User talk:Joshbaumgartner/Archive 2017

**Airbus A380**
	wide-body, double-deck, four-engine aircraft, currently the largest passenger aircraft in the world
	Upload media
	Wikipedia Wikinews
Spoken text audio
Instance of	aircraft family;
Subclass of	wide-body quadjet; double-deck aircraft; land-based airliner monoplane;
Made from material	composite material; carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer; GLARE (fuselage); aluminium;
Has use	commercial aviation;
Operator	Air France (10, 2009–2020); Thai Airways (6, 2012–2021); Singapore Airlines (24, 2007–); Qatar Airways (10, 2014–); Qantas (12, 2008–); Malaysia Airlines (6, 2012–2022); Lufthansa (14, 2010–); Korean Air (10, 2011–); Etihad Airways (10, 2014–); Emirates (123, 2008–); China Southern Airlines (5, 2011–2022); British Airways (12, 2013–); Asiana Airlines (6, 2014–); All Nippon Airways (3, 2019–); Hi Fly Malta (1, 2018–2020);
Manufacturer	Airbus (2007–2021);
Developer	Airbus;
First flight	27 April 2005;
Service entry	25 October 2007 (SQ380, Singapore Airlines);
Powered by	Rolls-Royce Trent 700 (4); Engine Alliance GP7000 (4);
Part of the series	Airbus A3xx series;
Length	72.72 m;
Height	24.1 m;
Wingspan	79.8 m;
Total produced	251 (2021);
	official website
Authority file
	Q5830; GND ID: 4644751-9; Library of Congress authority ID: sh2005004204; NL CR AUT ID: ph1117809; BabelNet ID: 01051741n; National Library of Israel J9U ID: 987007551949305171
	Reasonator; Scholia; Wikidocumentaries; KML file; Search depicted;

**aircraft registration**
	registration and identification assigned to an individual aircraft by national aviation authorities
	Upload media
	Wikipedia
Subclass of	registration number;
Authority file
	Q838849;
	Reasonator; Scholia; Wikidocumentaries; KML file; Search depicted;

CFD[edit]

Category:Aircraft by operator by aircraft type[edit]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This index of indices does not serve much purpose, and potentially could create COM:OVERCAT violations. I had created it thinking it might be useful, but thinking on it, I do not think it is. If you know the type and want to browse operators, you would get to the 'aircraft type by operator' category first anyway, and likewise, if you know the operator and want to browse aircraft types, you would get to the 'aircraft of operator' category first, so this seems a useless category for real users. Josh (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No comments or concerns raised, proceeding to delete unnecessary category. Josh (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bombardier CSeries[edit]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The CSeries is now known as the Airbus A220. This category's contents should be merged into Category:Airbus A220. There may be a case for a select few items to remain if they specifically pertain to the CSeries project before its Airbus involvement (logos, marketing materials, project documents), but the aircraft, design, and most everything that is associated with the type should be under Airbus A220. Josh (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition, Joshbaumgartner, so it looks like you can go ahead. Please leave a redirect from Category:Bombardier CSeries unless you plan to leave it as a subcategory for the few exceptions you mentioned may exist. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition, closing this discussion, proceeding as noted by TMQ. Josh (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

Please explain why you moved De Havilland DH 82 Tiger Moth by location and its subs without any reason? You should've created a Cfd. Bidgee (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on any particular problem with the edit? I'd be more than happy to revert or address any undesired impact. Thanks! Josh (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay reply. I'm just concerned that is was done without any reasoning, no discussion and is also inconsistent with other categories (e.g. Category:Supermarine Spitfire, Category:Bristol Beaufighter, ect) Bidgee (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CRO[edit]

Template:CRO 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 template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Russian Rocky (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albania[edit]

Just created the new cat Category:Albanian Air Force aircraft FA-631 – hope everything's correct. Was the first time I've used this template. --Albinfo (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks! Josh (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SPA[edit]

Template:SPA 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 template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Russian Rocky (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to categories "Category:Aircraft of the (country)"[edit]

Good afternoon. You have recently (20 February 2017) changed the introduction to hundreds of "Aircraft of (country)" categories, for example Category:Aircraft of the United Kingdom.

Previously they were defined as "Aircraft built or designed in the United Kingdom", which contained the respective manufacturers. Now you re-defined that into "Aircraft designed, built, registered, operated, or located in the United Kingdom".

By opening up the definition virtually any manufacturer can be categorized here, since most of their products have been "registered, operated, or located" in the UK at some point. This makes the whole category meaningless.

Maybe I have missed something here, but has there been any consensus for doing such a drastic change? If yes, I would be grateful if you could provide a link.

If not (even if it was you who had created some of them a long time ago) this topic has to be put up for discussion or the changes be reverted. Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are perhaps overstating things here. The only manufacturers that would belong in Aircraft of the UK are those who build aircraft in the UK. Why would you put Fiat aircraft under the UK? On the other hand, if a particular Fiat aircraft is registered in the UK, then it would be under Aircraft registered in the UK, right? And that would be under Aircraft of the UK. Likewise, Sikorsky helicopters aren't under Aircraft of the UK, but those operated by the RAF are under Aircraft of the RAF, which are Aircraft of the UK. Josh (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Aircraft of the RAF" is not under "Aircraft of the UK".

And even more important: "operated, or located in the UK" means a particular aircraft has been present in the UK at some point of time, maybe once only. --Uli Elch (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is: Category:Aircraft of the United Kingdom > Category:Government aircraft of the United Kingdom > Category:Military aircraft of the United Kingdom > Category:Aircraft of the air force of the United Kingdom. Josh (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. If a Russian Air Force MiG-29 is photographed while visiting Farnborough for the show, then that image is under Category:Aircraft in the United Kingdom under Aircraft of the UK. A photo of the same aircraft at Frankfurt would not be. Not sure what the issue is here. Josh (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If so you have to put the Mig-29 into "Aircraft of the UK" and not "Aircraft in the UK" according to your very special definition on top of the page, or change the definition again. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you aren't making any sense. Category:Aircraft in the United Kingdom is a subcat of Category:Aircraft of the United Kingdom, in case you were not aware. Thus whatever definition the 'in' category has is a subset of the 'of' category. 'Located in' is a subset of 'designed, built, registered, operated, or located in'. The MiG-29 image in question may be placed in Category:Aircraft of the United Kingdom and that would be fine for starters, though likely someone else would then subcat it in Category:Aircraft in the United Kingdom. This is all well and good a normal process in the Commons, and doesn't require any changes to descriptions. Josh (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aircraft in country[edit]

I came here to specifically query your fundamental change that put Category:Aircraft in Germany as a child of Category:Aircraft of Germany. I have read the discussion above about the child categories in the template for Aircraft of (country). In modern English language, "of" implies the meaning "belonging to", while "in" in this context means "located in", so Aircraft in (country) cannot logically be a child of Aircraft by (country), because its constituents cannot all "belong to" the subject country, but they can all be included in Aviation in (country). I look forward to you amending Template:Aircraft in Country to reflect the logical category hierarchy.PeterWD (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterWD: I understand your point, and sympathize. The semantics of participles are complex, especially considering that they do not translate directly between languages. The question is, should the content be dictated by the description, or is the description to be dictated by the content? Add to this that the name of a category is one piece of the description. It is perfectly logical that there be a category that captures the sum of the relationship between aircraft and a particular country. 'Of' may be generally insufficient to convey that concept as a participle in English, but I don't think the right answer is to malform our category content because we haven't found the right English words to describe it yet. Perhaps the better answer is to rename such a category replacing 'of' with 'and' or something to cover a more complete relationship, but this is a more substantial project to cleanly do, and frankly Commons is loaded with categories that simply live with imperfect names for what they actually contain, and rely on descriptions to be added to give a more clear picture of what is actually captured. I wish it were easier to change these but there are broader implications involved. In short, 'of' can be taken a lot of ways, and while I agree it is probably not the best word to capture the concept, given the nature of Commons category names, I find it very hard to accept that it either does now or should in the future automatically imply any hard and fast rule upon content. I am very open to ideas. Josh (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly worded[edit]

"by location airport" makes no sense, what discussion have you had to change from "by location" to "by location airport"? I wouldn't have an issue with "by airport" but can see issues where an aircraft isn't located at an airport (museum, helipad [if a helicopter], airfield ect). Bidgee (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue with "by location country", which should be following other standard naming conventions ("by country"). Bidgee (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bidgee: Which change are you referring to? A category name, or categorization of a file, or something else? Josh (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Six-piston-engine_push-pull_triplanes[edit]

Category:Six-piston-engine_push-pull_triplanes has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft by year of photographing[edit]

Thanks for your message. I created Category:Aircraft by year of photographing and its associated categories as equivalents to Category:Watercraft by year of photographing and Category:Land vehicles by year of photographing and their equivalents.

