User talk:Purzelbier

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Purzelbier!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. 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 (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

File:AC Ace photographed at Knebworth 2012.jpg and others

Do not write in the descriptions such things like that: "Title is obviously wrong! This is not an AC Cobra but an AC Ace; furthermore, in 1971 the AC Cobra was already out of production by two years", please... Such comments you can write only in the rename request template. You should change the description for true one (without personal notes) and put the template for renaming (with all explanation you wish). Correct it, please.
Good luck! Wieralee (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I wrote this description before I knew how to request a name change, as I thought it was the only way to correct the info. I'll fix it soon.--Purzelbier (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Armstrong Siddeley Special

Hi, Why did you change the sort key on this category? Eddaido (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Eddaido. When I created the new category "Armstrong Siddeley automobiles" in order to list the brand Armstrong Siddeley also in the category "Automobiles by brand" (and not just the generic "Vehicles by brand"), I thought it a good idea to order the different sub-categories alpha-numerically by model name. I think that's common standard with all automobile brands. Just compare any sizeable brand from "Alfa Romeo" to "Volvo". I didn't mean to do any harm. Is my edit problametical for you? We'll surely find a way to correct my edit if necessary. Kind regards, --Purzelbier (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I can see that the logic escaped you and you have made the assumption cars are being sought by their name. Please would you understand when you go to change something they will have been organised by someone who knows more than you do about the subject and you should at least consult them first for courtesy if nothing else. Car manufacturers are rarely very logical in their choice of names for their products and the way you have chosen to list them is truly daringly irrational to anyone knowing the subject. Please may we discuss this further. Eddaido (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right - the sort logic escaped me and I shouldn't have changed it whithout contemplation or consult. I just didn't think twice. My knowledge in Armstrong Siddeley isn't deeper than that in Studebaker, Lancia or Borgward. When it comes to historic automobiles, I'm an absolute generalist, not a specialist in one brand. You're critique is absolutely justified. Therefore, I will restore the former sort key immediately. Beg your pardon. --Purzelbier (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Leere Kategorien

Hallo Purzelbier, bitte für leere Kategorien nicht das "große" Löschverfahren mit {{delete|...}} verwenden, sondern das abgekürzte mit {{speedy|empty}}, danke. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Servus Achim, vielen Dank für die Rückmeldung - ich werde es künftig beherzigen (war Premiere für mich...). Gruß, --Purzelbier (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. ~riley (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Grüss euch

I am totally confused, which is a familiar sensation. But I am happy to confirm that Charles is the only name I am smart enough to use / remember for whichever wiki it was you guys had in mind. Um Gottes Will usw.

Also I try to avoid wiki-discussions about categories because we all group stuff in our minds differently and people can become very passionate when they come across someone whose memory / retrieval fails to measure up to their own. Arguments can be fun, but one tries to save them for times when they may go some place useful.

I have a slight soft spot for Armstrong Siddeleys because - implausibly - when I was at school we had a respected (and liked) teacher of Latin who drove an Armstrong Siddeley Hurricane. I think not this one, however: his was blue.

Sadly I do not know the places you mention, though I used to visit Garmisch (& Partenkirchen) when I was more mobile, and more recently we lived in Loerrach for a couple of years. Now that IS southern Germany.

Be well / Sei gesund Charles01 (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Charles01: , thanks for reaching out. At first I was a bit puzzled by your message but now I think Eddaido contacted you and told you he had mistaken me for you, am I right on that? Well, anyhow, I'm always pleased to get in touch with someone that share's some of my interests :).

Btw, thanks for the "thanks" on my Ambi-Budd edit. I'm mainly doing edits / corrections on Commons files but when I stumble over some information on Wikipedia that I'm really sure isn't correct I'm of course doing some corrections there, too...

And yes, Garmisch and Lörrach both are VERY southern Germany - but the place I dwell (northern end of the Bavarian Forest, some 30 km north-east of Regensburg/Ratisbon) is qite lovely, too.... always worthy for a vacation ;)

Greetings from Bavaria to the Netherlands (right?) and of course: Bleib gesund, too!--Purzelbier (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I might be wrong about this but historic in English does not mean old. An old shoe is not a historic shoe. I imagine the shoes worn by President Kennedy when he was killed are still like new and preserved somewhere. They are not very old but many would see them as historic. An old cathedral probably is historic. Historic according to Google means "famous or important in history, or potentially so" and that makes sense to me. It can also be used when talking about the past but English being a highly contextual language the word's being used in a different position. The car in which Konrad Adenauer travelled to take up his post as first chancellor of the Federal Republic would perhaps be historic? Charles01 might know better. Best wishes from monoglot Eddaido (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC) !

Thanks for this interesting information. Not being an English native speaker, I'm always thankful for something like this! As you can see from my user page content, I thought up to now that the term "historic motor vehicle" would be the best English language equivalent of the term "Oldtimer" used consistently in German language (quite funnily, "Oldtimer" stemming from English language but AFAIK being used for "preserved old cars and motorcycles" exclusively in German language...). But then, how are those "preserved old vehicles of past epochs" called in English? "Vintage" (I don't think so - AFAIK vintage is reserved for vehicles from the 1920s, isn't it)? "Antique"?

It might be of interest to have a look at the US and Australian vehicle registration plates specifically reserved for "preserved old vehicles". All US states and at least some Australian have those special registration plates. Many of them use the term "historic vehicle" - one example: File:2005 New South Wales registration plate 32349♦H historic vehicle.jpg from New South Wales....--Purzelbier (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Where I live old timer was used by people born before 1900 about people born long before them (as a kind of excuse for unexpected behaviour). This pair of words makes my hands shake over the keyboard because they sound so like the terrifying Alzheimer word if you understand me. Yes, they did talk about old timers in cowboys and Indians movies featuring people born before 1868 (only joking, before 1900). I write to you because of my particular concern at the gross misuse (which you point out) of some authorities in using historic for old things. It is plain wrong.

Turning it around a bit, when you say historic you mean old don't you. I think you should just say old cars — that covers from last year's model all the way back to the beginning. @Charles01: thoughts? Eddaido (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In my judgment, "oldtimer" has a far more clear and fixed meaning in German than in English. It might even be included in the law on car tax. It certainly frequently arises in discussions on car tax.

There are, of course, plenty of phrases that English take from other folks' languages that have far more simple and clear and fixed meanings in English than in the donor language: "Zeitgeist", "Al fresco"... maybe even "Bauhaus"

Without having thought about it on a conscious level (as far as I remember) I think "historic" is als a word I would use sparingly in English wikipedia. One could write pages and pages about what it does and doesn't mean, where it does and doesn't fit, and still Eddaido and I would disagree about plenty of the examples set forth. Better, in most cases, to go and find a less contentious adjective....methinks.

For many purposes, I agree that "old" is a better word than "historic". Or you might pin it down: "more than 30 years old" or "pre-1960". There's nothing wrong with precision (though many anglophones might disagree with me on that ... I recall still, I think, hoots of laughter when a German visitor on a punting trip in Cambridge, asked what was the time, answered carefully to the nearest few seconds) But - again - please do not try and impose too many "one-rule fits all cases" on English language usage. We inherit our linguistic logic - and therefore our linguistic brain patterns - from many varieties of Germanic AND Latinate language: we never decided very firmly which of the two had won. And there are a few others besides: thus the imperial heritage. Greeting Charles01 (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is a very interesting discussion. At first let my point out the exact situation in Germany: The official term in laws regarding vehicle registration and taxation is "historisches Kraftfahrzeug" (literally "historic motor vehicle") - the term commonly used as a colloquial synonym is "Oldtimer". These are not just "old vehicles" (which well might be derelict and srappy) but vehicles that are worth future preservation due to their fine and original condition and thus (in the view of the administration) deserve privileged treatment regarding taxation, anti-pollution laws etc. So it's not some special past event (like an Adenauer or Kennedy connection) that makes these vehicles "historisch" but just the fact that they are collectors' items and deserve future preservation. It's connotated with preserving our technical heritage. Any specimen of any type or model can be "historisch" in this sense of the (German) word - a "VW Golf" as well as an "Hispano-Suiza" - what matters is the combination of age and condition deserving further preservation.

