User talk:Mackensen

Please make inquiries at my English wikipedia page.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

---

Hello, Mackensen!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:R000012.jpg was uncategorized on 10 January 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:ClevelandAndMahoning1853.jpg was uncategorized on 15 March 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:Granby Amtrak station.jpg was uncategorized on 9 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:Amtrak illini carbondale 1.jpg was uncategorized on 5 June 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with an Alaska Railroad passenger trains subcat.Dankarl (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Mackensen,

Thank you for identifying and recategorizing my assorted bunch of EMD diesel photographs. I really appreciate it, and am very impressed by how swiftly you have taken care of them: you are good!

Michael Barera (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this edit, and three others, as these are modern vehicles, while I believe the radial society runs old heritage vehicles. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackensen,
I've replied to your question on my discussion page, please have a look :-)
ElHeineken (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why this removal? Clearly the logo on the building is intended as the railroad logo. - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I assumed it was categorized thus because it might or might not have been a former station (I've been recategorizing into specific Former...X...stations categories). Mackensen (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the description indicates, it is not the former station (though it could easily be mistaken for one). It is a visitor center; I suspect it is on the site of the old station, though I'm not sure of that. The logo, though, is certainly an allusion to the railroad that was once crucial to the town. Any objection to my restoring the categories? - Jmabel ! talk 01:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well yes, so I assumed it was wrongly categorized from a bot transfer or some such. No objection, although creating some kind of logo subcategory might not be a bad idea either. I'm not sure what the existing schemes for those look like. Mackensen (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: this was originally posted on DanTD's talk page; I've copied it here for context) I noticed you re-added the Conrail category to File:Conrail Lcomotive No.3070.JPG. My feeling is that only actual Conrail locomotives ought to be in that category, and that all the NS locomotives in the throwback Conrail livery don't belong there. Maybe we need a separate category for Norfolk Southern locomotives in Conrail livery? What do you think? Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not such a bad idea, and since Conrail was split between Norfolk Southern and CSX, maybe we should make another category for Conrail locomotives owned by CSX. Another good idea would be for Southern Pacific locomotives controlled by Union Pacific. BTW, I'm sorry I wasn't able to contact you. I'm on vacation, but that vacation should be coming to an end today. ----DanTD (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I had other work stacked up. British trains already have something similar (see e.g. Category:Train liveries in the United Kingdom by company). I can see going in two different directions with this. The first:

• Category:Train liveries in the United States by company
  • Category:Train liveries of the Norfolk Southern Railway
    • Category:Trains in Norfolk Southern Conrail livery

The second:

• Category:Train liveries in the United States by company
  • Category:Train liveries of the Norfolk Southern Railway
    • Category:Norfolk Southern trains in Conrail livery

Both could be valid, of course, in the case of a former SP locomotive under UP control which hadn't been repainted. In the first instance we're talking about an NS paint scheme explicitly. I think we need more eyes on this. Mackensen (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having been invited to comment, and had some time to think about, my thoughts are:

The Category:Train liveries in the United Kingdom by company is comprised mainly of passenger trains (and multiple units), so the entire train will be in one operator’s livery. Therefore having the word “train” in the category is appropriate.

In the North America, most photographs will be of locomotives, so, (except for Amtrak, VIA, and commuter agencies) having the word “train” in the category name is inappropriate.

I feel is would be simpler to use:

• Category:Diesel locomotives of the United States by operator
  • Category:Conrail diesel locomotives
    • Category:Former Conrail diesel locomotives patched by Norfolk Southern or Cateory:Former Conrail diesel locomotives with Norfolk Southern patches

As long as the term “patched” or “patches” is clearly understood or defined, then we should be allright. It is, after all what we are trying to catch, isn't it? There are plenty of ex-SP diesel locomotives with UP patches on Commons, and a few ex-Milwaukee Road, with Soo Line patches.