Until I received your message, I was not aware of Category:Aircraft in 2017 and its equivalent categories for other years. The naming of those categories appears to be non-standard; to conform with the naming scheme of the substantial number of equivalent categories in Category:2017 photographs by subject, those categories should be named in the format Category:Aircraft photographed in [year].

Also, categories named in that format should be in a different parent category, namely Category:Aircraft by year of photographing, because the parent category Category:Aircraft by year should really be populated by sub-categories named in the format Category:2017 aircraft and containing pictures of aircraft introduced in the year of the name of the category. However, I acknowledge that aircraft, unlike road vehicles, are generally not referred to in that way, eg the Boeing 747-100 is generally not referred to as a "1970 aircraft".

What I think should now be done is that the sub-categories in Category:Aircraft by year should be renamed and moved to Category:Aircraft by year of photographing, and Category:Aircraft by year should perhaps be deleted. But I haven't quite made up my mind yet. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahnfrend (talk · contribs), thanks for the additional info. Category:Aircraft by year subcats have more than just photos, so they cannot be simply renamed Category:Aircraft by year of photographing. Category:Aircraft photographed in 2017 rightfully should be a sub-category of Category:Aircraft in 2017, as would be Category:Videos of aircraft recorded in 2017 or Category:Audio of aircraft recorded in 2017 (or however such categories should be named) along with any other types of media with their own categories. Category:Aircraft by year does need better definition, I agree, but ultimately should be a super category for various temporal concepts. Individual media should be under the year that media depicts (for photos, this is easy as it is the year the photo is taken). For some types of media, additionally they should be under the year the media was created. Categories for individual aircraft should be categorized under the year that particular aircraft was built (i.e. Category:Aircraft built in 2000). Finally, categories for aircraft models and families should be under the year of development (typically determined by date of first flight). Thus, if one has a drawing made in 2017 of Concorde c/n 201 as it appeared in 1999, it would be under Category:Aircraft in 1999 (or more specifically Category:Concorde in 1999), and should probably additionally be under Category:Drawings of aircraft created in 2017 (though this branch has yet to be built). It's individual aircraft category, Category:F-BTSC (aircraft), is under Category:Aircraft built in 1975, and the higher category, Category:Concorde, is under Category:1960s aircraft. Josh (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boeing 737 by registration[edit]

Hi Josh. I have added the comments here to the discussion page for Boeing 737 by registration - This does not seem to be a useful or sensible category. If a by registration category is felt to be needed for Boeing 737, it should at least by separated out into Boeing 737 types eg Boeing 737-200, Boeing 737-800 etc. I think this category should not be used further pending discussion. Ardfern (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft "models"[edit]

Good evening. I just happened to see that you created a new template "Aircraft model by facing".

You have certainly not misses that I changed some items back from "model" to "type", always approved by different administrators. The given reason was "Type" is the correct ICAO (and Wikipedia) term, not "model". Here is our official definition and this is a fine illustration concerning "Models of aircraft" .

Maybe you might be able to agree that common use of terms for the future? Not only I myself would be grateful for that. Thank you in advance. --Uli Elch (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that, and in fact the way my templates are written, they can easily be converted to different naming conventions. The problem I'm running into is that while 'type' is indeed how 'ICAO' (and many national aviation authorities) call models, this is not specified in the descriptions of most categories. If we want to restrict 'by type' categories as really being 'by ICAO type designation', then great, but I think there is some real work to be done to make that reality.

1) In most topics, 'type' refers to groupings or classifications, so we have to be very clear what 'type' means in aviation, and how to limit its use to that definition.

2) Currently there a lot of things users think qualify as 'type' that have nothing to do with 'ICAO type', including manufacturer, functional, and even configuration types.

3) Few categories are actually by ICAO type (we have 'Boeing 737-400 of Southwest Airlines', not 'B734 of Southwest Airlines'), so again we have to better communicate why we are restricting on the basis of something that isn't even in the category name, and explain how those not steeped in ICAO nuance can have a hope of complying.

4) Not all aircraft fit into an official ICAO type category (many early aircraft, prototypes, military models, etc.), so we have to provide folks a better clue on how to handle these aircraft.

I don't think 'model' is any better a word than 'type'...as you observed the potential confusion with 'models of...' categories among other reasons. I'd be happy to use templates to help with this and let's do a better job communicating with users who may not be so up on esoteric details like ICAO type designations. Josh (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, Template:Aircraft model by facing doesn't exist. Josh (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) & 2): To avoid confusion, the more specific term "type of aircraft" could be used.

3) & 4): I have probably been misunderstood concerning ICAO. Quite certainly I don't want to introduce the individual ICAO type designators like B744 for a Boeing 747-400, which indeed would be "esoteric details" in our context (even though I've been flying that one for several years). What I meant is that ICAO does not even know the term "model" in their regulatory framework, they always use "type" for that purpose. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely correct as far as I know about the use of the word 'type' in aviation. I'm not a pilot, but I'm well steeped in such terminology, so it does not present a problem for me, I'm just concerned that for a lot of users, we'll have to explain that no, 'biplane' is not a 'type of aircraft', which seems at odds with general English usage of those words. I don't think expanding it from 'type' to 'type of aircraft' does much to solve this. Of course, we use 'type of aircraft' or 'aircraft type' to clarify against other items in the name of a cat (e.g. 'Landings by aircraft type', since we aren't catting by landing type). Again, my concern is not really which word we use, it is how do we better communicate to users, both those categorizing media as well as those seeking media, how to most effectively use the system. Josh (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:World operators of the MiG-21.png[edit]

File:World operators of the MiG-21.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Extrapolaris (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:World operators of the MiG-29.png[edit]

File:World operators of the MiG-29.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Extrapolaris (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Le Bourget Airport[edit]

Hi, I have amended cats at Le Bourget Airport to put them back in line with every other airport, ie removed aircraft cats by model, manufacturer and function. These are unnecessary sub classifications and completely out of sync with all other entries. Ardfern (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers by media categories[edit]

Hello, Joshbaumgartner. I just wanted to point out that it's better English to name these categories "by medium" (instead of "by media"), because medium is singular. If you look at Category:Categories by medium (flat list), you'll see that the other categories are named this way. I'd be glad to help rename the numbers categories if you want to do that. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, oversight on my part. I'll try and go back and fix up the ones I've touched recently, and if you notice any, feel free to update them as well. Thanks! Josh (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Template:Aircraft cat?[edit]

Could you look at a couple of pages this template is used on?

Category:Aero Boero aircraft: The template seems to be adding this category to itself. The category Category:Aero Boero has been added manually.
Category:Boeing aircraft: The template seems to be adding the nonexistent category Category:Aircraft of United States of America. (Other categories are also in that one.) The correct category Category:Aircraft of the United States has been added manually.

