User talk:Herranderssvensson

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Krona_200.gif. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 00:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Krona_200.gif. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

-Nard the Bard 18:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Måste bara säga att du är väldigt skarp. Tack för alla kategorisationer. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 07:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tja, en gör ju så gott en kan... ;) Herranderssvensson (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, 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. --Nikbot 20:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In this image

the car inthe foreground is a Morris Oxford. The only Minor is in the left-hand backgound ??? Chevin (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an in the background there are also two Austin A50's, an Austin A40, a BMC ADO16 and some other automobiles I'm not able to identify. - Herranderssvensson (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for jumping in on your talkpage, I removed this image from the categories of the background cars and placed them in image notes instead. Also, nice work on the Town & Country categories. Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 17:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mate! I guess my sometimes over-enthusiastic categorizing might need some tidying up ;) I should have used the “&”-sign for those old Chryslers, though. “Fort men fel…” - Herranderssvensson (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, many thanks for recategorizing this image. :-) I'm far from being a Bentley expert, so I have no clue about whether this is an original or replica car - would you be willing to explain why you're saying it's a replica here, please, to satisfy my curiosity? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike! I’m certainly no expert either but some fakes are so obvious it doesn’t take much knowledge to disclose them. First of all, let’s state that judging from the general design of this vehicle, with its sweeping front fenders and free standing head lights, it is trying to look like a 1930s automobile. The first clue to this being a replica are the wheels. Cars of the 1930s have tall and narrow tires on large diameter rims. The rims, pressed steel or spoked rims, are generally painted in black or other dark colours. This car obviously have modern, wide radial tires. It’s hard to see the dimension but I would guess on 15 inch rims and to make things even worse they’re fitted with cheap after market wheel covers. The tires also have thin white walls which would fit a Plymouth Voyager or a Ford Windstar, not a vintage Bentley. Then there’s the radiator. 1930s automobiles have tall chrome plated radiator covers. This vehicle have its radiator cover, which looks suspiciously much like plastic, painted in body colour. And the capital “B” on the radiator is certainly not Bentley’s flying B, but probably the logo of the replica auto’s manufacturer. Third clue would be the windscreen. A 1930s automobile with an open top body would have a low, flat windscreen. The curved windscreen on this vehicle is way too large and with the black rubber sealing it’s more likely to fit a 1970s auto. Also the head lights are too small. It looks like 7 inch VW Golf lights fitted in new housings made to resemble a vintage head light. And the brightwork looks more like stainless steel than good old chrome platings. Come to think of it, I was wrong moving this picture to the Bentley replica category since there is actually nothing on this car that even resembles a vintage Bentley. I’m moving it to the more general replicas of automobiles category. -- Herranderssvensson (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the explanation here - I've learned a lot from this. :-) I've moved the file to a better title, and will update the description accordingly (and include a static link to this discussion) in a minute for reference of anyone that looks at this image in the future. Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a modified version of your picture. I have NOT repeat NOT overwritten your picture. I have uploaded a modified version with a different name.

I hope you do not mind what I did. We seem to be short of decent pictures of the Kadett based Opel Olympia. If I was a very polite person I would have asked you first. But somehow it is easier to show you what I have done than it would have been to try and explain what I thought I wanted to do, even if I had precisely known what I wanted to do before I tried to do it....... Regards and success in >2012 Charles01 (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with that, Charles. We all do our best to help improve the Wiki, don't we? -- Herranderssvensson (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your big work on categorizing many of my photos from Geneva Motor Show 2013.

I think here you made a small mistake, because I remember that all the 3 photos show the same car:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013-03-05_Geneva_Motor_Show_8217.JPG (full trunk, you can see the detail of the car fridge cover)
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013-03-05_Geneva_Motor_Show_8215.JPG (trunk detail => Drophead Coupé)
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013-03-05_Geneva_Motor_Show_8216.JPG (trunk detail => Drophead Coupé)

but one time it was categorized as Drophead Coupe and two times as Phantom Series II.

By comparing with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dhc_1174_kofferraum.jpg , I corrected two of the photos => Drophead Coupé.

