexplained rollback against policy. Afterwards you threaten to block me (see above). Ever heard of "work constructively with others"? This really conflicts with the admin community role.
In the past you already – against verifiable facts – accused me of vandalism. I'm not willing to tolerate such aggressive behaviour a third time. Please calm down and rethink your manner of administration. --Te750iv (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
When you call mere emptying of legitimate categories a possible option, there's surely a problem with your understanding od policies, not mine. EOD for me. --A.Savin 11:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
That is exactly not what I said. Your reinterpretation of "options" is dauntingly limited, obviously not characterized by constructiveness, as is your unsubstantiated threat of blocking.
In other words: "that kind of edits" i should "refrain from" – otherwise you'll block me (see your words above) – are [8] and [9], where I simply moved two images from Category:Power lines in Ethiopia to Category:Overhead power lines in Ethiopia (created before). This is absurd. Both images clearly show overhead structures, and not underground power lines, so nothing's wrong (but nonetheless you reverted these edits, see links above). I regard such trivial moves as "business as usual", like e.g. moving images of bicycles from Category:Transport in… to Vehicles in…, or even better Bicycles in…
While I keep track of hundreds of related categories in the power grid field (with more than 22,000 images up to now), it always needs some time (due to much maintenance tasks around) to take care for corrections, for identifying additional images, and for refining categorization.
  • Prudent categorization is often associated – only temporarily, and unavoidably – with residual/incomplete categories in the scheme (empty A, some images still in B or C, some already in D, and the like). Such imperfect situations may last minutes to hours (as in this case), or maybe about a day or two (only in exceptional cases, a bit longer).
  • We all (you too) interrupt serial editing for various reasons sometimes. We also may switch from the scope of one category to related tasks and give priority to those (e.g. when you coincidentally spot misidentified or wrongly categorized files, or when you fix something at Wikidata, in anticipation of infobox usages in new categories).
  • To avoid rash decisions (here: what to do with Power lines in Ethiopia?), it's normally advisable to postpone your consideration about further developing or deleting/keeping of a specific old or new category to the point of time when you can better overlook the actual nature and amount of possible contents. (relevant in this case: what kinds of power lines exist in Ethiopia? any non-overhead lines? which images are discoverable? is a meta category needed?)
  • When making changes or additions to a given structure, you always have to start with one aspect (e.g. create a new category), which means on the other hand, that you postpone other aspects (e.g. identify and move more images, cleanup interwiki links/redirects/categories, or vice versa). You can add a red category to images, and create the category page later, or you can start with an empty category. Similar options exist when you move and rearrange images/categories. Choices (temporal order) depend on individual preferences, and chances are great that your choice interferes with another user's practices. Therefore everyone is free to help each other, e.g. to add a missing category in the meantime, nothing special.
So what's your problem? You seem to expect other humans to function like robots with magic skills. In fact, I am (and you are, too) incapable of putting every image and every category in perfect order at once. In reality, step-by-step work is quite typical for Commons, which is such a huge platform, that permanent work-in-progress is its natural status. Especially long-term users should have realized that.
Considering the 2 regular edits you based your resentment on, I really do not see that you (or any other admin) is allowed to block me (or any other user in a similar situation). The manner you acted here, with unexplained rollback and aggression, is, from my point of view, outrageous and unacceptable. --Te750iv (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

More electric stuffEdit

Hi Te750iv, you might be interested in additional images I recently uploaded in Category:Construction of Höchstspannungsleitung Dörpen-West–Wesel in Dersum, Category:Umspannwerk Dörpen-West, and Category:Umspannwerk Diele. As you know more than me about this electric stuff I hope you can categorize some details visible in these images. Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Deine ÄnderungenEdit

Hallo Te750iv, zunächst eine kleine Anmerkung zu Deinen Änderungen: Ich bin grundsätzlich mit diesen Änderungen einverstanden und habe kein Problem damit, da einige davon meine Eingaben weiter konkretisieren, und das ist nur zu begrüßen. Da Du aber offensichtlich die Genauigkeit sehr liebst, doch noch eine kleine Anmerkung meinerseits (mit viel Humor zu nehmen!).

Die Änderungen bezüglich der Ortsangaben sind nicht ganz korrekt, und die Angabe für den Lagerort der Kabel mit Schaarbeek/Monnoyer stimmt nur annährend. Der Quai Léon Monnoyer 3 wird von der ELIA zwar mit dem Firmensitz angegeben, das ist korrekt, die abgelichteten Kabeltrommeln liegen jedoch auf dem ELIA-Anwesen ca. 120 Meter süd-süd-östlich vom Quai Léon Monnoyer und ca. 90 Meter west-östlich von der Rue de Rupel, der westlichen Begrenzung des Grundstücks, und weiter ca. 30 Meter von dem vorbeifließenden Flüsschen Senne (Zénne), der östlichen Begrenzung des Grundstücks. Die Koordinatensysteme ergeben für diesen Lagerort, der wie gesagt nur einige Meter neben dem Firmensitz liegt, die von mir angegeben Daten - und damit den Lagerort Evere.