These are just a couple that I spot-checked. I don't see a meaningful difference in the way these two are set up, so I don't know what's going on. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I'll look into it and fix the problem. Thanks for the report! Josh (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two different issues. For Aero Boero, the Wikidata was wrong, so I fixed that and it fixed the categorization. For the Boeing category, I added 'ifexist' to avoid the redlink being added. In all cases, you can add nocat=y to rely on manual links if the template doesn't work for the specifics of the category in question. Josh (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks for resolving these. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:044 (number) and Category:00 (number)[edit]

Hi,

You corrected these categories. But now we have 105 number categories in Category:Numbers with trailing zeroes. Do you plan to correct them all? --Michgrig (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As time allows. They were in Category:Numbers with trailing zeroes originally, and I'm not sure why. Regardless, they need to be moved to Category:Natural numbers with leading zeroes. Josh (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Number cat is not multilingual[edit]

The Template:Number cat you created works only in English. For other languages, the template generates error messages, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:64_(number)?uselang=de. --Labant (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is multilingual, using WD labels and langswitch. The error you found had to do with how the numerals were being pulled. This is fixed now. Josh (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aircraft views[edit]

Hi! Can you please modify the Template:Aircraft views to not add the {{Aircraft mfr}} to the aircraft view categories? The included {{Aircraft mfr}} automatically adds Category:Aircraft manufacturers category to aircraft view categories which they shouldn't have. Many thanks! -- Meisam (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Josh (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:San Francisco Pier number[edit]

Is there any way this can be modified (possibly by modifying {{Number cat}}?) to show all the piers? The current state, where it shows only piers within +/- 20 of the current category, is rather misleading. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) There are a few ways to do that. One way may be to allow the option of passing different +/- levels through {{Number cat}}. SF piers are interesting in that there is a gap of almost 40 numbers to get to Pier 90. Ifexist is expensive, so I don't want to expand it out too far. The other option would be for {{Number cat}} to allow an optional manual listing of a fixed set. This could work for sets that are pretty well complete and not likely to change much. For now the most clear picture of all piers is still to step up to the Category:Piers in San Francisco by number to see the list in full. Josh (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the way {{Number cat}} is currently set up, it's not clear that there may be more categories to either side, and that's a big problem for all use. I think the best option is to allow either a larger range, or a specific set, to be manually input - and there needs to be some indication of a wider range. (Arrows on either side, perhaps?). In the meantime, SF piers would be better served by a hardcoded navigation template that shows all of the piers - there's absolutely no reason to force users to hop up to the category for such a limited range. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added a navigation tool where none existed. It is dynamic and you can set the range covered, upper and lower limits, and even the interval between numbers, but my opinion is that a fixed set is the best for this particular case. If you have an elegant way to add arrows or allow a fixed list as opposed to a dynamic one, I'm all for it. Josh (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since you're familiar with the formatting of the base template, could you whip up a fixed-set version of {{San Francisco Pier number}}? Doesn't have to be a perfect/final version, just one that includes all the numbers. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For now I just upped the range to 90 to cover this set. It is a bit clunky but should work for the now. Josh (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks great. Related question: is it really useful to have Category:Piers in San Francisco by number? Seems to me that it's just an extra layer of categorization that doesn't really add any benefit to the end user. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category V5-MAG[edit]

Guten Tag. Du hast die Category:V5-ELZ (aircraft) erstellt. Wie kommt man zu dieser Q-Nummer in der ersten Zeile? Kannst Du auch eine Category für V5-MAG (aircraft) erstellen. Ein dazugehörendes Bild ist File:Gobabis Airport.jpg Gruss, Hp. --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte vergib mir mein Deutsch. Category:V5-MAG (aircraft) existiert jetzt. Diese Q-Nummer wurde in Wikidata basierend auf Informationen erstellt, die gefunden werden können. Öffentliche Informationen über namibische Zivilflugzeuge sind sehr begrenzt. Wenn Sie Quellen haben, teilen Sie bitte. Josh (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Thank you very much Joshbaumgartner for crating this Category! Your German is perfect! The INFOBOX on Top of Category:V5-MAG (aircraft) states that this is a Cessna 172 but the aircraft is a Cessna 206 (not 172!!!) How can we change that? --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hp.Baumeler: Fixed at Wikidata. You can change/create data there. Josh (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can also set correct labels per language there. Josh (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Thank you very much for your help! Unfortunately the Page Category:V5-MAG (aircraft) still states in the infobox marked with an "i" just below the title that this should be a Cessna 172. V5-MAG is a Cessna 206 not a 172. In the page you showed me all is correct. I wonder if some information behind the Q-Number probably could be wrong? --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hp.Baumeler: Interesting, I wonder if it is a refresh issue? It looks okay when I view it, saying "instance of: 206 Stationair". It was originally listed as a 172 (my mistake!) but I changed it to a 206. Please try and do a full refresh and see if it looks right. Let me know if it is good or not. Josh (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Hi Josh. Now it shows instance of: 206 Stationair! Great! Thank you very much!--Hp.Baumeler (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hp.Baumeler: Great news. I'm happy to see some attention given to less covered topics. We have pretty good coverage of British Airways Boeing 747's at Heathrow, but small aircraft in Namibia? I'm happy to help if you have any others in the future. Josh (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner:

Thank you so much for helping! I definitively will come back to you as soon as I have more pictures of small namibian aircrafts. I live in Switzerland and I fly as a private pilot every year several months with V5-MAG, V5-ELZ and sometimes V5-KCC through Namibia, Botswana and South Africa showing my friends the beauty of these countries. I also posted many bird's eye view pictures on Wiki-pages of Namibia, Botswana and South Africa and I created some small articles about Namiba as de:Tsausberge or de:Spiegelberg (Namibia). I just now see that there is already a picture of V5-KCC in commons. Yes, I would like you creating a category also for V5-KCC. Thank you very much! Regards, Hp --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hp.Baumeler: Thanks for these contributions! Namibia's civil aircraft register is not, so far as I can find, available online, so if you have any additional information about the aircraft, such as build year or c/n or other registrations it may have worn, they can be added. I've created the Wikidata entry and Category:V5-KCC (aircraft), as well as adding some other categories to the file. Josh (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner:

Dear Josh. Can you create a Category for V5-TCD please? Thank you very much and kind regards, Hanspeter --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hp.Baumeler: Category:V5-TCD (aircraft) is set up. Do you know which airport these images were taken at? Josh (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Josh, thank you so much!! Great! Yes, from some of these pictures I know the location. The pictures I took normally include the coordinates in the commons-data of the picture. Or should I write the location underneath the pictures? --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hp.Baumeler: I should have looked at the coordinates! Those work fine, though it might be helpful to include the airfield name in plain text in the description of the file. I would also recommend adding the airport as a category, but I know some of the smaller fields do not have them yet. Josh (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Hi Josh. Here again an aircraft of an friend of mine you could create a Category. Call sign: V5-MXM. Thank you very much!

V5-MXM Beechcraft A36 at Buitepos
V5-MXM, Flying Beechcraft A36
V5-MXM, Flying Beechcraft A36
V5-MXM, Flying Beechcraft A36

Regards, Hanspeter --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, I for the first time succeeded in creating a new category. But I don't know how you add this "i"-Information to the page. Regards, Hanspeter --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hp.Baumeler: Great, it's no problem. The info box requires there be a corresponding item set up on Wikidata, like this one. It doesn't have to be fancy, just add statements for the type of aircraft it is, what its registration is, and who built it to start. You can also add operator or first flight info if you have it, as well as select an image that depicts the subject well. Once that exists, add the Template:Individual aircraft template to the top of the category, with the Q# from the Wikidata item as the first parameter. It will then read the data from Wikidata to display at the top of the category page. You can see how I did this for Category:V5-MXM (aircraft). I know it is a few steps, but glad to help! Josh (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Thank you very much Josh! As soon as I have pictures from another Namibian Aircraft I'll try to get done the job! ... or I come back to you! I see you are really specialized in aviation! Thank you very much for all the new categories you put on V5-MXM and other aircrafts!!