We might need a similar category for cabooses and freight cars but the former would be rare unless someone uploads their archive. In addition to (say) Category:Former Rock Island freight cars patched by Chicago and North Western Railway, we might need to opposite e.g. Category:Union Pacific Railroad freight cars with Omaha Road reporting marks

Just my thoughts. Regards, — Iain Bell (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of a Union Pacific diesel locomotive in Southern Pacific livery. I was just checking out some Union Pacific locomotives in that category and also found a Denver & Rio Grande Western Railway locomotive owned by UP as well. ----DanTD (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you moved many of my Long Island Rail Road categories to the new Long Island Rail Road lines category. In turn, I did the same thing to the Metro-North Railroad lines. So which communter railroads do you want to add separete line categories for next? ----DanTD (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I hadn't thought that far ahead. I had about forty-fifty images which I wound up having to categorize by CSX subdivision so I did those, and I thought that railway lines category needed some attention. I think we just need to be sure that we're really doing lines and not services. I understand that category to be for physical lines. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know where I've found scores of railway line pictures who's categories can be replaced? Queensland, Australia. There are a lot of them that are currently categorized in either Category:Railway lines, or Category:Railway lines in Australia, or both. I've moved a few to their proper places myself, but there are plenty of others to take care of. ----DanTD (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied here. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Surya_Prakash.S.A.#Train_picture

Hello, Mackensen. You have new messages at Surya_Prakash.S.A.#Train_picture's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

-- SuryaPrakash  ^Talk... 13:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edits to Category:County seats in Alabama and the other County seats categories you did, I think Category:County seats in Alabama should stick with the parent category of Category:Cities in Alabama as every County seat in Alabama is a City in Alabama. You replaced that category with Category:Counties in Alabama. No county seat is also a county. --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That may be the case for Alabama (I haven't checked), but it's definitely not the case for other states where county seats can be villages, boroughs or other classifications. Further, there's nothing intrinsic about a county seat that says it has to be a city. It makes more sense to me to make it a top-level category within Counties, since that's what they're related to. This also matches the categorization scheme on the English Wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the Wikipedia, doesn't make sense to me, but ok :) --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mackensen. You have new messages at Closeapple's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Category:Photographs by Adam Moss – I'm flattered that I have a category named after myself. However, besides the fact there are at least a hundred+ more photos that need to be in there, I'm kind of surprised no one's put him as me. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 16:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more like 200-300. I've been doing them in batches, reviewing the other categories and usage on en.wp. It's a lot of work ;). I didn't realize you had a presence here; it's just my habit to categorize Flickr collections. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you turn a category into a redirect, I strongly recommend using User:CommonsDelinker/commands or User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands to request that all the contents of the category also be moved. - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, FWIW, you don't even need to directly create the newly named category yourself: the bot will do that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, when I commented on the File:Point Richmond, CA Old Railroad Station.jpg, I wasn't contesting the deletion tag. I was simply aghast that an image I tried to split and move to the commons could've been yet another copyvio, after facing this revelation in a previous attempt with another image. Nevertheless I'm glad you found an acceptable replacement. ----DanTD (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood. The whole situation was a mess; I hate when people do that (upload totally different images over old). Mackensen (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the new MBTA locomotive categories, including Category:GMD GP40MC locomotives of the MBTA to match even though no one else uses GP40MCs. A couple of em including the geeps I'll be moving the files manually; the others can wait for Siebot. Once they're empty I'm going to speedy the old categories; there's no reason to keep them around even as redirects. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating File:Viafrequencies.svg I don't know whether this is a typo or not: "3 trains/well". Is "3 trains/week" intended here??. I also wonder whether the graphic would be more effective if visually if you either 1) used a different colour for each level or 2, used all the same colour and a wider range of line widths? Thanks again for your work! Verne Equinox (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's a typo, looks like it was there originally. I never even noticed! You raise a good point about colors; I don't know why the original author made those choices. Realistically the blue could just be named "Corridor" since it's the only part of the system multiple daily trips. I've corrected the typo. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I finally figured out File:The mid-day Piedmont.jpg was taken: Greensboro. No good clues in the image, so I had to match it by details. At first the canopy didn't seem to match up, but taking a second look the perspective hides that the outer edge is actually turned up. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Awesome! I'd tried to do the same thing but gave up in annoyance. Thanks for persevering. Mackensen (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to help. I like figuring out tricky ones like that, though I've gotten pretty much all of them north of NYC (my home territory). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: THIS DUDE! This is the commons... the more categories the better. The reason I want that is so people looking for yards will find the yards at stations... which are harder to locate this day and age. // FrankB 05:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My problem is that the category is completely wrong. Stations aren't yards. Yards aren't stations. Most articles coming under that category don't show yards. If there's an actual yard in the photo then categorize that, but there's no intrinsic relationship between stations and yards. By way of example, we have separate categories for Category:Race Street Yard and Category:30th Street Station. Furthermore, that category contains many train stations which are not in the state of Pennsylvania, which makes a Pennsylvania-specific category inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every day, 5 or 10 watchlist items of you doing category moves. You're positively incredible. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Judy Garland Birthplace Sign by Matt Anderson.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. 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! 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） ∙ +/−