Noebu (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My idea was this: The current facelifted Phantoms are all Series II Phantoms, regardless of body style: saloon, drop head or fixed head. But I’m certain you’re right. -- Herranderssvensson (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great photograph you have uploaded today. Are you able to supply any more details about that particular car? Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. According to the museum in Köping the original owner of this automobile was Woolf Barnato himself. Or does that simply indicate it was impossible to find a customer before the bankruptcy? Anyway, in 1933 this magnificent automobile was sold to Swedish banker Torsten Kreuger, brother of the infamous match king Ivar Kreuger. In 1950 mr Kreuger donated the auto to Tekniska museet in Stockholm which in turn has lent it to Bil & Teknikhistoriska Samlingarna in Köping. Here is a link to Tekniska museet's inventory list: tekniskamuseet.se -- Herranderssvensson (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this easy to believe. I failed to mark this page and so I didn't know you had replied and came back just now to write to you having forgotten that I'd done so! Thank you very much for that link to the museum's catalogue and I was able to rapidly find out a great deal about it. It has been suggested it is possibly the most original 8-litre in existence. All I want now is to have all these pictures here under the right licence for them to be displayed in Wikipedia! Many thanks and best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: I think Barnato engineered the "bankruptcy" or maybe just let it happen because he was sick and tired of W O Bentley's talent for spending his (Barnato's) money. WO had already been through 2 or 3 other fortunes (including his own) and was beginning to make a dent in Barnato's. I'm sure Barnato would have done something rough much earlier if he hadn't liked the product so much and perhaps he did not like the prospect of the cars being destroyed? I don't know either! Eddaido (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted the recategorizations you made to this Riley RM category. The images concerned are apparently unidentifiable (I spent many hours over them some time ago). I think that, almost without exception, they should be thrown away unless they are of historic interest to someone. We seem to have no shortage of quite good properly catalogued images of all these cars. Is it possible to ascertain what sizes their engines are through European registries? Otherwise I think they should be deleted (with gratitude because they filled the bill for a while). Regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked Lars-Göran Lindgren’s pictures with the Swedish licence register and moved them to their proper category, based on that information. I have no opinion on whether the rest should be deleted or not. Kind regards -- Herranderssvensson (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HAS. Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Hi Herranderssvensson, thanks for better categories at category Legendy 2014! Thanks you! Frettie (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Land Rover events 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 category, 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. 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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JuTa 04:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much for your work on categorizing my photos from the Geneva Motor Show. This evening, I will add another batch of about 80 photos from my 2nd camera. Best regards, Noebu (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm contacting you because years ago you made a category redirect from "Austin automobiles" to "Austin vehicles". In my opinion, this is not appropriate. As you can see by other large vehicle brands that produced vehicles of different types (for example "Alfa Romeo", "Toyota", "BMW", "Honda"), the term vehicle is in no way identical to the term automobile but in fact superordinate to the latter. The term vehicle is comprised by (among others) automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, buses, tractors, vans and even non-motorized vehicles as bicycles. Just look at the category "Vehicles by type" and you'll see that "automobile" is subordinate to "vehicle" and eqivalent to "truck" or "motorcycle". So every vehicle brand ought to be categorized in "vehicles by brand" and ought to have the fitting sub-categories like "...automobiles", "....trucks", "...vans", "....motorcycles" and so on; the latter sub-categories consequently ought to be categorized in "automobiles by brand", "trucks by brand" and so on.

I'm planning to undo your category redirect (and all analoguous redirects like with "Triumph automobiles") in order to categorize all Austin automobile models as "Austin automobiles", so that the latter can be listed in "Automobiles by brand". But before doing so, I wanted to discuss this issue with you. Kind regards, --Purzelbier (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Special Barnstar