And when I look at the "official" usage of the term "historic(al)" on specific number plates like File:2005 New South Wales registration plate 32349♦H historic vehicle.jpg, File:California license plate Historic Vehicle.gif, File:Standplate antiquecar-large.jpg, or File:Ontario historic vehicle license plate 2h5200.jpg, it seems to me that at least in Australia, Canada and the USA the official term for vehicles that would be called "Oldtimer" in Germany is "historic vehicles" - "historic" as a synonym of "from past times and worth preservation as a collector's item".--Purzelbier (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: My last assumption is backed by the naming of the "Society of Automotive Historians" ([[1]]). As there obviously is the established term "automotive history", maybe we should just interprete the term "historic car" in this very context - "historic" as the adjective simply pointing to the field of "automotive history" (and not other aspects of history like those connected to Kennedy's assassination or Adenauer's inauguration...). --Purzelbier (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry about this but the word historic is being grossly misused, you should recognise that you are forcing your usage on me which is extremely unwelcome and it arises because you do not understand how to use the word. Your English is truly excellent, it is not perfect. Please look at your thoughts about wayfarers and waymakers and see what I politely think of them. I cannot stress too much how unfortunate it would be if your attempted usage of historic crept into WP. Eddaido (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, @Eddaido: . I noticed your last reply just now (it somehow went unnoticed by me as I just saw your reply on the other thread...). Of course I respect your opinion, but I don't want to force anything. And it's not my use of the term "historic vehicle" - it's the official use of the administrative authorities dealing with vehicle registration in the USA, Australia and Canada (please have a look at the respective inscriptions on the registration plates on the pictures I linked upthread - in all these cases the term obviously doesn't mean that a vehicle has been involved in any "historic event" but just that the vehicle is an artifact of automotive history and should be preserved. To the best of my knowledge any well-preserved motor vehicle of a certain age is eligible to get such a license plate in these countries - at least many of my books as well as Commons are full of cars sporting these "historic vehicle" license plates. And this use of "historic (motor) vehicle" is the exact equivalent (literally and in meaning) of "historisches (Kraft)-Fahrzeug" which is the legal term used in Germany (the special German license plate for these vehicles is the "H-Kennzeichen"; it carries an "H" at the end for "historisch"). That's just the obvious legal facts in Germany - and at least in the USA, Australia and Canada - not me forcing anything. As there apparently is no other equivalent to "historisches Kraftfahrzeug" in English language than "historic vehicle" (as I pointed out it's not the same as "old vehicle"), I just don't know what I should do about your anger and opposition. Sorry for that. --Purzelbier (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: You might have a look at [2] for the "official term" in the UK and at [3] for New South Wales...--Purzelbier (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

P.P.S.: I see that there are other (non-governmental) instances that use the term in a much more restricted sense: en:Historic Vehicle Association. Classic vehicle or Antique vehicle might be other candidates for translating the German term "historisches Kraftfahrzeug" - but then, these terms are highly ambiguous, too, as can be seen from the articles... --Purzelbier (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, they are making a mistake. I can't help that. Remember they can (and do) change their terminology at will. America is like that, their country has incorporated many citizens who are obliged to use English as a second language and, perhaps like you, are no longer accustomed to even the smallest amount of precision in their ordinary day to day communications. (I'm told this causes many thoroughly enjoyable arguments!) America also uses British time but gives it another name (!) Similarly they have pushed their extremely approximate uneducated use of historic (about old cars and other old things) on these other countries, it will change —or they will have to invent a new word to do the job.

As you now know, I and others believe it is a gross misuse of the word by uneducated persons. You put yourself with them if you insist but first check with any friendly English-speaking historian, or spell it historisch. A current favourite with the same problem is iconic. Eddaido (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik and Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika

Hi. I suggest reconsidering the name of Category:RAF automobiles because there has been also another company which used to produce vehicles under name RAF. See Category:RAF vehicles. --Gwafton (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Gwafton: , thanks for reaching out! I admit that I didn't think about RAF, the commercial vehicles manufacturer from Riga, when I created "RAF automobiles". That's because AFAIK they never built "automobiles" in the sense of common English language usage of the term (="cars") under the brand name "RAF", but only commercial vehicels ("vans"). For example compare Category:Ford Transit - it's not a subcategory of "Ford automobiles" but of "Ford vans" - both of the latter being subcategories of the same rank to the superordinate "Ford vehicles". I think that's the structure we should aim at for all vehicle makes. And as the brand "RAF" (of Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik) wasn't yet listed in Category:Automobiles by brand, I created Category:RAF automobiles. As the term "by brand" says, IMHO the brand name should be the moniker and not the full form of the company name... just like "BMW" has the categories "BMW vehicles" and "BMW automobiles" (and not "Bayerische Motoren Werke vehicles" etc.).

So at the end of the day, if I had to rename the respective categories from scratch, I would have the following: "RAF vehicles (SU/LV)" with subcategory "RAF vans (SU/LV)" + "RAF vehicles (A/CZ)" with subcategory "RAF automobiles (A/CZ)" + I would tag them with "see also category" templates pointing to the existence of the unrelated vehicle brand of the same name.

But I could also live with keeping Category:RAF vehicles and creating the proper subcategory "RAF vans" while keeping Category:Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik vehicles with Category:RAF automobiles + tag them with "see also category".

The term "vehicle" in my view always is only a superordinate term - every vehicle is also something more precise, like "automobile", "van", "truck", "motorcycle" etc. and for these we have own overview categories like "Automobiles by brand" or "Vans by brand"... So IMHO the Riga brand has to get something more precise anyway.

Last but not least - that RAF (Riga) built some ambulances on Tschaika automobiles doesn't mean that these were "RAF autombiles" because what matters is the brand name / the marque of the vehicle - and this is GAZ and not RAF with those ambulances...

What do you think about these reasonings? Cheers --Purzelbier (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure about outlining of the meaning for word automobile in English as I am not native speaker either. I would use name vehicle in the upper level category. Nevertheless, in this particular case I would use the full names of the companies Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik and Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika, because there is an apparent risk of confusion. Concerning BMW, I don't see a such risk because as far as I know there have not existed other companies which have produced BMW cars (apart from Eisenacher Motorenwerk). There has been another company called BMW, but they were focused on other products. --Gwafton (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm no English speaker either, but German. In German language, the term "Automobil" is much broader than its English usage and comprises "cars" = "automobiles" (US English) (in German "Personenkraftwagen") as well as "vans" (in German "Lieferwagen"), "lorries (UK English)" = "trucks" (US English) (in German "Lastkraftwagen") and "buses" (in German "Kraftomnibusse"). The English term "automobiles" is strictly North American usage and only comprises "a type of vehicle designed to move on the ground under its own stored power and intended to carry a driver, a small number of additional passengers, and a very limited amount of other load. A car or motorcar." (cf. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/automobile). So not even the pick-up trucks very commonly used in the USA for private transport are "automobiles" by definition, but "trucks". And as Commons consistently uses the terms of American English (automobiles instead of cars and trucks instead of lorries), it's this defintion that counts. And you can see from most vehicle related catetories on Commons that this definition is used consistently - look for any given van model and you normally won't find it under "brand xy automobiles" but under "brand xy vans" (or often under "brand xy vehicles" when no category more precise exists yet - just like with RAF). So at the end of the day, the Riga-based RAF brand is not an "automobile brand" but a "van brand".

I understand your point about the full company name vs. the brand name to differentiate homonymous but unrelated brands. But to be frank, I don't share your opinion. As the structuring element for most "overview categories" for vehicles and their subcategories is the term "by brand" (cf. Category:Vehicles by brand, Category:Automobiles by brand; Category:Motorcycles by brand; Category:Vans by brand...), the moniker that should be used is "the brand" = "the marque" of a vehicle. And that's "BMW" (not "Bayerische Motorenwerke"), "Fiat" (not "Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino"), "Subaru" (not "Fuji Heavy Industries"), "Mazda" (not "Toyo Kogyo") - and "RAF" (not "Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik" and "Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika"). The fact that some brand names exist more than one time with unrelated companies IMHO doesn't make a difference. This is very often the case and has to be differentiated in some practical way, but without abandoning the brand name; because it's the brand name that most users will look after when searching for Commons images - most users won't even know the company name behind those common brand names (who knows what the acronym "Fiat" means? who knows about "Fuji Heavy Industries"?)

