User talk:MB-one/Archive 5

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2992).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aspark Owl, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3341).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hyundai Kona, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3168).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 18:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Suzuki press conference, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2399).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A bit more of brightness would be good, but ok --Poco a poco 10:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alpina, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3108).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 19:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Kia Proceed Concept - front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Range Rover Sport SVR, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3071).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Bit dark upper right. but good quality for me.--Famberhorst 15:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ford Edge, IAA 2017, (1Y7A3333).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 15:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3479).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Wikijunkie 22:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz EQ A, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2973).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Wikijunkie 22:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! VW ID Crozz, Volkswagen press conference, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2029).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cvmontuy 20:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lexus RC, IAA 2017, (1Y7A3392).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Audi RS4, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2886).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Your car?--Famberhorst 17:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! IAA 2017 (1Y7A2740).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Mercedes-Benz X-Class at IAA 2017.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment I think we will have better images of the front of this car soon. Therefore I would change the scope, for example: Mercedes-Benz X-Class at … exhibition -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree with everything Lothar Spurzem said above. Mercedes-Benz X-Class at … exhibition would probably be alright if all other criteria are met. Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• ----

Scope changed from Mercedes-Benz X-Class at IAA 2017 - front to Mercedes-Benz X-Class at IAA 2017 --MB-one (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Audi TTRS (8S) at IAA 2017.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment I would change the scope: "Audi TTRS at … exhibition" for example -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

•  CommentYep, again I agree with Spurzem. Audi TTRS (8S) at … Exhibition would probably be a suitable scope. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• ----

Scope changed from Audi TTRS (8S) - front to Audi TTRS (8S) at IAA 2017 --MB-one (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support O.K. for me now. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

„Dritter Arm“

Hallo Matti, ich habe Dein Foto vom „Mann mit dem dritten Arm“ zu bearbeiten versucht. Schau mal, ob es Dir gefällt. Freundliche Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Spurzem: , das sieht ja richtig gut aus!. Danke. --MB-one (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BMW M5, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3538).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I like it -- Spurzem 15:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Suzuki outboard motor, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2266).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sharp and nice but the cut text and partial logo to the left and right are not good. Think you could remove/clone that? --W.carter 09:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)  Done Thanks for the advice. --MB-one 11:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Thanks! Very nice now. :) Good quality. --W.carter 11:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Honda Civic (1Y7A1724).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BMW, IAA 2017 (1Y7A2712).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Range Rover Velar, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3085).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-AMG Project One, Frankfurt (1Y7A3473).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Selbymay 11:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BMW Concept Z4, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3514).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Qoan 12:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lamborghini Huracán LP 640-4 Performante - rear.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL (preproduction model) - front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Mercedes-Benz Concept EQ - rear.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

File:UTC Aerospace logo.svg

---

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.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 10:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Range Rover L, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3068).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. DoF could have been deeper. --Peulle 18:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz Vision Tokyo, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A1904).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Peulle 18:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Structured Commons focus group!

Hello! Thank you very much for signing up to the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

How to organize ourselves?

This focus group is new and experimental, and I welcome your tips and thoughts on how we can organize this in the most convenient and productive way. For now, I have posted a few separate topics on the focus group's talk page. Please add your questions there too! If we all add that page to our watchlist, that's probably a good way to stay up to date with current discussions. Steinsplitter has also initiated a brand new IRC channel specifically for Structured Commons: wikimedia-commons-sd ^(webchat) which we invite you to join. Please let me know if you have other ideas on how to work together.

Current updates

• For your agenda: IRC office hour about Structured Commons, Tuesday 21 November at 18:00 UTC in wikimedia-office ^(webchat).
• A newsletter about Structured Commons is sent out later today. Its frequency will probably increase from now on. You are warmly invited to contribute to next issues — don't hesitate to add updates.
• The documentation and info pages about Structured Data on Commons have received a thorough (and much overdue) update this week, in order to get them ready for all the upcoming work. Obsolete pages were archived. There are undoubtedly still a lot of omissions and bits that are unclear. You can help by editing boldly, and by leaving feedback and tips on the talk pages.
• More things (logo? tools?) to be discussed on the focus group's talk page!

