User talk:Ardfern/Archive 6

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 10

Conditional categorization

Please, do not make edits like this. The purpose of this line is to categorize the page in "YEAR in aviation in the Netherlands" category if such category exists, and fall back in "YEAR in aviation" if not. After you edit the page would go in "YEAR in aviation in the Netherlands" anyway (even if such category didn't exist), so the line wouldn't make much change. I reverted your edit. ––Apalsola tc 16:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminding that please do not do edits like this. If you disagree, please reply to comments left to your talk page. Best regards, ––Apalsola tc 17:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should be aware that "1995 at Dublin Airport" was appearing erroneously in "1995 in aviation" instead of "1995 in aviation in Ireland", in line with every other year therein. That is why I made the change. I then set up "1995 in aviation in Ireland" to ensure continuity. This is in line with what you state above and should not be reverted. Ardfern (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is because Mediawiki is caching the pages and Category:1995 in aviation in Ireland is a newly created category. You need to purge the category to fix this. One way to do this is to edit Category:1995 at Dublin Airport and save the exactly save version (i.e. not to do any modifications). The problem with your edit is that it will categorize every 'YEAR at Dublin Airport' category under 'YEAR in aviation in Ireland' even if such category does not exist.
Furthermore, the line {{#ifexist: Category:{{{1}}}{{{2}}} in aviation in Ireland | [[Category:{{{1}}}{{{2}}} in aviation in Ireland|Dublin Airport]] | [[Category:{{{1}}}{{{2}}} in aviation in Ireland|Dublin Airport]] }} does not make sense at all because it is conditional categorization without any actual condition. It means "if 'Category:YEAR in aviation in Ireland' exists, put 'Category:YEAR at Dublin Airport' there; if not, still put it there". [[Category:{{{1}}}{{{2}}} in aviation in Ireland|Dublin Airport]] would have exactly the same outcome, and that one should be used instead if (and only if) Category:YEAR in aviation in Ireland exists for every year since Dublin Airport was opened. ––Apalsola tc 19:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand any of that, but it seems to be fixed, which is all I was trying to do. Ardfern (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok got it - just fixed "1998 at Dublin Airport", without doing what I did before. The penny has dropped. Ardfern (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image use

Hi there, I am interested in using an image of yours in an upcoming publication, image can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Craigavon_(03),_September_2009.JPG can you give me your email address so I can send you more details? Thanks

Re-used aircraft registrations

Hi Ardfern, Most of the aircraft I put in this category are about the same aircraft used by different airlines. I intend to move them to a new "User category" (Hidden category) Category:Aircraft used by several airlines, leaving here only the registrations of different aircraft with the same registration code. This new category will be useful for me, when using CatScan V2, selecting the aircraft of a given airline and a given airport to put them in Category:XXXXXX aircraft at YYYYY airport, knowing for sure that I m not selecting aircraft of others airlines. Here is an exemple: [1] and [2]. As you can see, not using "Re-used aircraft registrations" as a negative category, selects about 200 aircraft, most of them not belonging to "Swisair" but to "Swiss International Air Lines". Using "Re-used aircraft registrations" selects only 30 images of aircraft belonging for sure to "Swissair". --JotaCartas (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Johns (02), October 2009.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!

AFBorchert (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Category discussion warning

Category:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport by year 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!


--Jean11 (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VH-LEF

The three photographs in the Category:VH-LEF (aircraft) is of a CL-600-2B16 Challenger 604 not a CL-600-2B19 CRJ200, so it is incorrect to add a previously registered aircraft details that isn't even featured. Bidgee (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smithfield Market, Belfast, January 2011 (07).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!

Josve05a (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:CAPC, Bordeaux, July 2014 (08).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!

kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 11:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:CAPC, Bordeaux, July 2014 (04).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!

kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 11:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:CAPC, Bordeaux, July 2014 (05).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!

kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 11:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:CAPC, Bordeaux, July 2014 (03).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!

kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 11:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Custard, Downpatrick, September 2010.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!

Josve05a (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butter, Downpatrick, September 2010 (02).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!

Josve05a (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butter, Downpatrick, September 2010 (01).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!

Josve05a (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filemover & rollbacker

I've added these rights to your account in case they come in handy. Have a good 2015. INeverCry 01:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]