Leoboudv (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems awfully silly to have Category:LIRR M1/M3 of the Long Island Rail Road and Category:LIRR M1/M3 of the Metro-North Railroad. (I was just looking yesterday at fixing the MNRR railcar categories). I think Category:M1/M3 (railcar) and Category:M1A/M3A (railcar) would be much more consistent with with other category names, and honestly each of those could probably be subdivided. (That's complicated by LIRR mixing M1 and M3s in the same trains, while MNRR didn't mix M1As and M3As). Just wanted to check with you before I changed anything. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, part of my thinking was to future-proof the categories in the event (unlikely, but possible) that an M1 or M3 was ever operated by someone other than the MNRR or Long Island (or one was used by the other). There's also the possibility of coach conversions like the Arrow I becoming the Comet IB. The more we normalize the categorization the better. Mackensen (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the generic categories are fine for now - the odds of anyone else operating them are pretty now. On the off chance that does occur, then subcategories of Category:M1/M3 (railcar) of LIRR (or some similar formatting) should be sufficient. The double-naming in the existing categories isn't well normalized either, honestly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Think we should keep the M1 and M3 in the same category, or divide it up into subcategories? Whichever we do, we should match with the M2/4/6 (currently have M2 and M4 but not M6 categories) because they're in the same nearly-identical-models boat. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting them up makes sense to me, both for the M1/M3 and the M6. Mackensen (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Pi on the redundancy, but aren't the Metro-North versions M1A's and M3A's? On another topic, I honestly wish we could sort out more of the M2's M4's and M6's. ----DanTD (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've identified you as a user who has previously used OgreBot's old version filemover. Please note the new URL: toollabs:magog/oldver.php. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your new categories on named railway lines in Georgia. I've been wondering if there was a category for railway equipment boxes like the one shown in this photo File:MLK Jr Crossing looking EB, Macclenny.JPG. Mjrmtg (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• None that I'm aware of; is there an official name of them? I suppose they might fall under Category:Rail transport buildings. Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have another equipment box here, and I just have it in the category Rail transport infrastructure in the United States. Maybe the equipment boxes can be split off. ----DanTD (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think they probably should be, if only because otherwise it might not be clear what the category is for. Do these boxes have a proper name? Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! When uploading videos from Flickr, please upload in the original resolution. I have now uploaded a copy of this video in the original resolution. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mukilteo Station Sounder Map and Timetable (3321509525).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. 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! 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） ∙ +/−

Jmabel ! talk 05:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You created this category and seems to have an interest in rail subjects. Dearborn's new train station is expected to open in a few weeks. The one currently the subject of the category is scheduled to be torn down and an animal shelter built on its location. How do we set up the category for the new station? Do we need to rename the old one? Rmhermen (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good question. I think we follow whatever happens on en.wp. Probably we'll want to disambiguate by year opened. Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:AdrianPublicLibrary.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen,

For a Father's Day gift, I've helped my father (David) digitize and upload railroad-related slides that he and his (late) father (Lawrence) took, mostly in the 1960s and 1970s. He generously agreed to release their rights under a CC-BY-SA license when we uploaded them to Flickr, which has allowed me to essentially port them here to Commons. While it will probably take me a couple of days to upload all of them here (I've just started), I have created a hidden category in which they will all be filed: Category:Photographs by Lawrence and David Barera.

I know from your numerous and helpful edits of my own person railroad-related photos that you are very good at identifying locomotives, and I'd love to categorize these images more specifically than "E-unit", "F-unit", "Geep", and "Alco". My Dad was really helpful with identifying locations and (with the aid of a box of old timetables) even specific trains, but he's not so sure about the locomotives (although he's suspicious that there are a lot of EMD E7s, F7s, and GP7s/GP9s in these photos). I'd really appreciate any help you can give me with categorizing these photos, especially in terms of locomotives. Thanks!