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 13:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

PATH station overcat = I don't think so.

I'm sorry, but I can't possibly see the use of Category:33rd Street (Manhattan) for Category:33rd Street (PATH station) as an overcat. Plenty of other PATH stations and New York City Subway station categories contain categories for the names of the streets they reside on. ----DanTD (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Err, yeah. Okay I see it. ----DanTD (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Volocopter,IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A1911).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cvmontuy 09:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hyundai i30 N, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3187).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Hmm. DoF small, noise and color noise. May be acceptable if noise is reduced. --XRay 12:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC) @XRay:  Done thanks. --MB-one 16:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)  Support IMO OK now. Thank you. --XRay 16:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Aspark Owl - rear.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Question Why should it not be possible to get a better shot of this car anytime soon? Further I miss some details in the description of the image. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• It's a concept vehicle and will not show up on the streets. The need for more details has been addressed on the category page. --MB-one (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Very complicated. ;-) -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support Scope is good, and picture is best in scope --Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support Very good and probably useful image especially looking forward to a report about the owl in Wikipedia. But poor scope. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Opel Vivaro Life, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3382).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Peulle 13:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! VW ID Crozz, IAA 2017 (1Y7A2031).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Peulle 11:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BMW i Vision Dynamics, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3509).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Smart, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A1907).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz E 400 4MATIC, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A3001).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment IMO sharpness should be improved. --XRay 05:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)  Comment @XRay: uploaded new version. Thanks. --MB-one 19:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Very weak  Support Not the best photograph, but acceptable for QI. --XRay 07:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Redundant cats

Hello again, I hope you forgive me for open yet another topic, but I would like to discuss this as a separate matter. Can you please explain in more detail why have you readded all those cats that I had already removed, complicating the work I was doing there? It's really great to have a fellow commoner helping categorizing that stuff, but we have to be inline together, or else one keeps undoing the work of the other. :P -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

(I'll not do more categorization until we agree on the strategy, to avoid conflicting edits. I'll be at wiki.pt probably - please {{Ping}} me when you answer, ok? Thanks)-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Darwin, the reason for that was due to my workflow in order to efficiently sort images from Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Brazil and Category:Cultural heritage monuments in São Paulo to more specific categories based on their templates. Those redundant cats are not needed any more and will be removed eventually. --MB-one (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

But while doing that, you flooded the cats I was cleaning with a lot of stuff I had already removed from there, and which were not in the categories Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Brazil or Category:Cultural heritage monuments in São Paulo. You re-added those categories out of the blue - I really do not understand why you have done that, but please, don't do it again, as it do indeed spoiled what I was doing there.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Darwin, of course since those files are properly categorized now, it wont be necessary to move them back again. Cheers. --MB-one (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

But many of them were already properly categorized and removed from Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Brazil and Category:Cultural heritage monuments in São Paulo, I really do not understand why you readded the upper cats that I had already removed. You forced me to redone most of the categorization work I had already done.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@DarwIn: the available tools do not allow to exclude said images and this was the most efficient way to get the job done. If you feel, that there's more work to do, due to my actions, please point me to the relevant categories and I will take care of it. Cheers. --MB-one (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You added new, redundant categories on images that I had already properly sorted out. Here is one example, among many dozens where you have done that thing, forcing me to redo all the sorting out on those images again. You even added that category again to images that belonged to entirely different buildings and places, that I had already removed from there. I really fail to understand why you have done that, unless it was a mistake (which would not be a problem at all, everybody does them). But in case it was not a mistake, please do not do that sort of thing again.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said, it won't be necessary to do it again. --MB-one (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2017

Hallo MB-one,

bald startet wieder Wiki Loves Earth Deutschland, unser Fotowettbewerb rund um das Themengebiet Naturschutz. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Du wieder mitmachst.