Thank you for categorizing the hundreds of sports car images, Unfortunately I'm the one who moved them from "Unidentified automobiles" to whereever, As no one checks the "Unidentified automobiles" category my plan was to move them and then for a few people to categorize them .... I never in a million years expected one person to categorize the entire lot ....so your help is extremely appreciated :) Thanks again :), –Davey2010Talk 15:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for re-categorizing Citroën Type H into HY, I could not find it. And thanks in general for your complements on my pics ! Ahrgrr (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service. -- Herranderssvensson (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings: You recently recategorized a photo of an automobile which reads "Bugatti" right down the front grill to "Unidentified Kit Cars". Would you please explain that edit? The entry in the parade form lists "Bugatti" and it says it right on their grill. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as always, you should never trust what you see on the Internet. Just because the vehicle on the aforementioned picture has the word “Bugatti” written on the radiator grille doesn’t mean it is the real thing. It is trying to mimic the lines of a classic Bugatti racing car of the 1920s but the scam is actually very poorly executed. To the left I have posted a picture of a genuine 1929 Bugatti Type 35B from the Schlumpf Collection in France for comparison. Like all classic Bugattis this automobile has a live beam front axle with longitudinal leaf springs and friction dampers, cast aluminium rims with attached cable operated drum brakes and like all great French pre-war gran routiers, it has right hand drive. At the top of the yoke shaped radiator you find the oval Bugatti logo in red. All these characteristics are missing from the kit car here to the right. The trade mark double trailing arm front suspension makes me believe this kit car is built on a VW Typ 1 chassis. This would also explain the absence of a working bonnet on this vehicle: the air cooled boxer engine is mounted at the rear end. I hope you find my arguments convincing. Regards, Herranderssvensson (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I just wanted to know!! We were working from the Parade list, so I will pass that to the organizers as well. They didn't enter it in the Concourse so I don't have any judging info. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. ↑ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
2. ↑ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hi! Are you sure it's a Model Y and not a Ford 8? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 12:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hedwig. As far as I know, Ford 8 is just another name for the Model Y, referring to the fiscal horsepower rating. -- Herranderssvensson (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Thanks a bunch! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar E-Pace 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Robby (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you think this was a good idea? I think you have got it wrong and want it switched back but maybe we should discuss it. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eddaido. I think the difference between the 1930s Ten and the later 1950s Ten is big enough to separate them from each other. But I’m no expert so I’m always willing to listen to reason. Herranderssvensson (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the good work you have put in over the years. Why make separate categories? Where's the problem? The cars look quite different to me ;-) Eddaido (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the risk for a Standard 10 category getting crowded isn’t really impending. And the empty Flying Ten category was perhaps a step too far, I’ll give you that. But a deeper categorization makes it easier to find what you’re looking for, wouldn’t you agree? Herranderssvensson (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to tell the truth, I strongly do not. The more pigeonholes one makes the more pigeonholes one must search through in order to find what you want. If one knows exactly what one wants (as the pigeon might by sniffing the wind or whatever) one goes straight to it. But if you are just another pigeon scratching about to find an image you need then too many pigeonholes is conniption fit territory. The cat system is fine or even just great to put things away as we are discussing (and as you are doing by building more pigeonholes). It is extremely user unfriendly if you are one is hunting an image to identify a car or to find a nice picture to illustrate an article. I have just the germ of an idea of how to improve the present user unfriendliness but it remains only a germ quietly developing in the back of my mind. I would welcome a good solution. can you propose anything? Any lurkers out there with (good) ideas for a solution? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see your point and I respect it. Unfortunately, I am one of those who like to categorize things down to the smallest of details. If you were to work out a system which would combine these contradicting positions I would welcome it. Herranderssvensson (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"a system which would combine these contradicting positions" I don't understand what you mean by this.

May I clarify this discussion. Part one: You have further split a category, I think that's a mistake. You have said above it is important to you.

Part two: For the average person interested in cars (and maybe other things?) Wikimedia is user unfriendly. This is Not to say the categorisation system is wrong or inadequate or has failings. It is to say that Wikimedia (in my experience) is user unfriendly unless you know most precisely what you seek. This is why I dislike your new categorisation (see Part one) but it is a quite different separate topic.

While talking about categorisation I would like it to be noted I belong to a small group, a citizen of a small country where very big names among Wikimedia uploaders rush in and upload every uploadable image from Flickr and then rest on their numerically ever expanding self-perceived laurels (given for uploading so very many images) and . . . do not categorise them.
Eddaido (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree with me adding sub categories to the Standard Ten category and I respect your opinion. Nevertheless, I strongly believe it is necessary to divide automobile categories into further sub categories based on generations. For more examples of this, please look at the categories for Hillman Minx, Morris Oxford, Standard Eight and many more. And yes, it might be confusing if you’re new to the topic, but dumping everything in a big pile based on a common model name is no solution either. You and I obviously have contradicting opinions in this matter but if you manage “to improve the present user unfriendliness” I would be interested to hear more about it.

You say Commons is user unfriendly and that might be true, but I think that is inevitable with such a large database. And if someone keeps flooding Commons with uncategorized material by copying pictures from another large database, in this case Flickr, in my opinion it is up to the Commons administration to put a halt to this. Herranderssvensson (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So long as we have no proper system for hunting through images (making this database to my mind user unfriendly) I don't like to see superfluous sub-categorisation. You are anxious to do it in this case so by all means let that matter rest. My mind has been running on developing a means of access in the way scientists classify things. Then using that as a means to tracking down particular images in Wikimedia. I am No scientist. You're absolutely right about the uncategorised stuff. Sometimes it is categorised but in the most general terms (thus avoiding being marked uncategorised) and I suspect it is because the categoriser does not know and cannot understand the subject of the image the way a local editor might. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have what amounts to a search (which of course we have now) which can search without any regard to categories and fill my screen the way Flickr does, not in a column with text. Then I could formulate searches like for example:

• Bentley, made between 1920 and 1941, irrespective of coachwork, or size of engine or coachbuilder
• Non-US vehicles made between 1928 and 1931 (US used model years which can avoid this necessity)

and be able to scan the resulting images very quickly.