Michael Barera (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied on en.wp. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your categorizing abilities are absolutely incredible! Thanks so much for all your help! Michael Barera (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've now completely finished populating Category:Photographs by Lawrence and David Barera from its counterpart on Flickr. Thank you so much for all of your categorization improvements (and description corrections). I really, really appreciate it. Also, I realize that some of the photos that I have categorized under Category:EMD diesel locomotives might be very difficult or even impossible to categorize more specifically (for example, the Union Pacific, Northern Pacific, and [especially] Ann Arbor and Great Northern photos). If these images cannot be categorized more specifically, do you it might be a good idea to remove the EMD diesel locomotives category and just keep the [railroad name] diesel locomotives category? Just a thought. I noticed how well the EMD diesel locomotives category has been maintained and I don't want to ruin all that work. Thanks again for everything, and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's downright eerie - I was just looking for that report a few hours before you uploaded it, trying to remember if the stop had been at South Attleboro or Attleboro proper, and I could not find it anywhere. You would have been working on the article at that same time. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Man, that *is* eerie. I ran across the accident while writing up Night Owl proper, and figured it deserved an article. Given the violence of the collision I'm amazed no one died. I didn't add the stop at South Attleboro and the 100 extra MBTA passengers because I figured it wasn't relevant. Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Streamliner (train) 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 ∙ +/−

Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure if you're aware, but you can easily categorise UK trains using the {{Ukt}} template. You use it by {{subst:ukt|Class|Unit digits|Operator|Livery|Line}}, eg File:Late Turbo (21001296).jpg would be {{subst:ukt|165|101|First Great Western Link|Thames Trains|Great Western Main Line}}. This adds all the categories you've been using, as well as the various operator by line categories. Nice photos by the way. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I wasn't aware of that so I've been doing it manually (which works well enough). Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your overall experience and numerous good rename requests, I've made you a filemover. INeverCry 05:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @INeverCry: thanks so much! Mackensen (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if and where there are more images that could be added to the National Train Day 2013 category? ----DanTD (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DanTD: Not immediately. We had the benefit of some big photoshoots from Flickr users (and I think Ben Schumin) for the other years. NTD hasn't been as a big a deal the last couple years. Mackensen (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Michigan rail map galbraith 1897.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 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!

Yours sincerely, 1989 20:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Arnold electric locomotive.png, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 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!

Yours sincerely, 1989 16:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia, Louisiana 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 ∙ +/−

69.57.118.12 06:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am, perhaps unwisely, aiming to tidy up some parts of the rail transport category hierarchy. Category:Pennsylvania Railroad bridges and tunnels and analogous categories are obvious targets for splitting. I'm not very familiar with processes here, so what's the best way to go about that? Create separate categories for the tunnels, remove them, and rename the original categories to "...bridges of"? Choess (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker here. For low-traffic categories like that (where you're not likely to break links from outside, and you're not going against any existing naming conventions) that's probably a just fine way to do it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Mackensen (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. All of our SEPTA diesel service pictures are probably copyvios then; you can probably just throw them on an existing deletion nom. Might be worth shopping around for a couple high-quality fair use images or move those five (as 300px versions probably) back as fair use - they're of immense use as illustration. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, this is the nightmare that just keeps on giving. I can't find the original source for File:537126382 RDC in Pottsville.jpg but I'm convinced it was ripped off from somewhere. Given the lack of proper attribution there's no choice I think but deletion. Mackensen (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the links to these images can probably be used as substitutes. But on another topic, there's the image of "File:NYNewHavenHft logo.jpg." Since it is listed as non-free, do you have any real evidence that it violates the non-free content policy, logo guidelines, and fair use regulations? ----DanTD (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That link is red? Mackensen (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Dan means en:File:NYNewHavenHft logo.jpg, which is now orphaned because of your massive (and necessary) reverts. It should be added back into the NYNH&HRR and PC articles, as it is useful there. On another note, there are a few other old SEPTA images that appear to be copyvios, but the 2009-era images he uploaded appear possible to be his own work. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the image I was talking about. I forgot how to link non-commons image to the commons (and I can no longer transfer them), and it should've been restored in the New Haven and Penn Central articles. --DanTD (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's stopping you from doing so. Rolling back the content inevitably orphaned some images; there was no preventing that. Mackensen (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ----DanTD (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Newburyport Station (14191866058).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. 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! 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） ∙ +/−