Bilder können vom 1. bis 31. Mai 2017 eingereicht werden.

WLE Deutschland kooperiert dieses Jahr mit der Deutschen UNESCO-Kommission (DUK). Die bestplatzierten Bilder von Biosphärenreservaten, Weltnaturerbe und UNESCO-Geoparks sollen auf http://www.unesco.de präsentiert werden.

Die allgemeinen Wünsche der Organisatoren haben sich nicht geändert: Schutzgebiet oder -objekt angeben, Originalauflösung, keine Signaturen oder ähnliches im Bild.

Die Suche nach geeigneten Motiven erleichtern unter anderem neue Listen aller deutschen Naturwaldreservate oder Listen der Naturdenkmale in Baden-Württemberg, im Saarland, Hessen und Brandenburg. Stöbere einfach mal bei Wikipedia, z. B. auf der Karte.

Eine Vorjury wird die Vorauswahl der Bilder übernehmen. Hier kannst Du Dich ebenfalls gerne beteiligen. Bei Interesse bitte unter WLE-Vorjury eintragen, das Passwort kommt per E-Mail.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg wünscht im Namen des Organisationsteams,

--Blech (talk) April 2017

Praça do Monumento

Please don't mess up those cats, it only hardens the categorization work I was doing there. I don't know why you've messed up a lot of the categorizations I had already done there, but please, stop doing that. In this case the picture shows both the monument, and the part of the park where it is ("Praça do Monumento"). That the monument is already a subcat of Praça do Monumento is irrelevant on that case.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Darwin, I have no intention to mess up categories. To the contrary: I'm also trying to fix messy categorization and I'm pleased to know, that I'm not alone in this field (as it seemed to be for too long). However please note, that overcategorization is not helping in doing that. If Category:Monumento à Independência is already a subcat of Category:Praça do Monumento, then Category:Monumento à Independência from the south square is already a subcat as well and should be categorized again.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello MB-one. I don't know why you have done that - but you copied a lot of files to redundant categories, such as "facade of the Museum" up to the Museum (for no reason that I can think of). On the other hand, you keep removing the category "Praça do Monumento" from a category which shows *both* part of Praça do Monumento (the central alley) and the monument. If you only put it under "the monument", it will be an incomplete categorization. As I said, that the monument is a subcat of the other cat is irrelevant on that case: It is *not* overcategorization. Please see the "Exception for images with more categorized subjects" section here: COM:OVERCAT. I will not continue categorizing there, until we reach an understanding on that. Cheers, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Darwin, the reason for that was due to my workflow in order to efficiently sort images from Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Brazil and Category:Cultural heritage monuments in São Paulo to more specific categories based on their templates. On the overcat matter: please note, that the exception mentioned is only meant for files, not categories, and only meant to be a temporary solution. There are no exceptions for the categorization of categories. Also there's no need for this, because all parent categories apply to all subcategories.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You say there's no need for that. Then explain me how somebody looking for the central alley of Praça do Monumento will find those images, if they are all hidden under the monument cat? Do you see why that cat is useful, and not "overcategorization" in anyway? The "central alley" is not a subcat of the monument. If the picture shows both the monument, and another part of Praça do Monumento, it should be under both cats. And despite what is written there, it's neither exceptional, nor necessarily temporary. It's the general rule around here, and a matter of good sense.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

An easy solution for this would be a category "Central alley of Praça do Monumento". Also, I respectfully disagree with your notion of "the general rule around here". It is not "the general rule" to disregard basic principles of categorization, even if it does occasionally happen. --MB-one (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