There are precedents how we can cope with the problem of homonymous brands. For example look at Category:Imperia vehicles (B) (the famous Belgian automobile brand) versus Category:Imperia vehicles (D) (the famous German motorcycle brand) - both share the same brand name but are completely unrelated. Presently, their subcategories (and there have to be some because every "vehicle" is also something more precise...) are Category:Imperia automobiles and Category:Imperia motorcycles. The mutual relationship of the homonymous but unrelated "Imperia vehicles" is explained with "see also category" templates. As yet, such an explanation isn't needed on the "automobiles" and "motorcycles" level as the present Commons content has no overlap. But fact is that Imperia (D) also built some automobile prototypes, of which there are no images yet on Commons. When such images will finally find their way to Commons, then of course there has to be a new category "Imperia automobiles (D)" that has to be differentiated from the existing "Imperia automobiles" (which then should be renamed to "Imperia automobiles (B)") by an explanation template like we already have now on the vehicles level.

Back to the "RAF" issue. As there are very many compromises in the naming of Commons categories, I see two alternatives what to do. I could live with keeping Category:Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik vehicles + Category:RAF automobiles on the one hand and Category:RAF vehicles + newly created categories "RAF vans" and "RAF buses" (as the RAF-251 surely is a "bus" by construction and not a "van") on the other hand. IMHO we really need these new subcategories for the Riga brand as currently no user browsing through Category:Vans by brand would ever learn about this important brand from Latvia! Then I would place "see also category" templates on every level to point out that there is more than one vehicle brand of the name "RAF". The other solution would be to create a new "RAF vehicles (A/CZ)" (+ redirect "Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik vehicles" to it) and a new "RAF vehicles (SU/LV)" (+ redirect "RAF vehicles" to it - just as has been done with Category:Imperia vehicles); thus we would in both cases consistently use the proper brand name "RAF" and at the same time establish the differentiation as with the Imperia precedent.--Purzelbier (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

When ever possible, it is the best to have a uniform practice that can be applied everywhere. As extensions are already in use, I prefer using those, but the Reichenberger should not be called "RAF vehicles (A/CZ)", as the production ceased for 80 years before Czech Republic was established. Instead, it should be "RAF vehicles (AH)", with AH meaning Austria-Hungary. --Gwafton (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly share your opinion about uniform practice - alas, there never has been defined such a practice when it comes to the naming of vehicle-related categories. To differentiate countries of origin, I personally prefer the official "international vehicle registration codes" as these should be widely known to any interested user all over the world. So IMO like "D" stands for Germany, "GB" should be used for Great Britain (instead of "UK") and "USA" instead of "US"; from the latter examples you can see that when it comes to details, Commons currently is far from a uniform naming practice...

But one point is sure - there never was a "nationality code" called "AH". "Austria-Hungary" always consisted of two distinct national entities (two states governed in real union - not one state) and always had two different registration codes: "A" and "H". So IMO this must not be mixed up ... more so as I believe that few other users would understand what "(AH)" should mean (at least, I surely wouldn't...). I do see your point, that RAF never existed in the Czech Republic; of course you're right on that - my aim was to point out that its place of origin (Liberec, formerly Reichenberg) at present is in the Czech Republic... I personally would just be fine with settling on the name "RAF vehicles (A)" - as this is where the enterprise was from the whole of its existence: Austria (Bohemia being part of Austria until 1918); but I fear that users from the Czech Republic might disapprove of such a tag.

A possible alternative would be to do without nationality codes and using full text instead: "RAF vehicles (Bohemia)" (and consequently "RAF vehicles (Latvia)" - thus also avoiding the historical "SU" tag). Vehicle history holds many cases where the nationality codes alone won't do the differentiation as two (or even more) unrelated brands of the same name existed in the same state. One example is Category:Ferrari vehicles vs. Category:Ferrari vehicles (Milan) (just created by myself as it didn't exist yet on the "vehicle" level...). In such cases we have to operate with full text. Another example from Bohemia is Category:Achilles (Czech) vehicles - but this one's not really solved optimally: At first, the brand is far from "Czech" alone, being "Austrian-Bohemian" before WWI, "Czechoslovakian" between WWI and WWII and "German" after WWII when the enterprise moved from Horní Police to Wilhelmshaven. At second, the extension "(...)" in the middle (instead of at the end) of the category name means that the category doesn't show up in the search field when a user searches for "Achilles vehicles"...

To sum up, I would either prefer the pairings "RAF vehicles (A)" and "RAF vehicles (SU/LV)" or "RAF vehicles (Bohemia)" and "RAF vehicles (Latvia)". But as we of course should hear the opinions of the users that created these categories, I'd like to invite them and some other users prominently interested in historic motor vehicles to this discussion: @Honza chodec: , @Liftarn: , @Buch-t: , @MartinHansV: , @Eddaido: , @Charles01: , @Mr.choppers: , @Chief tin cloud: --Purzelbier (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not know if you are asking for votes or simply for opinions. Either way, here are mine. Somewhere there is a wiki-guideline which says that you should try and avoid assuming knowledge on the part of the reader. That agrees with my own dislike of jargon. If you write something in wikipedia, it's normally about communicating (with folks you never met). If you communicate using a lot of specialist jargon you communicate to me, your reader, that you know a lot of words - and no doubt a lot of other stuff - that I don't know. I'm sure that's right. But I did not need you to tell me. I knew it already. When we contribute in the English language wikipedia we have the special privilege that for many of our readers English is not the mother tongue but the second or third language. That is no reason to simplify stuff to the point of distorting truth. But it IS a reason to prefer names to acronyms. Word are more easily recognisable than initials. Easier to look up, too, if you don't know the word(s) encountered. So I prefer "RAF vehicles (Bohemia)" and "RAF vehicles (Latvia)". "RAF vehicles (A)" and "RAF vehicles (SU/LV)" are gratuitously unclear - at best ambiguous. I have lived in Vienna so I am familiar with "A" standing for "Austria". But it could also stand for an awful lot of other things, and you should not expect me to dedicate ten minutes of my valuable life to reading an entire wiki-article in order to be sure what "A" means to you on this occasion. Sadly I never lived in the Soviet Union ot Latvia and do not anticipate ever having the opportunity to do so - nor in their successor states as appropriate. My loss. Doch! But do not make me feel even sadder about it by reminding me of my loss. I am your reader aka your customer. You're meant to make me feel good about wikipedia and about myself. That way I'm more likely to read more of it, and maybe even contribute more to it.

As between "vehicles" and "automobiles" I have no strong preference. I have a weak preference for "vehicles" because it is more generic and doesn't expressly exclude delivery vans or motor bikes or trucks if someone finds that the company diversifed - or prepared to diversify - in ways concerning which we initially had insufficient knowledge to mention it in the wiki-entry.

Sorry I never learned how to do succinct. Be well. Charles01 (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Charles01: , for your valuable and profoundly explained opinion. It's very worthy to learn about your thoughts concerning the advantages of full text extensions like ("Austria") over using nationality codes like ("A") to avoid assuming knowledge on the part of the user. It would be a great thing to have some kind of accepted standard usage with this topic - meaning perhaps that Category:Imperia vehicles (B) should be renamed to "Imperia vehicles (Belgium)" for clarification and convenience of the users. But then, what about "GB"/"UK" or "USA"/"US"? Should we assume that every user knows about those nations codes, different from all other ones like "F", "I", "CDN", "D", "PL" et.al.? Wouldn't this ambivalent usage be kind of arrogant? Otherwise, we would need full text extensions in this case, too, like "(United States of America)" or "(Great Britain and Northern Ireland)" (quite awkward, isn't it?) - or we could switch to more precise toponyms like "(England)", "(Scotland)", "(Illinois)", "(Connecticut)" et.al. to avoid "USA" and "GB"...

If I ruled the world (1) God help us all and (2) I would indeed substitute "Imperia vehicles (Belgium)". But I don't. Ditto, under many circumstances - though i reject one size fits all rules in these cases - "F", "I", "CDN", "D", "PL" et.al. When you come to the ticklish business of categores, I read your ambition and I understand your instinct for logic and consistency. But also I gulp uneasily. The reason the categories are such a mess in wiki-en is that we each sort things in our own personal ways. The same issue touches commons and wiki-de but less so. At the risk of falling back on national stereo-types, most German people are happy to follow most Richtlinien without too much dissent. In England (as, to a lesser extent, in Belgium, Italy, France, even) we tend to assume that guide lines are optional, more often than not invented by bad people for their own bad purposes.