I discovered only today that there is a category called Category:Aerial photographs of Namibia. In this category almost all photographes are mine :-). Kind regards, Hp. --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

House numbers[edit]

While your recent improvements regarding house numbers are appreciated, there appears to be a couple of issues:

First, it seems that there may be very common (but significant) misunderstanding regarding the meaning of "house number" as it relates to the categories "n (house number)". It would seem obvious that "house number" should refer to the number of a house (residence), but it actually refers to the numbered part of a street address that precedes the street name. For example, in the case of 123 North Main Street, the house number is "123". Usually these numbers apply to actual houses (resdiences). However, despite the name, this part of the address also applies to addresses for businesses, churches, schools, etc. (non-residential locations). As it stands, the "housenumber" template places the "n (house number)" categories as subcategories of "Houses numbered n". This is a problem because a large portion of the house numbers do not apply to houses. If anything, the "Houses numbered n" categories should be subcategories of the "n (house number)".

Second, even though the "n (house number)" categories appear as subcategories of the "Items numbered n" categories on the "Items numbered n" pages, they do not appear as subcategories of "Items numbered n" on the "n (house number)" pages. An Errant Knight (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@An Errant Knight: Yep, sounds about right. I am thinking that putting them under "Buildings numbered n" would be better than "Houses numbered n" because of this issue. It is more of what we might call a street number in the US versus just being for houses exclusively. At any rate this is pretty simple to do, it just takes a little doing. As for the second issue, it sounds like something that will be cleared up once the transition is complete. Josh (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since a large number of the items in question are houses, it might be worth keeping them as a subcategory. However, there is also the issue of the difference between a building numbered n and a building with a "house number" n. U.S. Government facilities (military, NASA), etc.) often number their buildings, even though they already have a "house number" for their street address. An Errant Knight (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wonder if there is value to this distinction when it comes to managing media. Of course there is a material difference between a number that is part of the postal address and one that is some other kind of identifier for other purposes, but if I have two pictures of buildings with 14 on them, do I really need to have them in different cats because one is used by the national postal service to locate the building and another is used internally within the campus to locate the building? Josh (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This editor believes that, while not of great importance, there is some need to distinguish between the two. While the house number category is the overwhelmingly most common, categorizing a numbered building by house number (when it is not its house number), does not work. (The number of the building is usually not the same as the street number.) Another issue is the house numbers on letter boxes (mail boxes). These are house numbers, but they are not on buildings. An Errant Knight (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@An Errant Knight: Well by all means go for it, I don't see any problem with having it if you think it's worth the effort. Josh (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft in Uganda service by name[edit]

Shouldn't this category be by model instead of by name? For example, with Category:Boeing 707 in Uganda service, Boeing 707 is a model, not a name.

I see that some categories, such as Category:Boeing aircraft by type name, use the term "type name", but I don't think that's the right term, either. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...changing it presently. Josh (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Type" is the official ICAO and Wikipedia term, not "model" (see Category:Models of aircraft)). Using "model" for general aircraft categories is wrong, because it should only be used for categories of scale models. See administrator in Category:Aircraft by registration, 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC). --Uli Elch (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uli Elch: Is that why we have both Category:Aircraft by type (which contains subcats for gliders, fixed wing aircraft, ultralight aircraft, etc.) and Category:Aircraft by type name (which has subcats for Beechcraft 1900, Beechcraft Skipper, Blackburn Type I, etc.)? I think there's a lot of inconsistency in this naming. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Yes, Category:Aircraft by type is exactly that. Category:Aircraft by type name is ill-defined and not really a good place to put anything. It used to be Aircraft by model name but apparently this was too confusing for Uli and he renamed it Aircraft by type name. However he made a redirect but left a bunch of categories under the old Category:Aircraft by model name. Cleanup is underway. Josh (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Low wing aircraft[edit]

Hi Josh, I have reverted your move of this category to Category:Low wing monoplanes and also reverted the move at the High wing categories. First of all I agree with Uli Elch that the names "Low wing monoplanes" or "High wing monoplanes" make no sense. These aircraft have to be monoplanes by definition because there is only one pair of wings that you can fix either high or low at the fuselage; so there was no need for any further disambiguation. Second, I think you should not have moved categories that had been in use since 2008 or 2009 respectively without getting consensus first.

Speaking of consensus, I noticed that you've had quite a few discussions on this talk page where people complained about your introduction of new categories since they were not regarded as improvements. So while being bold is usually encouraged on Wikipedia, I would advise you to first make suggestions at Commons talk:WikiProject Aviation for future changes instead of implementing solutions that might get cancelled later. De728631 (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So they ARE monoplanes but should not be called monoplanes. Okay, makes perfect sense. Josh (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes sense to not have "Low wing monoplanes" because there are no low wing biplanes or triplanes either. Similarily, we have Category:Four-wheeled vehicles but there is no Category:Four-wheeled automobiles for obvious reasons. Category:Automobiles with more than four wheels exists because these type of cars are special, but nobody would need a diffusion for 4-wheeled automobiles. De728631 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just go all the way and call it "Low wing objects"? Nothing else out there is low wing but aircraft so why that distinction? I'm sure a creative person could come up with some outliers (as you mentioned with cars) but no current categories exist for other low wing things. I'm fine with it being airplanes, monoplanes, vehicles, or objects, really. I just think making it out like it is a big deal is pretty silly...you already basically admitted it doesn't matter because either way it is referring to the same exact set of items. So at that point, does it really matter? Josh (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does matter. As you aptly put it: Nothing else out there is low wing but aircraft, so why did you even create a subset called "Low wing monoplanes"? Just because the parent category is called Monoplanes it doesn't mean that the subcategories should follow this pattern – especially if the naming would be redundant. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. De728631 (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create a subset called "Low wing monoplanes". If I had, I'd agree with you 110%. That would have been redundant. Josh (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By moving the category page to the new name, you did create a new category called "Category:Low wing monoplanes" which was still part of Category:Monoplanes. So how was that not a subset of "Monoplanes" or "Aircraft" further up in the category tree? De728631 (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The category already existed under Monoplanes. I did not change where it sat in the category 'tree'. Josh (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Layout clash between your "Aircraft" template and Wikidata Infobox.[edit]

I've just removed the use of the Aircraft template from Category:Boeing 80, partly because the Wikidata Infobox seemed to make it redundant, but more importantly because the Aircraft template's presence caused the Wikidata Infobox to be pushed upward above the Aircraft box, resulting in a huge void of blank space at the top of the category page. After looking at the Aircraft template and seeing that you created it, I thought I should explicitly make you aware of that problem, so that you can deal with it as you best see fit. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin Douglas Howell: Yes, I've been removing the older Template:Aircraft from cats when I find they have Template:Wikidata Infobox. I had developed the former before Mike made the later. His is more comprehensive so no need for my Aircraft one on most cats any more. Wikidata Infobox does have some issues with cats where Wikidata has two items (one for the article, one for the category) so in a few cases, maybe keep the aircraft template for now. But normally, just remove the Aircraft template. Thanks! Josh (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boeing aircraft by operator[edit]

Hi, I see that you have removed Boeing aircraft by airline and replaced it with Boeing aircraft by operator. I believe that Boeing aircraft by airline should have remained and instead become a sub-cat of Boeing aircraft by operator. If by operator is meant to include for instance governments or air forces they would now be mixed in with airlines thanks to your change. This would be confusing and undesirable and you would no longer be able to see each listed separately. They too would be better as sub-cats, along with airlines. Grateful if you could rethink and revert. Ardfern (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Agree. The existing and reasonable system must not be changed without prior discussion. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, 'by operator' is a superset of 'by airline'. If there are enough to warrant, they can both exist. Josh (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that they both must exist as in Category:Fokker F27 by airline which is a subcat of Category:Fokker F27 Friendship by operator allowing clear distinction between airline operators and military or government operators for instance. If you look at Category:Aircraft in German service by operator or Category:Aircraft in Netherlands service by operator you can see the distinction being lost and civil and military operators being mixed together, which seems plain wrong. I would suggest use of the Fokker F27 airline and operator cats is the right model. Ardfern (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both are index categories. All operators should be listed in 'by operator' and only airlines in 'by airline' categories. If there is no 'by airline', no need to create one unless you feel there are enough airlines to warrant it (in my book, 2 is enough, but others like a higher number). Personally, I don't see the value of the 'by airline' sub-group if you don't also see the same value in a 'by military operator' or 'by corporation' or other types of users. I have not been creating the 'by airline' sub cats in 'aircraft by country of service' cats because the 'by operator' group hasn't gotten too large yet. If you want to do so, feel free, but remember, there should always be a 'by operator' cat which is an index of all operators regardless of the nature of the operator. This is necessary because a user should not have to know the nature of the operator as a requirement to find them. Josh (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airliners of Air Zimbabwe[edit]