From my experience, here in Commons we do not strictly abide by "basic principles of categorization", as in the Wikipedias. We do it organically, using what is better for each case. In this case, your suggestion, while strictly following the usual categorization rules, adds an unnecessary level of complexity to the system. What would be the advantage of creating that, at this point? That goes against another good, basic principle of categorization, which is: You should not engage on Pigeonholing. The solution of putting it only under "monument" is plainly inadequate, for the reasons explained, while this other one adds unneeded complexity, and yet another level of categorization (and that can be considered overcat, BTW). I ask you to reconsider your judgment on that, as the solution I proposed does not have any disadvantage, and is clearly useful to help the categorization.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The problems with overcategorization are well explained here. Proper categorization doesn't add any complexity, but overcategorization does. --MB-one (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you please quote from here the relevant part that may apply to this case?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The relevant part is: top categories get cluttered and harder to maintain. That's the reason, that we decided not to employ the practice of overcatgorization except for very specific temporary instances. If you are unhappy with this policy, feel free to start a discussion on Commons Talk:Categories. Maintaining this discussion here is not going to achieve anything. If you go there, I would appreciate a Ping though ;-). Cheers --MB-one (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not cluttered, and there's no prediction that it will ever be. Putting that category only under "monument" is plainly and obviously wrong, as it does not represent only the monument, but other relevant parts of the park. If you think more specific categories should be added, then by all means, add them, but please do not remove the top category without doing that, as is correct, at least "temporarly", even by COM:OVERCAT. Can we agree on that, and proceed?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@DarwIn: : Again, this is not the right place for this discussion and I can't help you any further here. If you are unhappy with the current situation, please discuss it with the community. --MB-one (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

On the opposite, this is precisely the right place. I have nothing to question or change in COM:OVERCAT, as the current situation is perfectly described there already. This is not only a matter of pure good sense, but also a well known, omnipresent and broadly used exception to the overcat policy. Let's try in bold: That category does not describe only one subject, as you keep insisting ("monument"). That category describes BOTH the monument, AND a different part of the park (the alley). It is in two categories reflecting both things, as is the standard rule here. It is not overcategorization, as the categories are not redundant. If you want to improve/increase the degree of categorization, just do as everybody else, and replace it with a category that more specifically describes the place. What you should never do in any circumstance is removing the parent category without taking care of that, as it degrades the quality of the categorisation and curatorship, making much more difficult to find both the category to place new files, and the images in it, as it would be missing one of its fundamental parent categories. This is something that is perfectly established here in Commons, and is the official rule and policy here since I joined this project in 2009, and beyond. So, please, stop doing that kind of thing.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I really hate discussing with someone here in Commons, especially someone who has been so helpful as you have MB-one. Please look carefully to the exception to OVERCAT, as it's all well explained there. Of course, it is not an ideal situation, as it's not ideal that we often start placing the files first in a really broader category "like "São Paulo") and then keep improving the categorization. But it's all part of the process. And it should be constructive, not destructive.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@DarwIn: What do you think about the idea of a new Category:Central alley of Praça do Monumento? Would that solve your problem? --MB-one (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MB. Well, though I personally do not feel it to be necessary at this point (at least now), that would solve the "problem" of the temporary "overcat". If you believe it is better, and is it indeed an improvement, please go ahead. About the thread below, I understand it was something occasional, that you don't usually do, so that's a no problem indeed. BTW, I'm working closely with the Brazilian group which is doing the GLAM at Museu do Ipiranga, so if you want/need to know something specifically from there, just ask me. I'm also currently organizing the cultural heritage monuments for São Paulo city, and will be working mainly on that, but if you want my help sorting out some cultural heritage category, just tell me at my talk page, or ping me (but use "DarwIn"instead of "DarwIn", or else you'll be ping my sockpuppet). Cheers, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @DarwIn: ,

then let's proceed that way. If I have further questions, I will contact you.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons focus group update, Nov 21, 2017

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

IRC office hour today, 21 November, 18.00 UTC

• The IRC office hour about Structured Commons takes place at 18:00 UTC in wikimedia-office ^webchat. Amanda, Ramsey and I will give updates about the project, and you can ask us questions. The log will be published afterwards.