On "my own country", I tend to avoid "United Kingdom" because in terms of its original purpose, the expression became a sick joke somewhere round 1922, and these days it looks ever less future-proof with each passing day. "USA" and "GB" have their place, in my opinion, but yes, in cases of doubt I would still tend to write "England" or "Scotland" or "(Great) Britain" as appropriate. With USA you have the tricky question of what is a better idea? In conversation we say "America", but when people start to think too hard they remember that America doubles as a continent or two. So, yes, there are plenty of occasions where I still use "USA", though when I do it for links in Wikipedia I tend to get robotic messages inviting a disambiguation exercise, and quite often it is sooooo much easier to leave the thing ambiguous or simply to delink the term under consideration! Charles01 (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the terms "vehicles" and "automobiles" I believe that we really need both when applicable. Those aren't synonyms but hierarchical terms. Every automobile is also a vehicle but not vice versa. As we have the overview categories Category:Vehicles by brand AND Category:Automobiles by brand, IMHO every automobile brand should be found at both levels. As it is now, many brands only exist as "xy vehicles" while many others only exist as "xy automobiles" - with the effect that interested users browsing one of those overview categories never will learn about the respective missing brands. Same of course goes for truck brands, van brands, motorcycle brands, tractor brands etc.... Every one of them should have a "vehicle entry", too, so that in the end Category:Vehicles by brand comprises the sum of all sub-categories and provides users with the whole overview over all vehicle brands.--Purzelbier (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I follow and agree your logic here (though "brand" and "marque") are words I tend to avoid because there seems to be no very clear consensus over what they mean). On "vehicles" and "automobiles" I think there are already plenty of examples with the wikipedia-commons categories where the logic you espouse is already followed, and I therefore think you may have less of a battle extending the same logic to the more obscure corners of the data base - defunct manufacturers (and "brands") - than with some of the other categories stuff. Success. Charles01 (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for including me. I am with Gwafton and think that the best solution is to name them Category:Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik vehicles and Category:Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika vehicles. That way we do not have to decide on what an automobile is; there could be a disambiguation page perhaps. They could also be named Category:Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik (RAF) vehicles if we want to be extra clear. Single letter abbreviations for countries will probably cause more confusion than its worth, to save a few keystrokes. That "ī" in Rīgas will be trouble, though.

Lastly, under no circumstance think that I am in favor of renaming Category:RAF-2203 for instance - the subpages should all retain RAF in their names with no change. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 18:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Mr.choppers: , thanks for joining in. To be frank, I'm not really sure if I understand your position. As Gwafton pointed out, it would be best to have a uniform practice. But when we have e.g. "Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika vehicles" (the full company name) instead of "RAF vehicles" (the brand name) then for uniformity's sake we consequently would have to switch "Category:BMW automobiles" to "Bayerische Motorenwerke automobiles" or "Category:BSA motorcycles" to "Birmingham Small Arms motorcycles". There are myriads of other examples where the established brand name is an acronym of the company name - just to name another few of the more famous ones of vehicle history: Fiat, DKW, AJS, MAN, DAF, Simca, Seat, VAZ, GAZ... I really don't think to do away with brand names in favour of company names is a viable solution because of the two following considerations:

1.) The overview categories all are named "...by brand" (like in Category:Vehicles by brand) - but the brand surely is "RAF" just like "BMW" or "BSA" - and not Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika. So how could it be logical to have "Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika vehicles" (or "Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik vehicles"...) listed under "Vehicles by brand"?

2.) No user interested in the brand "RAF" (either the van make from Riga or the car make from Reichenberg) and searching for images on Commons - either by writing "RAF vehicles" in the search field or by looking up the entries of Category:Vehicles by brand - would find them if they were categorized as "Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika vehicles" or "Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik vehicles". Surely the most common expectation of any user would be to find any given vehicle brand as categorized under its "brand name" - and not under its full written company name that most of the users won't ever have heard of, anyhow.

So to sum up, I would definitely plead for consistently and consequently using the established "brand" when naming "vehicle-brand-related" categories. What goes for "model-based" subpages like "RAF-2203" must also go for the "whole-brand-based" superordinate pages like "RAF buses", "RAF vans" and (most superordinate) "RAF vehicles". We should just make sure to amend the category names with some kind of clear and easily understandable extension where it is necessary to differentiate between homonymous brand names - like in the case of "RAF", "Austin", "Imperia", "Ferrari", "Excelsior", "ABC" or dozens more... --Purzelbier (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Automobiles by brand and Vehicles by brands are for brands, not for manufacturers. I do not like Category:Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik vehicles.

Idea: RAF vehicles built by Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik and RAF vehicles built by Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika. Or RAF vehicles (Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik) and RAF vehicles (Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika). --Buch-t (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

BMW and all the other acronyms listed would remain; my thought only applied because there is no clear primary topic for RAF vehicles. But @Buch-t: 's last proposal is much better in any case, so no need to discuss mine any longer: Category:RAF vehicles (Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik) and Category:RAF vehicles (Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika). This would also work in case we get another acronym where both manufacturers are from the same country. Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, @Buch-t: , for your very helpful and sound proposition to combine the brand name with an extension giving the manufacturer's name. I think especially the format represented by "RAF vehicles (Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik)" is an interesting proposition that surely would be a viable solution of the "RAF" issue.

But please allow me to take this discussion one step further because I see some specific arguments that might be contradictory to this practice. I would be glad if you as well as @Mr.choppers: , @Charles01: , @Gwafton: , @Eddaido: and anyone else interested in this topic would have a look at the following considerations and state your opinion about it - if afterwards the majority still comes to the conclusion that the "manufacturer name extension in brackets" is the best way of differentiation I will gladly take the necessary steps to rename/redirect the respective categories. Here are my concerns:

Although I know that there won't ever be a "one size fits all" solution, I think we should aim at a solution that could also be viable for many comparable situations. In other words, the "manufacturer name extension in brackets" IMHO should set a viable precedent. But it's the case with very many vehicle manufacturers that the name of the legal entity changed (sometimes quite frequently) over the course of their existence. So in such cases we would have to decide which instance of "manufacturer name" we use for the category name (to list all versions in a row surely wouldn't be practical) - and then some users might think that this category is only suitable for images showing vehicles that belong to the very period where the manufacturer went by this specific name. I want to illustrate this problem with two real-life examples:

a) Imperia (the Belgian automobile brand) needs differentiation from Imperia (the German motorcycle brand) on the "vehicles-level". The manufacturer behind the brand "Imperia" of Belgium was named "Automobiles Imperia" from 1906 to 1920, "Automobiles Imperia SA Mathieu van Roggen" from 1920 to 1929, "SA des Automobiles Imperia-Excelsior" from 1929 to 1935 and "Minerva-Imperia SA" from 1935 to 1949 (source: The Beaulieu Encyclopedia of the Automobile).

b) Austin (the English automobile brand) needs differentiation from Austin (the US automobile brand; cp. Category:Austin (Michigan) vehicles). The manufacturer behind the brand "Austin" of England was named "Austin Motor Co. Ltd." from 1906 to 1970, "Austin-Morris Division, British Leyland Motor Corp. Ltd." from 1970 to 1975, "British Leyland UK Ltd." from 1975 to 1978, "BL Cars Ltd." from 1978 to 1982 and "Austin-Rover Group" from 1982 to 1989 (same source as above).

So how could we handle these and countless other instances? Especially when I think of Austin, I feel quite uneasy about the not so hypothetical possibility that some users would disapprove of having the model "Austin Montego" from the 1980s subsumed under "Austin automobiles (Austin Motor Co. Ltd.)" - this manufacturer's name being obsolete since 1970...

At the end of the day, wouldn't it be better and more viable for most comparable situations to try and use the place of origin for differentation? I personally think that "Imperia vehicles (Belgium)" vs. "Imperia vehicles (Germany)", "Austin vehicles (England)" vs. "Austin vehicles (Michigan)" and "RAF vehicles (Bohemia)" vs. "RAF vehicles (Latvia)" would be very viable and user-friendly. Where there are homonymous brands from the same country we could switch to the city-level for differentiation - existing examples: Category:Bergmann vehicles (Gaggenau), Category:Bergmann vehicles (Berlin) and Category:Bergmann vehicles (Meppen). Where this still isn't sufficient because over the course of time there were two unrelated homonymous brands in the same city, we could amend this with time periods for clarification - something like "BrandXY(Detroit, 1905-1908)" vs. "BrandXY (Detroit, 1917-1923)".