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:19950703 01 8th Ave. New York (5352656715).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. 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! 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） ∙ +/−

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've stumbled across a few of his probable copyvios which escaped our notice before:

• File:ManayunkWest1985.jpg
• File:AEF County Line Station, 1985.png and thus File:AEF County Line Station, 1985 restored.jpg
• File:Aerial view of Market-Frankford Line, 1978.jpg

I can't find any of these elsewhere on the internet, but they're almost certainly copyvios. What's the easiest way to deal with these? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pi.1415926535: You can see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pottsville shuttle transfer at Reading station.jpg for an example of how I handled that situation. It's almost certainly scanned out of a book somewhere, or maybe someone's photo album. Mackensen (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Done; thanks for the help. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding of the Metroliner image deletion nomination. If I can be of any help to you at any time, please do not hesitate to ask. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:SEPTA Map (2131155351).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. 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! 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） ∙ +/−

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I just created Category:Freight cars of Amtrak to mop up the express boxcar and MHC categories. I've thrown baggage cars in there (including newly-created Category:Heritage Fleet baggage cars) for the time being. However, I'm not sure whether baggage cars should also be listed under passenger cars.

1. Should baggage cars be listed under freight cars, or passenger cars, or both? Currently the Viewbags are under the Viewliner passenger cars category, but I did not put the Heritage Fleet bags under their passenger cars.
2. How the heck do we categorize the F40PH cabbages?
3. Should we separate V-I from V-II, or leave them combined like with Amfleets? (This question inspired by a V-II making its way onto the Northeast Regional).
4. Should we have Category:Heritage Fleet dining cars and Category: Amfleet cafe cars under Category:Amtrak dining cars? I feel like that would be a worthwhile category structure with the Viewdiners supposedly happening sometime soon. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts:

1. Baggage cars, express boxcars and such are all head-end cars and might be considered passenger stock. Plenty of baggage car combines have carried passengers over the years. I think I'd restrict freight to actual gravel hoppers and such, although I'm open to being persuaded.
2. Same goes for all cab and control cars: cabbages, Metroliner cabs, California cabs. They're passenger stock.
3. Maybe? The traditional problem with the Amfleets and the Superliners is a lack of visual indicators beyond the road number. Once the V-II sleepers are on the road and the V-I sleepers have been refit there won't be much to tell them apart. If we start sub-categorizing the rolling stock then we should go all the way: Category:Amfleet II coaches, Category:Viewliner I sleeping cars. That's done with the British coaching stock (cf Category:British Rail Mk2 coaches and sub-categories). Cars that can't be properly identified stay in the undiffused category.
4. Heritage Fleet should always be capitalized, and we have to be careful as it only encompasses the inherited cars refit with HEP. Simon and Warner differentiate the unconverted cars as "steam-heated" and that might be the way to go. In a number of cases we can probably identify specific car classes (e.g. Pacific series sleeping cars), if they existed. That said, I think the category structure you propose is reasonable.

If the V-II diners do show up this fall, I should have an opportunity for a photo-op in December. We'll see. Mackensen (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(TPS) Category:Non-passenger stock of the United States seems to be the correct parent category here, and it's separate from Category:Freight cars of the United States. Baggage cars should certainly go under non-passenger stock. I'd lean toward putting the MHCs, express boxcars, and Auto Train autoracks in that category as well, insofar as they were intended to be handled in the consist of passenger trains rather than freight trains. Choess (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both your replies. I've moved it to Category:Non-passenger stock of Amtrak; hoppers can either go under a re-created freight category, or Category:Rail service vehicles of Amtrak.

I'm fine with separating the Superliner classes, and I've done more cleanup on that category, but I'm not going to separate Viewliners and Amfleet for now. Superliners tend to have more prominent car numbers and labels, which make them easier to separate. There's still 180-odd Superliner images which aren't categorized by type or series anyway.

As far as the cabbages: are all of the F40PH NPCUs also cabbages? or are some NPCUs only? That will determine how to categorize them udner the baggage cars category tree.