Tools update

Many important community tools for Commons and Wikidata will benefit from an update to structured data in the future. You can help indicate which tools will need attention:

• Check this Google spreadsheet and leave your comments (ping me if you'd like full editing access to the spreadsheet)
• More and more tools will also be tracked on Phabricator and on the tools inventory page. Feel free to add and edit.

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Redundant cats 2

Hi,

Can you stop adding files back to general categories which become un-usable due to having to much files in it. There are already a number of categories which are more precise !

Categories which more than 100 files become un-usable for Wiki-users.

See : Over-categorization Dldwg (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dldwg,

if you point me towards the files in question, I would be able to explain properly. All I can say right now, is that I didn't intentionally overcategorize any files.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Carleton Ravens logo.svg

File:Carleton Ravens logo.svg 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Petscan

Hi MB-one, macht dein Petscan wirklich etwas anderes als meiner? Habe ich irgendeinen Haken übersehen? --Ailura (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Ailura,

eine klassische Galerie mit <gallery>-Tags gibt Petcan nicht aus, aber eine Liste der ausgefilterten Bilder, die ggf. auch mit Vorschau angezeigt werden (dazu "Miniaturen für Dateien im Wikitext" aktivieren). Das würde ich als eine Art Galerie bezeichnen, weil man dann mit VisualFileChange darüber arbeiten kann. Eine klassische Galerie wäre vermutlich durch Reguläre Ausdrücke aus diesem Wikitext zu erreichen, aber da bin ich der falsche Ansprechpartner für. ;-)

Grüße --MB-one (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Irgendwie aus der Ausgabe mit regulären Ausdrücken rausfischen kann man es natürlich, das habe ich zuletzt auch gemacht. Aber das Feature wurde anscheinend einfach kommentarlos vernichtet :( --Ailura (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons focus group update, December 11, 2017

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

Later this week, a full newsletter will be distributed, but you are the first to receive an update on new requests for feedback.

Three requests for feedback

1. We received many additions to the spreadsheet that collects important Commons and Wikidata tools. Thank you! Now, you can participate in a survey that helps us understand and prioritize which tools and functionalities are most important for the Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata communities. The survey runs until December 22. Here's some background.
2. Help the team decide on better names for 'captions' and 'descriptions'. You can provide input until January 3, 2018.
3. Help collect interesting Commons files, to prepare for the data modelling challenges ahead! Continuous input is welcome there.

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) - 16:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Sheraton_hotels

Sheraton hotels 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!

E4024 (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done--MB-one (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Screening of cultural heritage monuments of Brazil

Hi MB-one, I hope you've had a great Christmas, and an happy New Year. You have done such a splendid job, and a tremendous effort, screening the cultural heritage monuments of Brazil uploaded by the WLM people, and passing them into the states, allowing them to be properly cured much more easily. I'm curious, how have you done that? By the ID? It should have been something really epic. If it was not for what you have done, I couldn't be doing the finer categorization now. Cheers, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Darwin,

a happy New Year as well. Thank you for those kind words. After exploring different methods and tools, I lately use a mix of tools, like Petscan (https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=2545978) to identify the images to categorize and then cross-search with the monument ID to find other images with same ID, which have been categorized already. Sometimes, a simple google search with the image description helped as well, to at least identify the state. Then I use Cat-a-lot to copy all images with this ID in the most specific category, I can find (that apparently went wrong a couple of times, when I accidentally applied less specific categories to already properly categorized images). Lastly, I'm trying to link all relevant categories in the monument list pages (pt:Wikipédia:Wiki Loves Monuments/Brasil/Lista), so they can be applied directly from the campaign for the next competitions.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