Last but not least: I also think that for example "Austin vehicles (England)" vs. "Austin vehicles (Michigan)" would be more user friendly and instantly recognizable than "Austin vehicles (Austin Motor Co. Ltd.)" vs. "Austin vehicles (Austin Automobile Co.)", as users that are this familiar with automobile history might know that there are American-built Austins that have nothing to do with the British cars of the homonymous brand - but would they also know if the American cars were built by the "Motor Co." or by the "Automobile Co."? I think this very case shows that often the manufacturer's name might be considerably less clear and useful for the user than the place of origin.

I'm curious to hear your opinions. Best wishes --Purzelbier (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not mind the idea of aiming "at a solution that could also be viable for many comparable situations" ALWAYS PROVIDED that you do not use the solution you came up with for Case A, Case B and Case C also for Case D and Case E where the application of it in Case D and Case E misleads or, worse, distorts truth. Truth must always trump conformity to a "rule" that is only 90% (or only 70% or 30%) appropriate to the individual case you are working on two years later. This is part of the reason I become uneasy with any "one size fits all" solution.

The case of Austin Motor Co. Ltd. - and dozens of other companies that were at one time subsidiaries, at another time companiies in their own right and at another time simply "brands" - ach that tiresome word again - clearly raises more questions than answers. It is why you should trust contributors who know the individual subject in great detail to choose the best solution for each individual case. And at least with Austin - and the rest of British Leyland - there are plenty of people around who remember the reality of at least the more recent uses of the "names". Eddaido devoted a lot of time to Talbot during the 1920s - 1950s which French readers think of as French and English readers think of as English and which kept changing. French and English readers will have completely different appreciations of how the Talbot name was used when. For German readers, I guess it depends on your sources and preferred languages. I hope Eddaiso got to the bottom of the Talbot thing to his own satisfaction. I love the way he worries away at these things. But it doesn't mean I would unquestioningly agree with each of his conclusions! British Leyland - as we knew it when I was young enough to keep up with what was going on - is a particularly egregious example of the way these things can change, based on the whims of semi-literate company directors who reached their eminent positions because they were brilliant as salesmen and not because of any logic based qualification.

Incidentally, "Austin vehicles (England)" works fine for me, but please don't extrapolate it to (as an extreme example) "Sunbeam vehicles (England)". While we're at it, "Neckar (car)" works fine for me, but for some purposes "NSU-Fiat" makes better sense. And it's partly because of the complications involving the name that some pedantic bastard (guilty as charged) has solemnly documented the history of the names on the wiki-en page in question, with references to a Spiegel article from 1956. If only we had enough sources to give as much detail about the history of the cars themselves, the entry would be better balanced! But you need plausuble sources: can't make stuff up, and the level of careful detail you get in Der Spiegel didnt often get as far as the motoring press, sogar auf deutsch im 50er! Similar considerations for "Société Anonyme Française des Automobiles Fiat" / "Simca-Fiat". Easy for me to pass to you the questions. But I reserve the right to disagree strongly if you will come up with the answers (except, probably, I will say that since you feel strongly about it, I have better things to do with my time - and yours - to get into a wiki-tussle over it).

Where am I going with this? Not sure. But at risk of getting repetitive, the more deeply you go into wikipedia categories, the more you will see how different folks classify stuff differently. I'm pretty sure a lot of the way my brain sorts stuff is based on brain patterns I picked up from my parents during the first 5 or 10 years of my life. There is no reason I would expect you to have picked up the same brain patterns from your parents. And maybe it is only became my own parents' families came from such different places - 4 grandparents born in London, Edinburgh, Santiago (Chile) and Staten Island (NY) - that I am maybe more than averagely aware of the extent to which different folks classify stuff in different ways.

Success Charles01 (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Alas, I shy away from one-solutions-that-fit-all. In the case of Austin, the English manufacturer is truly the primary topic and needs no disambiguation. Minerva (Belgium)/Minerva (Germany) works great for me. RAF is a bit of a special case since the nationalities themselves are up for discussion. I think the solution might be three-fold:

• Is there a primary topic? (i.e., Austin) - then name it accordingly and add suitable modifiers to the smaller ones
• If not, are they from distinct countries? If there is still some confusion then go to step three:
• Add the manufacturing company in a parenthesis.

Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 01:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable thoughts, @Charles01: and @Mr.choppers: . As it seems that there won't be any further contributions of the other users involved or pinged in the course of this discussion, I think it's time for me to draw the conclusions. Please allow me to state some general considerations on this topic before getting to the point of how I intend to deal with the different categorization issues that became subject of this discussion (especially the solution for the two "RAF" brands).

I admit that I had been intrigued by the notion of defining some kind of consensus-based basic categorization standards for vehicle-related Commons categories - something similar to what had been tried to define vehicle-related file naming conventions per Commons:WikiProject Automobiles#Conventions (a WikiProject that - at least whith regard to Commons - seemingly has fallen into oblivion, apparently having been the heart and soul of User:OSX who is no longer active...). I thought it a worthy task to try and develop a basic category naming principle that hopefully would result in a large extent of consistency regarding the listed entries of "overview categories" like Category:Vehicles by brand, Category:Automobiles by brand and so on. Basically, I still think - maybe quite naively - that for such a task we only would need the "brand" (I acknowledge that some of us would like to avoid this term due to potential ambiguity; but at the end of the day this term for some reason has been chosen as the defining principle of those long-standing "overview categories" - and to be frank I personally very much like and use this term as the vast majority of motor vehicles of any kind and epoch (apart from sheer racing and military vehicles) naturally sports a distinct "brand" just like most other "end user oriented" industrial products), the consistent use of the respective terms "vehicles", "automobiles", "trucks", "vans", "buses", "motorcycles" etc. plus some kind of standardized differentiating parentheses for unrelated but homonymous brands.

Well, I learned from this discussion that such is an unrealistic task and any categorization standards won't come into effect - too far apart the views of those that were interested enough to participate in this discussion. And that's really just fine with me - I readily accept the different "brain patterns" behind individual categorizations. It's not what my heart and soul is into, anyhow - after all, it wasn't me that started this discussion but @Gwafton: .

What I really put my heart and soul into is the following:

1.) Correcting outright factual errors regarding any type of historic motor vehicle - be it in terms of categorization or description or file name.

2.) Making sure that the entries lists of those "overview categories" are as complete as they can get. That means that every motor vehicle "brand" (be it automobile, truck, motorcycle or anything else) should have an entry in the superordinate Category:Vehicles by brand; every automobile brand should have an (additional) entry in the subordinate Category:Automobiles by brand and so on - so that any user searching in those "overview categories" for images of specimen of the "brand of his/her interest" will find them. As it stands now, none of these "overview categories" are anything near comprehensive.

As Charles01 explicitly mentioned the example of "Talbot" as an instance where a very dedicated user with deepest knowledge of the make's history established a complex and most knowledgeable category structure and as he expressed his sorrow (at least if I got him right) that any intentions to standardize vehicle related categories might infringe on those achievements, I want to reassure that I have the utmost respect of the specific knowledge and devotion of other users and never would knowingly aim to overthrow established categorizations or intentionally make controversial edits without prior discussion (which of course doesn't make sure that I always will anticipate which edit might be controversial...). And although in the case of "Talbot" I don't share @Eddaido: 's conclusions regarding the "splitting" of the "brand" (to me, "Talbot (England)" and "Talbot (France)" - just like e.g. "Daimler (Germany)" and "Daimler (England)" or "Triumph (England)" and "Triumph (Germany)", but different from homonymous but completely unrelated "Imperia (Belgium)" and "Imperia (Germany)" or "Austin (England)" and "Austin (Michigan)" - are cases of one and the same "brand", historically interconnected through certain relationships like being one-time subsidiaries of the same company or starting out as licensees of one another etc.), I never would aim to get in conflict with or even overrule the category structure he has established. But what IMHO is really an issue that should be addressed is the fact that as yet none of the different "branches of the Talbot brand" is listed in Category:Automobiles by brand - so no user searching for "images of cars branded Talbot" in this "overview category" (just like I myself would do) will ever learn about their existence...