Die Grenze zwischen den beiden Kommunen verläuft ltd. Karten wenige Meter entlang der Senne. Unter "Photographs by Horst J. Meuter/Belgium findet sich eine Aufnahme, die Dir alles aus seitlicher Sicht zeigt. Wo die Kabeltrommeln exakt lagern und welche Kommune sich über die Gewerbesteuer freuen darf? Ich habe nicht weiter nachgeforscht, ist aber unter +32 2 546.77.11 möglicherweise tatsächlich machbar. Ich wünsche Dir weiter alles Gute Horst70 (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hallo @Horst J. Meuter: "Schaarbeek" und "Monnoyer" sind nur Bezeichnungen von Elia für die benachbarten neuen/alten Gebäudekomplexe inkl. Umspannanlage, nicht als Ortsangaben gemeint. Was hast Du für Karten benutzt? Administrativ liegt das gesamte Gelände, auch der Lagerplatz, in Brüssel/Stadt (lt PLZ und verschiedenen Karten, hier OSM). Die Gemeinden Schaarbeek und Evere beginnnen demnach erst weiter südöstlich der Bahnanlagen (fr:Gare de Schaerbeek), nicht schon an der Senne. Kenne aber die Eingemeindungshistorie nicht, die Grenzziehung war vielleicht mal anders (Region Brüssel-Hauptstadt scheint kompliziert zu sein). Danke für den Tipp zu der seitlichen Ansicht (jetzt auch in Category:Incinerators in Belgium). --Te750iv (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

RenameEdit

Hi, Apologies for declining your request earlier I failed to spot the typo in the Ooredoo name, Glad someone's on the ball tonight! :), Anyway sorry and thanks for resubmitting, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

WishEdit

Hello. Help improve for [10]. Thanks you. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.214.51.98 (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Dank und FrageEdit

Hallo Te750iv,

erst einmal vielen Dank für Deine vielen Korrekturen (Tippfehler u.a.) gestern Abend.

Eine Frage: Was ist aus Deiner Sicht das Kriterium, ab dem ich statt "Category:Wind turbines..." "Category:Wind farms..." verwendet werden sollte?

Viele Grüße

--Molgreen (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Molgreen: "Category:Wind turbines…" passt eigentlich immer, vor allem wenn nur eine oder wenige WKA abgebildet sind und man das nicht genau identifizieren kann. "Category:Wind farms…" ist gut, wenn schon ein Windpark benannt ist (Dateiname/Beschreibung, auch wenn nur eine WKA davon abgebildet ist) oder das Bild eindeutig einen solchen zeigt (viele WKA, auch wenn kein Ort identifiziert). WKA-Zahlen, ab denen man von Windparks spricht (ab 3, 4, 5, 10 oder mehr), scheinen uneinheitlich gehandhabt zu werden (früher geringere Zahlen als heute, abweichende Auffassungen verschiedener Organisationen/Staaten). Wenn ich mich nicht irre, dann ist Lely Offshore Wind Farm mit 4 WKA der kleinste Windpark, für den ich mal eine Kategorie angelegt habe. --Te750iv (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Te750iv:, vielen Dank für Deine Erklärung. Gruß --Molgreen (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

CogenerationEdit

Hey. I saw you working on cogeneration links on wikidata and though of reaching to you, since my next edits affects related categories you created here on commons.

I intend to rename Cogeneration plants in xxx to Cogeneration power plants in xxx for clarity, and to standardise the term wikimedia-wide. And at the same time move content from Combined heat and power plants in xxx. Please let me know if you object, as I plan to do this within the next hour. Best wishes, Rehman 11:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rehman: thanks, already noticed and thought to ping you in parallel, you've been faster.
Renaming cogeneration plants to cogeneration power plants is ok, reasonable.
In regard to the merging of cogen and CHP plants, I would object, as their meanings are in fact different (not the same scope in different languages). For example Heizkraftwerk (well-established term in German and other languages) exactly means "heat and power", but excludes other cogeneration types like chemicals and power (such plants are more rare, but exist e.g. in large industrial chemical parks with own power stations), or trigeneration (e.g. Kraft-Wärme-Kälte-Kopplung). The English term is less specific (or more comprehensive, as you like), so please keep the CHP categories as subcategories, and for clarity reasons, don't merge them in Wikidata items.
Currently cogeneration (Q221620) also has this mix of meanings (already worked on it some months ago, but left it for later)… don't know the optimal solution yet. --Te750iv (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Te750iv, yes you are right. I'll leave the CHP categories as above. Happy editing :) Rehman 12:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Over categorizationEdit

Hi. Please stop spreading images. Adhere to the Commons Regulations. --Allforrous (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Even on a small thumbnail   one can easily note that there's a pylon pictured, so Category:Electricity pylons in Georgia (which you repeatedly removed) is perfectly fine for this image. --Te750iv (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Um, Seattle is not in MassachusettsEdit

I know it was April 1 but... https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=344630112&oldid=328274961&title=File:Coffrin_000332_172947_518364_4578_(36776417566).jpg

Posting mostly in case you may have made the same mistake on a bunch of files I'm not watching. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

of course, stupid mistake, thanks for correcting. --Te750iv (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

(Overhead) power lines ...Edit

Nothing against narrowing down categories, but the longer the category names are, the more awkward the editing becomes. It would have been a good idea to let the old ones standing as redirects. Files put into the old categories would then be resorted automatically. The deletion of the old categories carries the risk of them being set up anew, thereby causing unnecessary duplication. Perhaps something to consider in the future. --Schlosser67 (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Te750iv".