So you have done all that almost manually? Well, congratulations, it worked very well, but it really was one epic effort. If it was not for that screening, I probably would have not noticed some great images of São Paulo that were uploaded during those campaigns, and where lost in the big bag with the rest of Brazil. I'm now fine tuning São Paulo (city), and being the metropolis it is, I'll probably stay there for some time, even more when I'm uploading a lot of old stuff from that municipality. But if you need some help with something, just ping me or use my talk page. :) Cheers, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the categorization by state is almost done, we could turn to the categorization by type and jurisdiction. A good way to start is probably https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=2546501 (by type) https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=2546499 (by jurisdiction), each on a category level. Once all categories are fine, this could extend to the file level. --MB-one (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Structured Commons - Design feedback request: Multilingual Captions

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the the community focus group for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons.

The Structured Data on Commons team has a new design feedback request up for Multilingual Captions support in the Upload Wizard. Visit the page for more information about the potential designs. Discussion and feedback is welcome there.

On a personal note, you'll see me posting many of these communications going forward for the Structured Data project, as SandraF transitions into working on the GLAM side of things for Structured Data on Commons full time. For the past six months she's been splitting time between the two roles (GLAM and Community Liaison). I'm looking forward to working with you all again. Thank you, happy editing. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data feedback - What gets stored where (Ontology)

Greetings,

There is a new feedback request for Structured Data on Commons (link for messages posted to Commons: , regarding what metadata from a file gets stored where. Your participation is appreciated.

Happy editing to you. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Boeing 737-700 of Air Berlin

Hi. Don't under stand why you are moving Boeing 737-700 of Air Berlin (and host of others) from their registration categories. They should remain under the aircraft registration category. Please desist. Ardfern (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop. Your Boeing 737-700 of Air Berlin is now appearing on Germania Boeing 737-700 files. Ardfern (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ardfern, I didn't have any intention to remove the registration category. Can you give an example, where I did? --MB-one (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you removed the registration category. But I see what you are doing now in setting up Category:D-AGEP (Air Berlin). Coincidentally I was fully categorising this area and our entries have obviously crossed each other Ardfern (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I will clear off and work in another area and finish full categorisation of Boeing 737-700 of Germania later, so that our lines don't get tangled again Ardfern (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz A 200, GIMS 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex (1X7A0529).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 14:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Subaru Viziv Tourer, GIMS 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex (1X7A1574).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --XRay 18:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

First structured licensing conversation on Commons

Greetings,

The first conversation about structured copyright and licensing for Structured Data on Commons has been posted, please come by and participate. The discussion will be open through the end of the month (March). Thank you. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Maserati Birdcage 75th - front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bizzarrini Ghepardo - front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Mercedes-Benz W177 - front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Koenigsegg CCX, GIMS 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex (1X7A1713).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 18:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-AMG GT 63 S, Le Grand-Saconnex (1X7A1869).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. It's not the resolution of your camera. ;-) --XRay 11:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ola Källenius.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Best of its scope by the simple fact that its the only good portrait image of this particular person on Commons; the photograph itself is sourced as a crop of a larger image that forms the only other picture of the scope. Geocode and categories are suitable. PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Volkswagen Press Conference, Le Grand-Saconnex (1X7A9947).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --Peulle 17:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Polestar, GIMS 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex (1X7A1264).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI -- Spurzem 21:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Polestar 1, GIMS 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex (1X7A1273).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment A couple of comments: the composition could be zoomed in closer on the wheel since that is the subject. Will still become QI but the description and categories could use some fixes.--Peulle 23:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC) @Peulle: thanks for the suggestions. Cropped a bit while keeping the aspect ration, improved description and categories. --MB-one 21:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Support--Peulle 08:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Geneva International Motor Show 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex (1X7A0052).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Peulle 22:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Audi 200 Quattro Trans Am - front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Used and useful -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lamborghini Islero - front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

for the categorization. Artix Kreiger (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz sedan at Nassau Boulevard LIRR station

You recently categorized a Mercedes-Benz sedan at Nassau Boulevard (LIRR station) as being unidentified. It's actually a C 300, though I'm not sure if the designation is "W204 2010" or whatever else. ----DanTD (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

But zoom in on the trunk, and you can still see it's a C 300 4-Matic.