I've created the dining car category tree, with proper categorization. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know all NPCUs had the baggage conversion. It's possible there's a one-off out there that didn't have it done, but I'd still add the baggage category at the top-level. Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that it's okay to upload/undelete Roger Puta images? I'd thought that was a lost cause. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that's the case; see Special:Diff/209838142. I was stunned too. Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's exciting! I can restore the various Puta images that you uploaded, if you'd like. I would recommend putting {{RogerPuta}} in the {{Int:license-header}} section or under the |permission= parameter rather than the file description - that makes it more clear that the permissions are there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! There's a partial list at User:Mackensen/Deleted Puta images. Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted everything on that list, and as many as I could find in your deleted contributions as well. I undeleted redlinked categories when I found them, but I didn't fix superfluous un-checked PD tags and other such things. You will probably wish to take a quick run-though of the list here to find anything else that needs fixed, and to identify what images to re-add to enwiki articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I seem to be the only person clogging up your talk page, these two postcards that I just uploaded are giving me a challenge:

• File:Amtrak Pioneer in Columbia River Gorge (1), 1980s postcard.jpg
• File:Amtrak Pioneer in Columbia River Gorge (2), 1980s postcard.jpg

They're from between 1981 and 1987 based on the paint schemes and the mention of the Portland section of the Empire Builder. I identified them as the Pioneer because it occasionally ran long consists like the 10+ Superliners here. But the direction of the shadows, and the view in the second postcard (which I believe is a few miles west of Wishram, facing west) puts these trains on the north side of the river and thus makes them the Empire Builder's Portland section. I'm not sure how to reconcile that. Thoughts? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Always good to hear from you, even if it's perplexing! I agree with your assessment; these both look like the north side of the gorge. There isn't much in the way of forest (not now, anyway), and what little exists is on the north side. That said, it's surprising to see so long a consist on the Portland section. It seems plausible Amtrak could have run extra cars for the purposes of staging these shots; possibly BN was more accommodating than UP for such a shoot. This Etsy page looks like it might contain one more postcard from the same shoot. Another possibility is a railfan trip, but I haven't had any luck so far digging up evidence of such a trip from that period. I'm not near my books at the moment, but I can look around and see if there are any possibilities. It might be worth reaching out to the Amtrak history blog too. Mackensen (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Puta may have left us a clue. This photo, part of a series of the Coast Satrlight detouring in 1982, shows that the train crossed the river at Wishram and operated on the north side. There's some more details here. I'm not quite sure whether the sun and vegetation of the postcards match the snow and clouds of Puta's photos, but it does appear that the detour lasted at least a week. In any case, it would explain the lengthy train on that side of the river. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when using the {{No source since}} template, the convention is to raise to a deletion request rather than reverting others over the template. I've done this for you at File:1901 - Allentown Terminal Railroad Station.jpg. The logic is that any deletion resulting from a nss ought to be non-controversial, otherwise discussion in a DR is sensible to put on record. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answer left on discussion page. Fdutil (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with your deletion nom for this image. The actual source appears to be here rather than the Youtube video. The uploader there is Dom Blevins, who clearly goes by both Sjrailfan35 and ksjcaviation online. It might be worth getting OTRS permission, but my suspicion is that the photo is in fact properly licensed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pi.1415926535: Persuasive. That didn't come up when I searched. Mackensen (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Google Images is sometimes unreliable like that. Should I go ahead and undelete? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Mackensen (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think "GE EP-5" should be the correct name, both on enwiki and Commons. GE manufactured the locomotive, not the New Haven; only the PRR (GG1 in particular) seemed to manufacture locomotives in-house. If you're okay with it, I can make the moves.

Completely unrelated question while I have you occupied: I think it makes obvious sense to combine the Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg, as you previously did for the Illini and Saluki. There was a consensus not to merge back in 2006, but that was when the Carl Sandburg was brand-new and Amtrak was aggressively marketing it. I see you have a draft started previously. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pi.1415926535: my issue with "GE EP-5" is that no source I've ever seen uses that name. All the electric locomotives from that period are named that way and tended to be built for a particular operator, whether or not the company itself was involved in the construction (compare N&W LC-1 and N&W LC-2). I'll respond on the Zephyr on en.wp. Mackensen (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see what you mean. Is that just because electric locos tended to be made for a single railroad (were there any all-electric locos before the E60 ordered by multiple railroads?) Diesels do seem to always use the manufacturer name. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: My sense from various things I've read is that the practice of general locomotive designs sold to multiple railroads begins in the mid- to late-1930s with diesels. The early electrification projects were railroad-specific and the naming followed the convention with steam locomotives. Part of it is inevitably the practice of railroad historians as well; Jerry Pinkepank wrote something to the effect that the railfan habit of categorizing things obsessively was transmitted back to the locomotive builders. I'll have to dig it out; it might be in the foreword to McDonnell's book. The E60 might well be the first general design, and even then there were significant differences between the E60C, E60CP, and E60C-2, each of which was effectively built for a different operator (we'll ignore the Deseret-Western's two E60C-2s). Far more variation than you see with the EMD F40PH. Mackensen (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, and thanks for the explanation! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added all the files to Category:Gateway Rail Services yard. Some that you may be able to help with:

• File:Gateway Rail Services yard from IL 203 bridge, May 2017.jpg: What's the type or history of that RDC?
• File:Unidentified Amtrak car in Gateway Rail Services yard, May 2017.jpg: What type of car was this?
• File:Dome car in Gateway Rail Services yard, May 2017.jpg: Was this an Amtrak car?
• File:Equipment in Gateway Rail Services yard, May 2017.jpg: What are the streamliners at left?

Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amtrak SURFLINER (7079913889).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. 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! 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） ∙ +/−

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Communes in Romania 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 ∙ +/−

Gikü (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kinki Sharyo light rail vehicles in Seattle 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 ∙ +/−

Jmabel ! talk 03:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have started a discussion to rename a large collection of categories, one or more of which you may have created or edited. Please see the discussion thread at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/College athletics programs for details. Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackensen. Thanks for the merge. I've gone through and added a number of railway station categories that probably ought to have already been in one or other category. I hope you don't mind, but I've also renamed Category:St. Gallen–Winterthur line to Category:St. Gallen–Winterthur railway line, as I think that is the convention for railway lines. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chris j wood: . That's great, thanks for doing that. At some point I'd like to see more consistency in those names, and in the names in use on en.wp, but one day at a time. Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes at BLS railway stations all come with "BLS AG" as owner, which is wrong. Owner of the infrastructure is BLS Netz AG, official initials BLSN. BLS AG, official initials BLS, is a railway undertaking and operator of S-Bahn Bern. Apart from this, BLS Cargo AG (BLSC) and BLS Fernverkehr AG (BLSFV) exist. I'm not familiar with rectifying data in Wikidata and would be glad if you could do this. Or you'll give me some instructions. -- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gürbetaler: I think the primary change would be to set Q796251 as the owner (but not operator) of the various stations and railway lines. Wikidata hasn't made any real distinction between BLS AG and BLS Netz AG. Is this a distinction with a difference? From what I've read (little so far) BLS Netz AG is basically a paper entity whose purpose is to place ownership of at least some (all?) of the physical assets nominally under federal control, but BLS AG still provides the staff and controls operations and BLS Netz AG doesn't have its own corporate structure. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:CEVA regards the railway works done around Geneva. Please do not add Category:Chêne-Bourg railway station to it, the sub-category Category:CEVA-Chêne-Bourg regards the works done in this station for the CEVA project. --MHM (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @MHM55: I understand CEVA to also be the physical railway line between Cornavin and Annemasse and typically we categorize stations that way. I don't think the current categorization scheme is very satisfactory--all the images of the new Chêne-Bourg station are one level higher than the CEVA category. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a confusion in the mind of many. The "CEVA" is the project of extension and the work being done (tracks, tunnels, buildings, bridges, bicycle lane, etc.) - it is not the railway line as it stands today. The name "Léman Express", the new network including the stations, was decided quite late by the authorities, which added to the confusion. Pictures regarding the works being done are grouped under Category:CEVA-Chêne-Bourg (and the same with other stations). It makes sense to have categories, for each station, regarding the works period. It makes sense to have those categories grouped under CEVA, not under the station categories. Hope this helps :-) (Note: I am Genevese) --MHM (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @MHM55: thank you, that's very helpful. I think we're really talking about three interrelated concepts then: the CEVA project, the Geneva–Annemasse railway line, and the Léman Express services that run on the line. The various language Wikipedias have used the first two interchangeably. Mackensen (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackensen,
I got the impression that you're quite an expert on British Rail stuff. Could you help to clear this category? There are many photos from England in it, and I'm not so proficient in the British Rail category system on Commons. Thanks! --Jcornelius (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jcornelius: : Sure; I've worked on his photos before. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kennedy GO Station - Mural.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. 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! 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） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manayunk_West_station 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 ∙ +/−