After this lengthy and hopefully not too tiresome musings I want to state my intents about how to treat the different issues that were subject of this discussion:

1.) I intend to redirect Category:Imperia vehicles (B) and Category:Imperia vehicles (D) to Category:Imperia vehicles (Belgium) and Category:Imperia vehicles (Germany) respectively, as Charles01 convinced me that the usage of the nationality codes instead of full text would unnecessarily assume special knowledge on the side of the users.

2.) Although the notion of treating homonymous brands unequally by defining which of them is the "primary topic" generally makes me feel uneasy because there inevitably will be a broad "grey zone" prone to controversy (one user's "legendary brand" might just be another user's "never have heard of" depending on type of vehicle, epoch or provenance the user is especially interested in - "RAF" IMO is quite a good example...), I acknowledge Mr.choppers' objection to changing Category:Austin vehicles as I do see that the "footprints" the two different car makes named Austin left in automotive history are of extremely different proportions. Furthermore, on closer consideration Category: Austin vehicles (England) wouldn't be a valid and unambiguous moniker anyhow, as cars of this very "Austin brand" were not only built in England but also in Australia, Japan and Spain... So in this case it really is the best to keep the status quo. But I intend to redirect Category:Austin (Michigan) vehicles to Category:Austin vehicles (Michigan) as the former categorization with parenthesis in the middle instead of at the end has the effect that no user typing "Austin vehicles" into the Commons search field (just like I myself would do) will ever see that the brand from Michigan exists...

3.) To be frank, I'm not enthusiastic about Mr.choppers proposal to generally take to parentheses pointing to the manufacturing company as a "step three" when homonymous brands exist(ed) in the same country. I still think that Category:Bergmann vehicles (Gaggenau), Category:Bergmann vehicles (Berlin) and Category:Bergmann vehicles (Meppen) are much more meaningful and user-friendly than Category:Bergmann vehicles (Bergmanns Industriewerke), Category:Bergmann vehicles (Bergmann-Electricitäts-Werke) and Category:Bergmann vehicles (Bergmann Maschinenbau). For this reason I have no intentions to change the former categories.

4.) Last but not least, when it comes to "RAF" I still think that "RAF vehicles (Bohemia)" and "RAF vehicles (Latvia)" would be fine, unambiguous and reasonably short. I don't think such parentheses necessarily have to be about "nationalities" ("Michigan" not being a nationality either) but about provenance. And the latter IMHO in both cases is clear and uncontroversial, the "place of origin" in the former case always having been "Bohemia" (notwithstanding the fact that the country named Bohemia at one time was part of the Austrian Empire, at another time part of Czechoslovakia and now is part of the Czech Republic), in the latter case always having been "Latvia" (notwithstanding the fact that the country named Latvia at one time was part of the Russian Empire, at another time part of the Soviet Union and now is an independent nation).

But as I promised upthread, I will follow the majority decision - and as no one has explicitly supported my suggestion of "(Bohemia)" and "(Latvia)" instead of "(Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik)" and "(Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika)" while the latter solution is explicitly supported by Mr.choppers and @Buch-t: , I intend to redirect Category:Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik vehicles to Category:RAF vehicles (Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik) and Category:RAF vehicles to Category:RAF vehicles (Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika). Furthermore, I intend to create respective subcategories (with parentheses) for the Latvian brand's buses (which term comprises most of the models) and trucks (cp. Category:RAF-2909 and Category:RAF-3311) and the Bohemian brand's automobiles and vans (cp. e.g. File:1909-1912 RAF 18-22 HP.JPG) (RAF of Reichenberg/Liberec having built buses and trucks, too).

But before I will do so, I call @Mike Peel: for help on how to correctly move the respective Wikidata infoboxes from the redirected categories to the new ones. Mike, you might remember that I contacted you on how to principally handle such issues earlier in the year (cf. User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 8#Logic behind Pi Bot's adding of Wikidata infobox to vehicle-related categories on Wikimedia Commons); you offered to work through some examples together. I'm getting back to this now. Which steps are to take when e.g. redirecting Category:Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik vehicles to Category:RAF vehicles (Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik) in order to keep the whole Wikidata links and the infoboxes intact and up to date?--Purzelbier (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: I thought one aspect over once again and now come to the conclusion that creating Category:RAF buses (Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika) (for Category:RAF-251) and Category:RAF vans (Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika) (for the rest of the RAF model range) would be more appropriate than having Category:RAF trucks (Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika) (for Category:RAF-2909 and Category:RAF-3311) and Category:RAF buses (Rīgas Autobusu Fabrika) (for the rest of the RAF model range). Reason: Given the fact that the vehicle-related nomenclature established on Commons clearly is based on North American English ("automobiles" instead of "cars"; "trucks" instead of "lorries"; "motorcycles" instead of "motorbikes"), vehicles like Category:RAF-22038 would rather be called a "van" (despite having side windows and rear seating) - cp. e.g. Category:Dodge vans; at least I'm convinced that the part of the English speaking world using the terms "automobile" and "truck" surely wouldn't call an RAF 22038 a "bus". And clearly van-based vehicles with tarpaulin and/or loading platform like RAF 2909 and RAF 3311 IMO could still be addressed as "vans", too. --Purzelbier (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful answer, I feel like I can support all of the positions listed.

As a side note, I spend a lot of time creating and populating categories such as Category:1990 Honda automobiles, and I was wondering if anyone has an idea of how to best include the various cars built by Austin/Morris/BL/BLMC/etc etc? Obviously the easy answer is to have Category:1982 Rover automobiles and Category:1956 Wolseley automobiles but then things like the patronymic-less Montego are left homeless, MG and Austin Metros are in different places, not to mention that there will be many dozens of categories with not necessarily many entries. Something I have been wanting to fix but the task is a bit daunting... mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, especially the Montego (as well as the Maestro) topic is really a tricky one. A very good example of how my own postulate that "effectively every car has a brand" can get blurred very fast. When it comes to Commons categorization the situation already is a mess: While there are Category:Austin Montego AND Category:Rover Montego there only is Category:Austin Maestro, the latter containing all those "post-Austin" car files named "Rover Maestro...". Apart from the late-production "Rover Estate" versions and some other reported export market versions of the Montego that allegedly are actually branded "Rover", all "later" Montegos and Maestros technically speaking are neither Austins nor Rovers. IMHO these cars are cases of "Maestro" and "Montego" being "brands" in their own right. That's maybe awkward but only consequent - I don't share the notion that those cars don't have a "brand". I think it's an early reversion of what nowadays is en vogue - Rover "out-branded" those models (and made them brands in their own right) in order not to "spoil" Rover's image by those bottom-range models; recently Citroën "out-branded" DS and Seat did the same with Cupra (and made them brands in their own right) to add prestige to the top-range models... There are other historic examples of such a practice, namely "Clipper" as a stand-alone bottom-range sister-brand of Packard in 1956 or "Cimarron" as a stand-alone bottom-range sister-brand of Cadillac in 1982 (both model lines soon "in-branded" into the "parent brand"...).

For Commons purposes, such philosophic/dogmatic musings may not really be expedient. For pragmatism's sake, I'm very fine with Category:Rover Montego, as any interested user probably will know what's meant by that. But then IMHO we should also have Category:Rover Maestro for the "post-Austin" cars. In short, for your purposes I would treat them as e.g. "1991 Rover automobiles"....

....but not the MG versions. IMHO these belong definitely to the established "MG" brand. Just like I wouldn't mingle e.g. Category:Wolseley 1500, Category:Riley 1.5, Category:Austin Lancer and Category:Morris Major "brand-wise", although it's effectively one and the same car model... Best, --Purzelbier (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Purzelbier, please know the word automobile is used in Commons because was considered to be universally understood where Car is disputed. Well, in any case, we had to go and change all mentions of car to automobile. You will find little artefacts if you hunt for them. I'd hate to have to go through a similar kind of thing once more.