@DanTD: , thanks for the help (its actually a W205 ;-). That was part of a mass edit, where all images without a proper model category where tagged as "unidentified". --MB-one (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 70 Years Porsche Sports Car, Berlin (1X7A3904).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 06:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Multilingual captions testing is available

Greetings,

The early prototype for multilingual caption support is available for testing. More information on how to sign up to test is on Commons. Thanks, happy editing to you. - Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

File:National Gallery of Canada logo.svg

File:National Gallery of Canada logo.svg 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Labattblueboy (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Patrulla Aguila, ILA 2018, Schönefeld (1X7A6158).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good shot and good quality -- Spurzem 17:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ILA 2018, Schönefeld (1X7A6079).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very small file. But okay for me.--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ILA 2018, Schönefeld (1X7A5699-2).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz, Techno-Classica 2018, Essen (IMG 9831).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Visible CA and the right crop should be improved (getting rid of the other vehicle) --Poco a poco 09:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)  Comment Cropped and CA removed. Thanks. --MB-one 12:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! David Brown Automotive, GIMS 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex (1X7A1727).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Granada 14:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Mercedes-Benz W460 closed three-door station wagon - front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lightning, Friedrichshafen (OW1A0403).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 15:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Uploads aus dem Technikmuseum Pütnitz

Hallo MB-one,

Vielen herzlichen Dank für die vielen schönen Bilder. Ich hoffe, ich gehe dir nicht mittlerweile mit dem Kategoriesieren auf den Geist. Ich bin da wohl thematisch leicht vorgeschädigt (siehe meine de:Benutzerseite). Aus reiner Neugier: Kommt da noch mehr aus dem aktuellen Upload? Bist du regelmäßig dort?

Viele Grüße, --Druschba 4 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Druschba 4,

im Gegenteil, Du bist eine großartige Hilfe, dafür auch der Orden. Aktuell läuft grade die vorläufig letzte Upload-Charge vom Pfingsttreffen. Es ist aber durchaus wahrscheinlich, dass ich diese Jahr noch ein oder zwei mal das Museum besuche.

Grüße --MB-one (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für den Stern, über den habe ich mich wirklich sehr gefreut. Solltest du mal wieder dort sein, kannst du mir vielleicht einen Gefallen tun. Im Museum steht ein de:KrAZ-214. Der ist leicht zu finden - es ist aktuell der einzige von diesen unauffälligen Kleinwagen, der rot angepinselt ist: hier. Die Bilderlage ist sehr mau bei diesem Modell. Ich weiß, der steht wirklich doof zum fotografieren...aber die räumen ja ab und zu mal um. Ein paar Detailfotos von allen (zugänglichen) Seiten wären toll. Gleiches gilt für den Ural-377S: hier. Bei diesem Fahrzeug ist besonders die Vorderachse im Detail interessant...liegt ja hoch genug um mal drunter zu knipsen.

Beide Fahrzeuge sind inzwischen in Deutschland sehr selten und entsprechend schlecht irgendwo mal nebenbei zu fotografieren. Zum Ural-377(ohne Allradantrieb - gegebenenenfalls auch S, die Sattelzugmaschine) muss ich noch einen Artikel schreiben...demnächst.

Ist natürlich kein absolutes Muss. Aber manchmal ergibt sich ja die Möglichkeit. Danke nochmals und Grüße, --Druschba 4 (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Druschba 4,

versprechen möchte ich nichts, aber ich schaue mal, was ich tun kann.

Grüße --MB-one (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Versuchen reicht völlig. Eine Erfolgsgarantie gibt es eh nicht. :) Wenn nicht, geht die Sonne am nächsten Tag auch wieder auf.

Grüße, --Druschba 4 (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)