Hi, I see that you have changed a load of cats from Aircraft of a particular country to Airliners of a particular country. This is not a sensible change and is contrary to hundreds of cats already correctly named. There is no need for this change. Aircraft is the common currency re airlines not airliners. Please revert Ardfern (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about airliners of country, or airliners of an airline? In any case, it seems that this one is resolved, if I'm not mistaken. Josh (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airliners of Air Zimbabwe by location[edit]

Hi, I see that you have changed a number of cats from Aircraft of an airline to Airliners of an airline. This is not a sensible change and, as above, is contrary to hundreds of cats already correctly named. I have reverted some of these. You also changed Aircraft of Air Zimbabwe at Frankfurt Airport to Airliners, despite the fact that there are some 400 other cats of Aircraft and thousands more by every other airport. I have reverted these. There is no good reason or need to change cats from Aircraft to Airliners. Ardfern (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Agree. Aircraft at airports are not always airliners. The existing and reasonable system must not be changed without prior discussion. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'm all for it. Josh (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COM:AN/U[edit]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Joshbaumgartner. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

De728631 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft by registration[edit]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Aircraft by registration[edit]

This meta category has amassed 77,326 subcategories and needs diffusion. Part of the problem is that for quite some time there have been several subcategories in Category:Aircraft by registration by type following the scheme of "Boeing 747 by registration" and the like, but people still keep adding both Category:Aircraft by registration and "Category:<Aircraft type> by registration" to the main categories where individual aircraft by registration are gathered. E.g. Category:EC-MLD (aircraft) is categorised both in "Category:Aircraft by registration" and "Category:Airbus A321 by registration". Contrary to COM:OVERCAT this seems to be the rule at aircraft categories rather than the exception. I am presenting this issue here because Ardfern suggested that it be discussed with Commons:WikiProject Aviation only. However, I don't think that local consensus can trump a Commons-wide policy, so exceptions need to be approved here. De728631 (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a function (set) with 2 parameters - "Aircraft (by registration, by type)" have a superfunction (superset) with 1 parameter - "Aircraft (by registration)"?

To display all parents click on the "▶":

Aircraft by registration by type

--Fractaler (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is how Wikimedia categories work. We define more specific categories the further we go down the category tree, and that means that more parameters come into play while the definition set out in a simple top category still remains valid for all elements further down the hierarchy. "Aircraft by registration" is for images where just the registration number is known. "Aircraft by registration by type" is a container for aircraft categories where the registration and the type is known, and "Category:Kawasaki C-1 by registration‎" and the like would be the next level. The problem, however, is that subcategories should only be part of one category level further up the direct line, and not be sorted into two related parent categories. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having so many entries isn't always a reason to diffuse a category. This isn't a standard-type category. Another example of this type of category is Category:People by name, which has even more entries: 366,781 when I checked just now. There are categories that are subsets of that one, such as Category:Men by name and Category:Women by name (see Category:People categories by name for others), but the contents of those categories are also in Category:People by name. We should handle similar categories such as this one the same way. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, what is a "category tree"? If it is a taxonomy , then we have: ROOT <- 1) SUBROOT1 (by A); 2) SUBROOT2 (by B); 3) SUBROOT3 (by A, by B). Examples: "Aircraft by parameters" <- 1) "Aircraft by registration"; 2) "Aircraft by type"; 3) "Aircraft by registration by type" --Fractaler (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't place an item into a category *and* its parent. For example, a black and white photo of the Eiffel Tower should be placed in Black and white photographs of the Eiffel Tower. It should *not* be placed in both that category and the Paris category at the same time.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough when I started this discussion, but my main concern is not so much the way we may want to diffuse this category in the future but a massive case of overcategorisation right now. Contrary to the Commons policy on categories, there are probably hundreds of subcategories that are placed into a category and its parent. So my approach is to remove all those subcategories from Category:Aircraft by registration that have already been sorted into a category "by registration by type". This is the commonly accepted standard to solve the issue, but it has been challenged in this case and needs discussion. De728631 (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have now, for example, 3 sets: 1) Category:Aircraft by registration, 2) Category:Aircraft by type, 3) Category:Aircraft by registration by type (the same for Category:People by name, Category:People by gender, Category:People by name by gender, etc.)‎. So, category tree (by the commonly accepted standard) must be ...? --Fractaler (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this obvious? The category tree should be:

Level 1, two independent parent categories: Category:Aircraft by registration / Category:Aircraft by type
- Level 2, merged meta category: Category:Aircraft by registration by type
  - Level 3, category names contain the specific type: Category:Airbus A380 by registration
    - Level 4, registration category: Category:B-6140 (aircraft) which should not also be in Category:Aircraft by registration

De728631 (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft by registration, however, may very well contain registration categories like "Category:D-ECAB" if the aircraft type is unknown. Once the type becomes known, the registration category should be placed into "<Aircraft type> by registration" instead. De728631 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Level 4 - you are right, here COM:OVERCAT. But also I mean (level 2->level 1), why the set Category:Aircraft by registration by type must be a subset of the set Category:Aircraft by type (or Category:Aircraft by registration)

To display the taxonomy below click on the "▶":

here "▶" = "⊆", "is a subset of"
A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C imply A ⊆ C

B-6140 (aircraft)

?--Fractaler (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, we agree on COM:OVERCAT. As to your question: It is the logical taxonomy for breaking down Category:Aircraft by registration and Category:Aircraft by type. Category:Airbus A380 by registration, Category:Jetstream 31 by registration etc. need to have parent categories and it would be improper to put them directly into Category:Aircraft by registration and Category:Aircraft by type because there are dozens of these "by registration by type" categories. A meta category for hosting them is not only justified but needed to make things more accessible, so that is how the connection between Level 2 and Level 1 works. De728631 (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore the application of set theory above (IMO it isn't an appropriate model for Commons), as abstract theory is unlikely to be informative to a specific problem.

I will stick to practical concerns. Say I have a photo of the plane with registration G-BOAC. I don't have a clue what sort of plane that is, but if I create its category I can place it in Category:Aircraft by registration based on what I do know. Alternatively, imagine I am seeking images of G-BOAC. I know its registration, so its reasonable to use Category:Aircraft by registration to try to locate it. If its directly in that category, I can find it. If its buried in a "by type" subcategory I cannot find it, as I do not have that information. In both cases, having the individual plane's category in Category:Aircraft by registration is helpful. Removing it from that category is harmful.