Talbot. I'd expected more 'corrections' by interested parties. I did not go to any special trouble to sort out Talbot images because I lost interest in cars during the 1960s and I simply don't know the then common or garden products that turned up after that time. I could learn them but why when there are so many who can contribute. If the structure of the Commons Talbot categories offends please fix it. Any changes I made to Talbot were to fix mistakes not hoping to bring about a debate. If my fixes were mistaken I apologise. Eddaido (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

As a monoglot I assume that names of Commons categories (aside from the names of —for example— manufacturers) are all translated to the reader's language. For example Automobiles by Brand will be something else in German? Is this correct and at what level do the translations occur and where may I read about how its done. Thanks. Eddaido (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the naming of the Commons categories always is the same (i.e. English), even if you open Commons via a link on a German Wikipedia article...at least that's always been the case when I use it. The only thing that changes language are Common's "frame texts" like e.g. "Unterkategorien -- Es werden 18 von insgesamt 18 Unterkategorien in dieser Kategorie angezeigt" instead of "Subcategories -- This category has the following 18 subcategories, out of 18 total". So "automobiles" always is given as "automobiles"...

My musings about the "Talbot" category structure just were a reaction to Charles01 citing this as a precedent. I had a look at it and found that a) this is a very good example of how the term "brand" may be interpreted differently by dedicated users (which is just fine with me) and b) that even such an important brand (or "bundle of related brands") as yet is not comprised in Category:Automobiles by brand (which should be fixed). I will hopefully find the time to dedicate myself to the Talbot topic at some time in the future - and if think something should be altered that might be controversial, I will be glad to discuss this with you. But the history of the "Talbot" topic is such extensive that to begin with I would thoroughly study all my literature on it - and you know that my interest in automotive history is global (in terms of type of vehicle, provenance or epoch) and generally I'm approaching my task alphabetically, not even having started with car makes but currently being into coachbuilders (my creation of Category:RAF automobiles just was a side-effect of creating Category:Armbruster (A) coachwork - which I will redirect soon to Category:Armbruster coachwork (Austria) in the light of this discussion!).... so it think that my deeper involvement with "Talbot" still lies in the distant future... Best,--Purzelbier (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I asked about the language changes because it crossed my mind that instead of using the English word historic (which for you has unexpected connotations) you simply use the German word that you thought meant the same thing. It must be pretty safe to say the Talbot categories have just grown, they've not been designed by anyone. Eddaido (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Update: There have been placed move proposals for Category:RAF vehicles and Category:Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik vehicles with respective discussions on Category talk:RAF vehicles and Category talk:Reichenberger Automobil Fabrik vehicles. If there are no objections I plan to implement the moves in September (on return from vacation). All other proposed category renames and creations have been already implemented. Thanks to all for joining in this discussion. --Purzelbier (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Ghost ANV? Etnofunk (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Fazer is the best chocolate in the whole wide world! Purzelbier (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

yep Etnofunk (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Woher weißt Du?

Hallo Purzelbier, Du hast die Kategorie des Fotos eines Porsche 550 geändert. Woher weißt Du, dass der Wagen ein Nachbau ist? Ich hatte seinerzeit auch Zweifel und sprach mit dem Eigentümer. Er sagte, es sei ein Original. Freilich hätte ich mir den Motor zeigen lassen können, aber das war mir zu peinlich. Freundliche Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
PS: Gib hier einmal Dannesberger ein. -- Spurzem (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Servus Lothar. Es ist die Summe der Details, weswegen ich mir sehr sicher bin, dass es sich um kein Original, sondern eine der unzähligen, mehr oder weniger gelungenen Replikas handelt. Einige Aspekte: Proportionen der Karosserie passen nicht so richtig; Scheinwerfer liegen zu hoch; die Schlitze unter dem vorderen Kennzeichen sind einfach in die (Kunststoff?-)Karosserie eingelassen, statt wie beim Original in einer abnehmbaren Blende zu sitzen; "klobige" (d.h. für Mitte der 50er viel zu moderne, zu wenig filigrane) Scheibenwischer; Rückleuchten u. vordere Blinker nicht wie bei den Original-Autos, optisch eher aus dem Zubehör-Regal; Kennzeichenbeleuchtung von einem Porsche 356 entliehen. Dann die Umstände: Ein echter 550er dürfte so um die 3 bis 5 Millionen € wert sein, d.h. ihn auf einem "gewöhnlichen" Oldtimer-Treffen neben Alltags-Modellen anzutreffen (statt an der Villa d'Este, in Pebble Beach oder zumindest in Schwetzingen), dürfte nicht sehr wahrscheinlich sein; auch wären bei einem (restaurierten) Fahrzeug dieser preislichen Liga sicherlich keine Kompromisse hinsichtlich solch "beliebigen", nicht authentischen Leuchten u. Scheibenwischern gemacht worden. Bitte vergleiche das Auto kritisch mit den übrigen in der Kategorie zu findenden verifizierten Originalen (z.B. den im Besitz von Porsche selbst befindlichen), und ich denke, Du wirst die Unstimmigkeiten in den Details, in der "optischen Authentizität" feststellen können. Auf die Behauptungen der Eigentümer würde ich persönlich bei solchen Modellen, bei denen auf 1 Original gefühlt 100 Replikas kommen (wie z.B. auch Shelby Cobra, Auburn Speedster, MB SSK, Bugatti T35...) nicht viel geben. Ich habe jedenfalls schon etliche getroffen, die ein massives Ego-Problem damit hatten, einfach zuzugeben, dass es sich um (teils ganz offensichtliche / schlecht gemachte) Replikas handelte. Beste Grüße Purzelbier (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wie ich schon schrieb: Ich hatte auch Zweifel, aber nicht den Mut, mir zeigen zu lassen, ob unter der Haube ein Fuhrmann-Motor sitzt. Schließlich wundert es auch, dass ein echter 550 zu allen möglichen Oldtimerveranstaltungen fährt und frei rumsteht. Aber schau doch auch einmal folgende Notizen: In dieser Starterliste [www. scuderia-colonia.de/archive/classic/SCC-19%20Ergebnisse.pdf] ist der Wagen mit Baujahr 1956 ausgewiesen, was – wenn die Angabe korrekt ist oder wäre – doch für ein Original sprechen würde. Hiernach [www.wsrp.cz/chassis/chassis_porsche_550.html] hat der in Klammern mit „maybe replica“ versehene Wagen die Fahrgestellnummer 550A-0117. Dieses Fahrgestell wurde laut Porsche-Buch von Barth/Boschen nicht 1956, sondern 1957 gebaut. -- Spurzem (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis in Sachen Dannesberger. Ich hab jetzt entsprechend recherchiert und etliche Internet-Belege gefunden, in denen dieser Wagen als Original von 1956 bezeichnet wird. Nun, es natürlich absolut möglich, dass ich mit meiner Einschätzung geirrt habe und ich kann das Gegenteil natürlich nicht beweisen. Es wäre sicher auch gut gewesen, wenn ich entsprechende Recherchen selbst angestellt hätte - aber der Wagen sah für meine Augen einfach so "unecht" aus, dass alles in mir "Replika" rief. Ich bin auch nach wie vor skeptisch, was die Echtheit angeht - Programmhefte etc. von Oldtimer-Veranstaltungen schreiben meist alles gutgläubig, was Ihnen von den Teilnehmern gesagt wird ... und wie schon gesagt: ein Auto im "Echt-Wert" von mehreren Millionen €, vielfach bei ganz "gewöhnlichen" Oldtimer-Ausfahrten etc. anzutreffen und dann nicht mal in den Details stimmig restauriert? Die Quelle mit dem "maybe replica"-Vermerk hatte ich zwischenzeitlich auch gefunden ... hm, wie wird da ein Schuh draus? Ich hab in Zusammenhang mit täuschend echten Nachbauten / "recreations" (wie z.B. die komplett neu gebauten "Bugattis" von Pur Sang in Argentinien) schon davon gelesen, dass (einst) tatsächlich existente Fahrgestell-Nummern von verschollenen (oder nachweislich zerstörten) Autos "gekapert" werden, um die Nachbauten für den Verkehr (als Oldtimer) zulassen zu können, was andernfalls schlicht unmöglich wäre... Wie dem auch sei - meine Skepsis bleibt, auch wenn ich nichts von alldem beweisen kann. Vielleicht handelt es sich aber ja tatsächlich im Kern um ein Original (Rahmen, Motor), dessen Karosserie so zerstört war, dass sie irgenwann (aus banalen Kostengründen) mit einer (den Maßen nach passenden) Replika-Karosserie versehen wurde, wodurch sich all diese unstimmigen Details erklären lassen. Vielleicht ist der Wagen deshalb so "wenig wertvoll", dass der Besitzer in so freigiebig einsetzt und präsentiert. Wie dem auch sei, ich kann Dir nur anbieten, dass ich alle meine Edits einfach rückgängig mache, sofern Du selbst Dir immer noch sicher bist, dass es sich um ein Original handelt. Beste Grüße Purzelbier (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hallo Purzelbier, ich bin mir keineswegs sicher, dass das Auto ein Original ist, verließ mich nur auf das, was mir Herr Dannersberger sagte. Lassen wir es deshalb vorläufig bei der Kategorie Porsche 550 replicas. Vorhin habe ich eine E-Mail an eine Stelle geschickt, die das Auto möglicherweise kennt und vielleicht Genaueres sagen kann. Auf die Angaben in Programmheften ist freilich wenig Verlass; da ist mitunter von einem Jahr zum anderen Unterschiedliches über ein und dasselbe Auto zu lesen. Auch Typenschildern kann man nicht bedingungslos trauen. Vor zwei Jahren sah ich zum Beispiel einen anderen Porsche 550 Spyder bei einem Oldtimertreffen unbeaufsichtigt und auch unbeachtet neben anderen Autos auf einer Wiese stehen. Er hatte innen ein Typenschild von Wendler, Reutlingen, mit der Karosserie-Nr. 550122 (nicht Fahrgestellnummer!) und außen ein Logo von Wendler. Herzliche Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Servus Lothar. Ja, es ist teilweise echt abenteurlich, was man so auf Treffen alles zu Gesicht bekommt. Und andersrum möchte ich lieber gar nicht wissen, an wie vielen echten Bugattis, Cobras und Jaguar C- bzw. D-Type ich tatsächlich schon achtlos auf Veranstaltungen und Messen vorbeigegangen bin, weil ich einfach annahm, es könne sich nur wieder um eine "recreation" handeln... Bei bestimmten Modellen stumpft man irgendwann einfach ab, zumindest geht's mir so. Nun, ich würde mich freuen, wenn Du mich auf dem Laufenden hältst, was bei Deiner Recherche rauskommt. LG, Gregor Purzelbier (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Churches in Germany by city