Does that seem like a good idea to you? Just the two examples to give a general idea of my thinking and I hope you wish to develop it. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not urgent, but at least to me important if you will have a moment:

• Would you have time to look at this picture and, if necessary, correct my classification of it? It is not a very good picture, but it is - I think - quite a rare car.
• And many thanks "im Voraus" if you will be able to help.
• Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles. Thanks for your kind words. This is one of some five hundred 170 Da OTP cars which Daimler-Benz produced for the German police forces between 1951 and 1952. The designation Da means it has got the larger 1.8 litre diesel engine introduced in 1950. OTP translates to Open Tourer Police. The moss green colour has been typical for the German police forces up until the early 2000s when rectifying within the EU made them change to blue uniforms and vehicles instead. Herranderssvensson (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for educating me (not for the first time). Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding "2018 New York International Auto Show" in my recent pictures. --Kevauto (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service. -- Herranderssvensson (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kannst du sehen? Es sind zwei wagen, und drei kategorie. Zwiadowca ²¹ 19:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.155.207.175 (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For all your valuable contributions Mercedes-Benz R172 dashboard Miami.

Ford Tourneo Courier 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

–Davey2010^Talk 13:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Tourneo Custom 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

–Davey2010^Talk 13:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Since you seem to have some knowledge about these cars, do you think, that File:1930 Cadillac 355 pic1.JPG and other photos of this car are 355 model? According to en:Cadillac Series 355, Series 355 was manufactured by Cadillac from 1931. And it has no five hood ports. Neither has File:Classic Cad.jpg. Regards. Pibwl (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pibwl. According to my ”Standard catalog of Cadillac 1903-1990” the Series 353 of 1930, as well as the earlier Series 341 of 1928-29, has a louvered hood, while the Series 355 introduced in 1931 has a hood with five ports. This would mean that the dutch 1930 Cadillac is a Series 353. The Classic Cad is probably a Series 341, since the louvers on the hood doesn’t seem to extend all the way up to the radiator as they do on a Series 353. All according to ”Standard catalog of Cadillac 1903-1990” (ISBN 0-87341-174-9). -- Herranderssvensson (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user: Herranderssvensson, You had the category (without D4-D) changed the category undesirably, and is therefore reversed to the latest version of 1az-fse, and I also find it disrespectful to the author, because firstly , it's his / her own work, secondly, if you look at the reason for this rollback you will see that D4 is for direct fuel injection, and D4-D is for direct (and / or common-rail) diesel.

I suggest that you look up if you doubt whether the rollback is unnecessary / unjustified.

Greetings: 2001:983:BDBB:1:6D65:FB69:52C0:8836 17:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And for the sake of clarity, I want to avoid wars between us both, and I hope that you benefit from silent editing and cooperation with others and that there might be a solution. 2001:983:BDBB:1:6D65:FB69:52C0:8836 17:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got a little bit carried away there. -- Herranderssvensson (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 01:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 15:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 20:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ русский ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Volvo P1800 badge.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

And also:

• File:Volvo S90 badge.jpg

Yours sincerely, Jonteemil (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bonds_banners_across_2nd_Ave,_Seattle,_October_1,_1918_(MOHAI_10467).jpg&diff=513534496&oldid=513416699

Cat you added was fine, but should also have had Category:Unidentified automobiles in the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 01:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't describe the Series II FCs as 101s. They're very different vehicles. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my bad. -- Herranderssvensson (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallå,

Sorry, I don't speak any Swedish (except for "öl"). Thanks for specifying the category of the mentioned picture from Category:Mercedes-Benz vehicles to Category:Mercedes-Benz ambulance SUVs – but the vehicle depicted is not an ambulance vehicle. It is the car of an “emergency manager” of the German Railways; her/his job is to organize the rescue and restoring works after a railway accident. The manager (they are not many in number) has to arrive at an accident site within a certain time (one hour, I think) after an accident, so that's why the car has the emergency flashlights. Any proposals how to improve the categories? Tack -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes automobiles in museums 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Zenwort (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej!

Glöm inte att ge en notis till uppladdaren av en fil när du nominerar den för radering, som på File:Mark Hannan.jpg. Jonteemil (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moin. I expect this [1] was a typo, correct? --G-41614 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's actually a Mk3, isn't it? -- Herranderssvensson (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I though so as well and took the liberty to change it accordingly. Nice to agree. Have a good one, --G-41614 (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Would is be possible to add a Wikidata infobox here? I do not know how to do that. Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Infobox sums up data from Wikidate. Since there isn't any Wikidata site regarding Emil Eikner, there are no data to show.

Herranderssvensson (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks so far. Do you know anyone who knows how to create a Wikidata site on Eikner? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nu har jag skapat Wikidata-objektet Emil Eikner. Men eftersom jag inte har den blekaste aning om vem människan är överlåter jag till dej att fylla på med uttalanden/egenskaper i Wikidata, innan du kopplar infoboxen till kategorin. Herranderssvensson (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for trying to help! Let's face it, I do not know how to do any of this properly, "kopplar" or anything else. Have added a photo and his LIBRIS listing to this. What else could I do? Have seen more and more info boxes for categories with only one single photo. ??? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]