To put this a different way, "I want a plane with registration G-BOAC" is not sensibly narrowed down by instead saying "I want a Concorde with registration G-BOAC". In contrast "I want a Concorde" is sensibly refined with "I want a Concorde with registration G-BOAC". That suggests Category:Aircraft by registration by type should be a subcat of "by type" but not "by registration".--Nilfanion (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for a specific category G-BOAC, your first start should be the search field anyway. It will guide you directly to the desired category without you having to browse the category tree. It is the fastest solution for "I want a plane with registration G-BOAC", so a direct entry in Category:Aircraft by registration is therefore not even necessary. Also, Category:Aircraft by registration by type includes the "registration" element, so the question would still arise why it is not linked back to Category:Aircraft by registration. Per our category policy, "each category should itself be in more general categories, forming a hierarchical structure." The hierarchical structure would be broken if Category:Aircraft by registration was not involved. Pinging @Joshbaumgartner: who created "by registration by type" as he might want to comment here too. De728631 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: What I'm trying to demonstrate is that navigation in the category realm works both ways, not just top-down. So if I want to browse back from G-BOAC via "Concorde by registration" and further up the tree, I should be able to arrive at "Aircraft by registration" as well. De728631 (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With bottom-up navigation, you can get to Aircraft by registration by some obvious logical route, no matter how its categorised. That is not true for top-down navigation unless it is directly in by registration. Breaking registrations down by type is simply NOT helpful for navigation. Outright deletion of by registration by type is preferable to have it messing up the utility of the by regisration category.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are contradicting yourself. A few paragraphs further up, you suggested that "Category:Aircraft by registration by type should be a subcat of 'by type'" rather than by registration while you are now outright opposed to "Breaking registrations down by type"? De728631 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh.. '"by registration by type" should be a subcat of "by type" rather than "by registration"' is consistent with 'don't break registrations down by type'? The latter statement is stronger, but doesn't contradict the former. If you already know the registration, adding in the type of aircraft doesn't narrow things down further, you already have a unique plane. (As an aside, to me "aircraft type" implies things like "helicopter" or "wide-body airliner" not "Boeing 777"). What benefit is there to any user in removing categories like Category:G-BOAC (aircraft) from Category:Aircraft by registration? IMO the only logical subcats for aircraft by registration are for the countries of registration. That would link all G registered planes together, and would allow G-BOAC to have a sortkey starting with B instead of G - making it slightly easier to find in the still huge list.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do have country-specific categories. Category:Aircraft registered in the United Kingdom is a parent for all G- registration categories, and there are lots of other such categories for more or less any registration prefix. And "type" is the official ICAO designation for what may otherwise be called an aircraft model. Using "model" for general aircraft categories is problematic though, because it should only be used for categories of scale models. Hence the "by type" wording of the subcategories that was rightfully introduced by Uli Elch. De728631 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And those are the only ones that logically belong under by registration. As they are aspects of aircraft registration, not an otherwise unrelated aspect of aircraft.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure?

Aircraft by registration

`-- Aircraft registered in the United Kingdom

`-- Aircraft registered in France

`---G-BOAC

`---F-IBEX

That way you would empty "Aircraft by registration" of all registration categories, because per COM:OVERCAT they would have to be sorted into the relevant country-specific subcategories, leaving you again with no direct search options. At the moment, "Aircraft by registration" and "Aircraft by registration country" are at the same level in Category:Aircraft registrations and that is a good structure. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with that structure. My point there is if we don't want to merge those two related concepts (the registration code and the registration country), why would we want to link two entirely unrelated categories?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what "specific problem"? Where can user place Category:G-BOAC (aircraft) based on what user do know or how can user find Category:G-BOAC (aircraft)? Who is the taxonomy for, who is the end user? What is the problem: creating a taxonomy or navigate (by navigator!) through it? Also, just for clarification: set theory is not a model. --Fractaler (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specific as in actually discussing the particular concern raised. Not discussing general points which could equally apply to any category. The application of set theory to Commons categories is the problematic case. Its based on the assumption that subategories must be subsets. That's clearly not true in many cases.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, if a subcategory is not a subset of its parent categories, where is the navigational benefit? Categories in a category tree shall "reflect a hierarchy of concepts, from the most generic one down to the very specific". De728631 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion. The navigational benefit is from linking two related concepts, but that relationship is not necessarily that between a set and its subset. The photos of a building in a city are a subset of the photos of the city. The photos of a building built by an architect are not a subset of the photos of the architect.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"See this discussion." TLDR, and too much set theory. Still, there is a relationship between the architect and his buildings, so the photos of buildings are a subset of images related to the architect. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The short version is that the real issues start to appear at the 2nd order. The building could easily be a subcat of an entirely different city (the birthplace of the architect). That relationship is tenuous, but the two steps to get there are perfectly valid. Its conceivable that someone would place a photo of the building directly in the architect's category; its implausible that they would place it in their birthplace's category. That relationship is clearly not a strict subset-of-subset relationship, in contrast to building-city-country which would be.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Its based on the assumption that subategories must be subsets": first, its based on the assertion that must be a definition ("by list" or "by giving a property"). So, still no definition "by list" or "by giving a property". Also here, " The photos of a building in a city" (Category:Buildings by city? Category:Photos of buildings in a city?) - where can we read the definition of this term? When there are no definitions, then there are disputes. Do we need disputes? --Fractaler (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Set theory is nice, but should not trump what works best for a real application on Commons. Josh (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does "works best for a real application on Commons" mean? As can be seen from the template with the taxonomy above, for example, in Category:B-6140 (aircraft) -> Category:Aircraft by registration -> Category:Aircraft registrations -> Category:Aviation data -> Category:Data, set theory is simply not used ("B-6140 (aircraft)" is not "Data"). --Fractaler (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fractaler: : What is your proposal then? Which of the links you listed is invalid and should be broken? Josh (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should retain current use of Category:Aircraft by registration. It is an index of all aircraft registrations, regardless of further sub-categorization that can occur. Sub-categorization can be done by type, by country of registration, or by any number of other criteria. It is best if a registration is accurately categorized by all relevant methods, not just one. However, none of that changes the fact that it is both valuable and without harm to have an index that retains a link to all registrations. Since it does no harm and provides value, the current structure and method of using Category:Aircraft by registration should be retained. Josh (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft by type must be a subcategory of Category:Aircraft by registration? --Fractaler (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that would be ridiculous. De728631 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@De728631: : It is ridiculous. Category:Aircraft by type is NOT a subcategory of Category:Aircraft by registration, nor should it become one, nor is anyone proposing that. As I stated above, we should retain current use of Category:Aircraft by registration. Josh (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have opened a CFD on this, so that people who follow category discussions will see it. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion at Commons talk:Categories#Diffusion of Category:Aircraft by registration. Auntof6 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion text to this page so it will reflect in real time on both Commons talk:Categories and Commons:Categories for discussion. Josh (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with having all single-aircraft registration categories in the main "Aircraft by registration" acting as a super-category. This is not uncommon practice. A standardisation of the "by type" subcategories is always a good thing, of course. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some valid reasons to rethink exactly how Category:Aircraft registrations is structured. Never mind the hashing about whether or not a guideline is being obeyed or whether we are properly applying set theory, none of that is terribly valuable. The category does however beg some more clarity and streamlining. There are a couple issues which we can deal with in pieces, or as a whole. Josh (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 - xxxx (aircraft) categories are aircraft registrations, not aircraft. However, they are often treated as aircraft, especially since they say 'aircraft' parenthetically. This is not a problem for most common usage, but is exposed in corner cases and when analyzing the category structure. Keep in mind an aircraft may be assigned several registrations over its life, and some registrations may be assigned to different aircraft over time. Specific sub-categories of an aircraft registration category can be created to show its application to different aircraft (e.g. Category:N305FA (aircraft) into Category:N305FA (Boeing 737) and Category:N305FA (MD-83)). Proper names should be 'Aircraft registration N305FA' with sub-cats 'Aircraft registration N305FA assigned to Boeing 737 c/n 28662' and 'Aircraft registration N305FA assigned to MD-83 c/n 49398'. I am not proposing renaming these categories, unless someone is up for moving 75,000+ categories. The current abbreviated names are fine, but we should have a better description of what exactly those categories cover.

2 - Category:Aircraft by registration is named incorrectly. As noted above, the sub-cats are aircraft registrations, not aircraft, so the correct title should be Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list) or some other such appropriate title to indicate it is an index of all aircraft registrations ordered alpha-numerically. As it is, the current name adds to the confusion referred to in note 1 above. It may be appropriate to make this category a hidden cat while we are at it. Once this is done, sub and meta cats can be moved directly under Category:Aircraft registrations.