Hallo Purzelbier, leerst Du gerade diese Kategorie? Wenn ja, warum? Rudolph Buch (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Servus Rudolph,

nein ich leere die Kategorie nicht - ich bereinige sie. Für alle Kommunen in Bayern, die keine Städte sind (also Märkte und "bloße" Gemeinden) und somit nicht den Begriff "city" erfüllen, gibt es die Kategorie "Churches in Bavaria by municipality", welche wiederum eine Unterkategorie von "Churches in Germany by municipality" darstellt. Der Sinn von "Churches in Germany by city" kann ja nur sein, dort nur die "cities", also die deutschen Städte aufzuführen. Alles andere wäre doch widersinnig, da zum einen dann "Churches in Germany by city" vollkommen redundant zu "Churches in Germany by municipality" wäre und zum anderen dann jede politische Kommune Deutschlands entgegen jedem Sprachgebrauch und jeder denkbaren Begriffsdefinition als "city" behandelt würde.

Ich habe im Zuge meines "Bereinigungslaufes" bereits Dutzende von Gemeinden der Kategorie "Churches in Bavaria by municipality" hinzugestellt, die dort noch fehlten, obwohl jene Kategorie ja tatsächlich alle politischen Gemeinden (so sie Kirchengebäude aufweisen) umfassen sollte. Und ich habe tatsächlich auch einige Städte erstmals in "Churches in Germany by city" nacherfasst (so z.B. gerade eben Kolbermoor oder gestern Rothenfels). Beste Grüße Purzelbier (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: Bin soeben fertig geworden. So ich nichts übersehen hab oder mir der Fehlerteufel ins Ohr geflüstert hat, sind in "Churches in Germany by city" aus Bayern nunmehr ausschließlich jene Kommunen (municipalities) gelistet, die auch tatsächlich Städte (cities) sind. --Purzelbier (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Löschen von Sortierkriterien

Hallo, Purzelbier,

du hast heute (mit dem Kommentar „sort“) die Sortierkriterien zu den Ober-Kategorien der Kategorie Christuskirche (Viechtach) gelöscht. Ich würde gerne den Grund verstehen. Mein Verständnis war bisher:

• Der Name der Kategorie beginnt mit „Christuskirche“. Danach wird sortiert, wenn kein spezielles Kriterium angegeben wird.
• Innerhalb von Viechtach gibt es mehrere Kirchen (und mehrere Baudenkmäler), und es ist sinnvoll, die Christuskirche unter „C“ einzuordnen. Also bekommt die Kategorie „Churches in Viechtach“ hier kein eigenes Kriterium, wie das auch bisher schon war.
• In Niederbayern und auch im Evangelisch-Lutherischen Dekanat Cham gibt es möglicherweise mehrere Christuskirchen; sie unterscheiden sich für den Leser in erster Hinsicht durch den Ort, in dem sie stehen. Daher ist es sinnvoll, in diesen Kategorien „Viechtach“ als Sortierkriterium zu verwenden. Ein Benutzer könnte ja für die Kategorie einer Christuskirche im Ort Hinterfirmiansreuth den Namen „Hinterfirmiansreuther Christuskirche“ oder „Hinterfirmiansreuth Christ Church“) verwenden, und sie würde dann unter „H“ eingeordnet. Sie stünde dann im Alphabet hinter der Viechtacher Kategorie, die unter „C“ (statt unter „V“) eingeordnet würde.

Wenn meine Ansicht falsch ist, wäre ich für einen Hinweis dankbar. –– Renardo la vulpo (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Bei genauerem Lesen sehe ich, dass du ein „DEFAULTSORT:Viechtach, Christuskirche“ eingefügt hast. Das löst das Problem mit „Niederbayern“ und dem „Evangelisch-Lutherischen Dekanat Cham“, aber nach dieser Methode werden alle Objekte in Viechtach unter „V“ eingeordnet, wo man sie vermutlich zunächst nicht sucht. – Renardo la vulpo (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Servus Renardo, die nach meiner Erfahrung am weitesten etabierte Sortierlogik für Baudenkmäler und Kirchen innerhalb politischer Kommunen mit mehreren Ortsteilen ist jene nach - an erster Stelle - Ortsteil und - an zweiter Stelle - Name des Objekts. Deshalb mein Defaultsort unter "Ort, Name/Patrozinium der Kirche". So sind innerhalb von Kategorien wie "Churches in Viechtach" oder "Cultural heritage monuments in Viechtach" - welche die gesamte politische Kommune "Stadt Viechtach" mit einer Vielzahl von Ortschaften umfasst - alle Objekte, die sich in der eigentlichen Ortschaft Viechtach befinden, unter V einsortiert, während z.B. Objekte in der Ortschaft Neunußberg unter N einsortiert sind. Das ist wie gesagt weithin Standard, weshalb ich es bei meiner Arbeit an den Kirchen- und Denkmal-cats einheitlich verwende. Es ist mittlerweile durchgehend vereinheitlicht für alle Kommunen der Landkreise Cham, Regen, Regensburg, Schwandorf und Straubing-Bogen. Der Sinn dieser Sortierung wird besonders augenfällig bei umfangreichen cats mit einer Vielzahl von Ortschaften - siehe z.B. Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Cham (Oberpfalz). Viele Grüße, Gregor Purzelbier (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Opel Ascona A

Hallo,

du hattest die Umbenennung einiger meiner Bilder angestossen (File:Detmold - 2017-08-26 - Opel Ascona A (04).jpg u.a.). Ich will mich da jetzt auch nicht gegen wehren, allerdings stand der Ascona A tatsächlich mit Baujahr 1976 in der Start- und Ergebnisliste, z.B. hier (Platz 56). -- Magnus (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Servus Magnus, danke für die Rückmeldung. Ich verstehe gut, dass Du Dich auf die Angaben aus der Starliste verlassen hast. Allerdings ist es leider so, dass derartige Listen bei Veranstaltungen oft schlampig erstellt sind und fachliche Fehler enthalten. Fakt ist, dass die letzten Ascona A im Juli 1975 das Fließband verließen. Nach den Werksferien '75 ging ja dann bereits der Ascona B in Produktion. Mir ging es bei meinen Edits schlicht um die Fakten. Beste Grüße, Gregor Purzelbier (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)