192.196.218.210 18:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M8 (railcar) of the Metro-North Railroad 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 ∙ +/−

Mike Peel (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When separating trackage and service categories for commuter lines, I tend to keep the station categories in both trackage and service categories. Someone who's not familiar with trackage as we are is likely to be confused if they go to Category:Paoli/Thorndale Line and most of the stations it serves aren't there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can achieve that with a hatnote. Categorizing by service is really uncommon (it's my fault, I did it in the first place in 2011 or so), and I don't think it's helpful. Mackensen (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I think it's actively unhelpful in that it perpetuates confusion between a physical line and the services that use it. Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't agree - a station being served (especially entirely) by a service is a connection that justifies categorization. Consider a likely scenario: someone writing a news article wants pictures of several Trenton Line stations. But when they go to Category:Trenton Line (SEPTA), there aren't any station categories listed, and the linked Category:Northeast Corridor covers much more territory than the Trenton Line. Perhaps Category:Stations served by the Trenton Line and so on would work? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It feels anomalous. We don't do that for Amtrak routes, for example. Nothing gets categorized that way in Europe. If a picture depicts a Trenton Line train, then it should be so categorized. If it's a station that the Trenton Line serves, well, what of it? Is that a distinguishing feature? I'm not trying to be difficult, but I see the previous categorization scheme as an artifact of confusing lines and services and not something that brought obvious benefits. Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For commuter rail stations, where they've often been served by the same one or few service(s) for decades or centuries? Yes, I do think that's a distinguishing characteristic, at least for the US. (Europe seems much more likely to have multiple services running over a single line, and less likely to have the line and service commonly called the same name.) That's particularly true for the general public, for whom the difference between a line and a service may not be obvious. I certainly know you're not trying to be difficult - that would be incredibly unlike you - but I think you're approaching this from a position of being too familiar with the details. Accurately hair-splitting between lines and services is less important than providing a category structure that's going to be useful for all users.

At this point, I think my suggestion of Category:Stations served by the Trenton Line would be the best compromise. It makes the line/service separation clear, but makes the stations findable from the service they've had since the 1830s. (After all, the distinction between lines and services is a relatively new concept. Prior to the public subsidy era, only named trains* had an identity separate from the lines they used, and our categorization reflects that. *Okay, and a few oddballs like the Valpo Local.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes and no. You see the line/service overlap with some smaller systems, particularly narrow-gauge roads in Switzerland. That said, SEPTA bears considerable resemblance to an S-Bahn network, and it's not uncommon for the outer branches to have a single service on a single line. The current line names are only about a decade old, whenever SEPTA dropped the R-based numbering. I think it's fine to add "Stations served by X" categories, being careful to maintain a service/line distinction. I'll note that this will get ugly in the Center City stations, and in general they weren't categorized by service before. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fine to omit the Center City stations from those categories. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, noticed you created some of the neighborhood categories in Minneapolis. And while uploading some flickr images, I just noticed that "Morris Park" wasn't created yet. Hope it's ok I created it? (since you created some of those categories there back in the day, figured it'd double check with you) thibaultmol (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, thanks for reaching out. I don't exactly remember why I was working on neighborhoods back then; I think there had been some batch transfers from en.wp that weren't well-categorized. Mackensen (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only found out it was missing cause I was mass importing a Flickr user's images and he has a bunch of images for each neighborhood.

Ah good catch to add the wikidata item. I've been doing a lot of wikidata stuff but somehow didn't know of adding the wikidata item XD thibaultmol (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make a cropped version of this image: File:WPRR 1801 (12690799).jpg (I am asking for a cropped version where it shows the locomotive fully on screen of the image) 220.235.238.29 23:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done; how's File:WPRR 1801 (12690799) (cropped).jpg? Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! 220.235.238.29 01:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated on Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Seward Park, Seattle, Washington. Thanks. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make a cropped version of this image: File:SP 4370 and 4423 at Medford, OR in July 1986 (33196782466).jpg (I am asking for a cropped version where it shows only SP SD9E #4423 fully on screen of the image. As #4423 is only seen a little bit on the screen while the rest is being hogged by SP SD9E #4370)

and then name that new file "SP 4423 at Medford, Oregon in July 1986 (33196782466).jpg" 14.2.49.99 07:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]