3 - Military identification numbers are not consistently treated. These are sometimes treated as aircraft registrations and other times as serial numbers or some other unrelated tree. Category:Aircraft registrations should cover all individual aircraft identifications assigned by authorities, military or civil. Sub-categorization can break down between assigning authorities for those that it is helpful for, but not all users will know what the issuing authority is for a particular identifier. No rename is needed, but a better description is required to make it clear what the category covers.

4 - Category:Aircraft by registration country is named incorrectly. As above, a more clear and concise name should be used, such as Category:Aircraft registrations by country of issue, to make it clear that the items within are aircraft registrations and that they are ordered by the country which issued the registration. It should be listed directly under Category:Aircraft registrations and not under Category:Aircraft by registration/Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list). Category:Aircraft by registration continent should get similar treatment, though 'continents' do not issue registrations, countries do.

5 - Category:Aircraft by registration by manufacturer and type are incorrect. They should be renamed Category:Aircraft registrations by aircraft assigned and sub-cats of that can parallel the categorization of Category:Aircraft to the level appropriate. Category:Aircraft registrations by aircraft assigned should be directly under Category:Aircraft registrations.

Some tweaks like these would allow the continued use of aircraft registration categories essentially as they have been used for the 75,000+ registrations in place, while at the same time adding clarity and cleaning up the structure of the category quite a bit. They will hopefully go some way to satisfying concerns over COM:OVERCAT and the set theory issues raised by De728631 (talk · contribs) and Fractaler (talk · contribs). Josh (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"What is your proposal then?": set theory requires a definition, and therefore here, in the disputed case, it makes sense to give definitions to the term. What definition should the term "B-6140 (aircraft)" have for a more general term to be the term data"? The same for "aircraft by registration", "aircraft registrations", etc. --Fractaler (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fractaler: As stated in the list above, definition of Category:B-6140 (aircraft) is an 'aircraft registration'. Not sure what definition you are looking for beyond that. Josh (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to differentiate between xxxx (aircraft) and xxxx (aircraft registration) and all subsequent namings. Apart from Category:Temporary aircraft registrations that are used for test and transfer flights, registrations are seldom changed over the life of an aircraft frame and the registration is therefore often synonymous with the single airframe it got assigned to. We already have Category:Re-used aircraft registrations and its appropriate sub-categories as you showed above.

@De728631: You are incorrect that registrations are seldom changed; it is common practice to change a commercial aircraft registration several times during its life, especially when it changes ownership. I would not advise eliminating the existing sub-categorization of xxxx (aircraft) into xxxx (specific aircraft) categories. Assuming synonymy between an aircraft and its registration is a mistake. As stated, I am not proposing that these categories be renamed, but merely that we have better definition of them as being specifically related to that aircraft registration. Josh (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you wrote "Category:Aircraft by registration is named incorrectly. ... the correct title should be Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list) or some other such appropriate title", or "Category:Aircraft by registration by manufacturer and type are incorrect. They should be renamed Category:Aircraft registrations by aircraft assigned". Isn't that renaming? Apart from Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list), I think this is unnecessary, and imho Category:Aircraft registrations by aircraft assigned would be outright confusing. Btw, you created the two latter categories (by registration by manufacturer / by registration by type [model]) last year, so how come you changed your mind now? As I see it, the focus is already on the registration numbers now – even with names like "xxxx (aircraft)". If it's really that common for commercial registrations to be changed, Category:Re-used aircraft registrations with xxxx (specific aircraft) subcategories should become more populated though. Different aircraft should not be lumped into a single registration category. De728631 (talk)

My apologies for not being clear. I don't propose changing the xxxx (aircraft) naming scheme. I do however, think that the meta cats they are in should be renamed per my suggestions above. You are right that some of them are ones I created myself under flawed names. I named them as I did in order to keep with the naming of Category:Aircraft by registration, but I wasn't thrilled by it at the time, and I am even less so now. I'm not sure what you are concerned about with lumping. As it stands now, if a registration is applied to multiple aircraft (which is less common than one aircraft having multiple registrations), then it should be broken down (see Category:N305FA (aircraft)). The main registration category should be also categorized in Category:Re-used aircraft registrations. That is current practice, and I don't think anyone is suggesting changing it. Josh (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Military ID numbers are a problem though. Apparently there are in fact two major approaches among the armed forces of how to apply such registrations, namely using an aircraft's generic serial number (e.g. US Air Force, Italy) or issuing an unrelated ID (Germany, UK, Netherlands, etc.) Sometimes like in Italy or Spain, there are even two parallel schemes of markings on a single aircraft, such as an internal squadron ID (e.g. 41-12) and a permanent serial number. This has already led to inconsistent category schemes as in Category:Military aircraft registered in Spain or Category:Military aircraft registered in Italy (see the MM##### serials). So these need some consistency. De728631 (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The US is no different than Germany or the UK: none use a 'generic' serial number, but instead assign their own numbers per whatever system they have established at the time. Some of these systems adopt the serials already assigned by other agencies or the manufacturer, but again, the sytems are set by each individual issuing authority. What is fundamentally different are identifiers that are assigned for the service life of an aircraft (such as the US Navy's BuNo) vs. those that are assigned to indicate organizational assignment and may be changed throughout its service life (such as the US Navy's tactical codes). However, in all cases, just as with civil registrations, the categories are for the identifier, not the airframe, and thus they should all be handled within the same consistent structure regardless of local differences in how such numbers are devised. Josh (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the service-life ID vs tactical code schemes. It is essentially what I tried to write above but maybe it didn't come through. I agree that in the future we should not use any tactical codes for "registration" categories but stick to BuNos, serials and other such official "top-level" IDs. Where applicable, we should redirect existing "tactical" categories to categories with the official registration number, e.g. Category:43-28 (aircraft) → Category:UD.13-28 (aircraft). De728631 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you that the 'tactical codes' and the like should not be necessarily considered aircraft registrations, while 'serial numbers' like BuNos, etc. should be under aircraft registrations. I also agree that it is curently not consistent and has been hard to know exactly how to proceed with those kinds of categories. We can have 'tactical code' categories, but they should be kept in their own category. The difficulty will be that many users may not be aware of the differences. Josh (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For 'tactical codes' I assume you mean Squadron Codes and yes users may not be aware of the differences. Even aircraft enthusiasts get it wrong. A Chilean aircraft at the Farnborough Airshow was widely quoted in reports as having a serial which later turned out to be a squadron code. Seperate categories for these could be useful? eg Aircraft of 32 Squatron for example. SkymasterUK (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

definition of Category:B-6140 (aircraft) is an 'aircraft registration' : now Category:B-6140 (aircraft) does not have any definition. But, for example, Category:Civil aircraft by country, Category:Airliners of Spain, Category:Four-engine airliners, Category:China Southern Airlines have (even human readable, not to mention the machine-readable, as, for example, in Wikidata or Commons' Category:Airbus A380). --Fractaler (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that the definition should be reflected in the name of the category? De728631 (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now on the page Category:B-6140 (aircraft) we can see such static information: Airbus A380-841, cn/serial number: 120, *China Southern Airlines 2013 to date as B-6140. No "is an 'aircraft registration'" on the page. And the pages from the examples have definitions on their pages ("China Southern Airlines is an airline based in Guangzhou in the Guangdong province of the People's Republic of China (PRC)", etc.). --Fractaler (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or, for example, Wikidata's definitions:

Joshbaumgartner/Archive 2017

<nowiki>matrícula de aeronaves; 飛機註冊編號; lajstromjel; matrícula de l'aeronau; Luftfahrzeugkennzeichen; فهرست پیش‌وندهای ثبتی هواپیما; 航空器註冊編號; Nationale kendingsbogstaver; ہوائی جہاز رجسٹریشن; 機体記号; Luftfartygsregister; רישום כלי טיס; 航空器註冊編號; Ilma-alusrekisteri; registra numero de aviadilo; imatrikulace; registracija zrakoplova; marche d'immatricolazione; আকাশযান নিবন্ধীকরণ; immatriculation des aéronefs; registracija zrakoplova; לופטמאשין רעגיסטראציע; prefixo aeronáutico; Prefixo aeronáutico; Luftfohrtüüchkennteken; регистрација ваздухоплова; Registracija zrakoplova; 항공기 등록부호; orlaivių registracija; 航空器註冊編號; registrasi pesawat; międzynarodowy kod samolotowy; nasjonale kjennetegn på fly; vliegtuigregistratienummer; ہوائی جہاز رجسٹریشن; регистрация воздушных судов; Самолетазул хъвай-хъвагӀай; Uçak tescili; aircraft registration; تسجيل طائرة; 航空器注册编号; реєстрація повітряних суден; serie alfanumérica que distingue a una aeronave; 航空機の機体ごとに割り当てられている記号及び番号; egy repülőgépet azonosító, betűkből és számokból álló jel; registersystem för civila luftfartyg; międzynarodowy system znakowania statków powietrznych; individuelt registreringsnummer for fly og andre registreringspliktige luftfartøy; registratie waaronder het vliegtuig bekend is bij de nationale autoriteit; קאד וואס אידענטיפיצירט א לופטמאשין; Code, der ein Luftfahrzeug eindeutig identifiziert; জাতীয় বিমান কর্তৃপক্ষ কর্তৃক একটি পৃথক বিমানের জন্য নির্ধারিত নিবন্ধীকরণ এবং শনাক্তকরণ; registration and identification assigned to an individual aircraft by national aviation authorities; matricola alfanumerica che identifica un aeromobile; registrační značka letadla přidělená příslušným úřadem; string alfanumerik pesawat terbang; código de matriculación de aeronaves OACI; código de registro de aeronaves; matrícula aeronáutica; matricula de aeronaves; codigo de matriculacion de aeronaves OACI; codigo de registro de aeronaves; matricula aeronautica; 機体登録記号; 機体登録番号; 登録記号; 機体登録; 機体番号; 機番; レジ; レジ番; Immatriculations aéronautiques; Immatriculations aéraunautiques; marche; codice velivolo; codice di registrazione degli aeromobili; matricola degli aeromobili; matricola aeromobili; marche di immatricolazione; marche aeromobile; matricola aeromobile; numero di coda; nomor pendaftaran pesawat; kod samolotowy; halenummer; Vliegtuigregistratie; Staartnummer; Бортовой номер самолета; Регистрационный номер воздушного судна; Регистрационный номер самолёта; Бортовой номер самолёта; 機尾編號; 機身編號; 飛機註冊編號; 飞机注册编号; 注册号; Flugzeugkennzeichen; Flugzeug-Kennung; Luftfahrzeugkennung; Flugzeugkennung; Flugzeugkennungen; Kennzeichen von Luftfahrzeugen; Flugleistungsklasse; Luftfahrzeug-Kennung; 항공기 등록번호; 항공기 등록기호; aircraft registration code; tail number; aircraft marks; registration marks; تسجيل طائره; تسجيل الطائرة; registrační značky letadel; imatrikulace letadla; registrační značka letadla; Internationale kendingsbogstaver</nowiki>

,

<nowiki>Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Еърбъс А380; ایئربس اے380; ایئربس اے380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Аеробус A380; Airbus A380; 空中巴士A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Ербас А380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; এয়ারবাস এ৩৮০; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; 空中客车A380; ערבוס A380; एअरबस ए३८०; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Ербас А380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; 空中客车A380; Airbus A380; 空中巴士A380; ئێرباس ئەی٣٨٠; Airbus A380; إيرباص إيه 380; Airbus A380; Airbas A380; အဲယားဘတ်စ် A380; 空中巴士 A380; Airbus A380; એરબસ એ ૩૮૦; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; ایرباس آ-۳۸۰; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; 空中客车A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; エアバスA380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; एयरबस ए३८०; 空中客车A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; ஏர்பஸ் ஏ380; Airbus A380; แอร์บัส เอ380; Airbus A380; එයාර් බස් A380; Airbus A380; Аэробус A380; ఎయిర్‌బస్ A380; 空中客车A380; 空中巴士A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Erbas A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Ербас А380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; എയർബസ് എ380; 空中巴士A380; Airbus A380; איירבוס A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; 空中客车A380; Airbus A380; 에어버스 A380; avión quatrimotor de fuselaje ancho y doble piso, actualmente el avión de pasajeros más grande del mundo; breiðþota; Pesawat berbadan lebar, dua dek, empat enjin, kini merupakan pesawat penumpang terbesar di dunia; Wide-body, double-deck, four-engine aircraft, currently the largest passenger aircraft in the world; Широкофюзелажен, двупалубен, четиримоторен самолет, в момента най-големият пътнически самолет в света; avion de pasageri; ایئربس کا تیارکردہ دو منزلہ طیارہ; Fiaramanidina midadasika, avo roa heny, misy maotera efatra, amin'izao fotoana izao no fiaramanidina mpandeha lehibe indrindra eran-tany; dopravné lietadlo; двохпалубний широкофюзеляжний пасажирський літак, створений Airbus; 四发涡轮风扇大容积远程客机; Airbus에서 제작 한 더블 데크 항공기; Кең шанақты, екі палубалы, төрт қозғалтқышты ұшақ, қазіргі уақытта әлемдегі ең үлкен жолаушы ұшағы; největší dopravní letoun světa; Širokotrupni avion sa dva sprata sa četiri motora, trenutno najveći putnički avion na svetu; ওয়াইড-বডি, ডাবল-ডেক, চার ইঞ্জিনের বিমান, বর্তমানে বিশ্বের বৃহত্তম যাত্রীবাহী বিমান; plus gros avion civil du monde, produit par Airbus de 2007 à 2021; Wide-body, dobel-deck, pesawat papat mesin, saiki pesawat penumpang paling gedhe ing donya; Širokotrupni, dvopalubni, četveromotorni zrakoplov, trenutno najveći putnički zrakoplov na svijetu; वाइड-बॉडी, डबल-डेक, चार इंजिन असलेले विमान, सध्या जगातील सर्वात मोठे प्रवासी विमान आहे; Dòng máy bay thân rộng 2 tầng bốn động cơ do Airbus phát triển; Plata korpusa, divstāvu, četru dzinēju lidmašīna, šobrīd lielākā pasažieru lidmašīna pasaulē; dubbel-dek vliegtuig vervaardig deur Airbus; Широкотрупни, двоспратни, четворомоторни авион, тренутно највећи путнички авион на свету; Plèana le corp farsaing, deic dhùbailte, ceithir-einnsean, an-dràsta an itealan luchd-siubhail as motha san t-saoghal; Breet-Kierper, duebel-Deck, véier-Moteur Fliger, de Moment de gréisste Passagéierfliger vun der Welt; langdistanse passasjerfly; Geniş gövdəli, ikiqat göyərtəli, dörd mühərrikli təyyarə, hazırda dünyanın ən böyük sərnişin təyyarəsidir; wide-body, double-deck, four-engine aircraft, currently the largest passenger aircraft in the world; طائرة ذات طابقين تصنعها إيرباص; négyhajtóműves, széles törzsű, óriás utasszállító repülőgép; વાઈડ-બોડી, ડબલ-ડેક, ફોર એન્જિન એરક્રાફ્ટ, હાલમાં વિશ્વનું સૌથી મોટું પેસેન્જર એરક્રાફ્ટ; Gorputz zabaleko, solairu biko eta lau motorreko hegazkinak, gaur egun munduko bidaiarien hegazkin handiena; avión de doble puente fabricáu por Airbus; Двухпалубный пассажирский самолёт; Awyren pedwar injan corff llydan, dec dwbl, yr awyren fwyaf yn y byd i deithwyr ar hyn o bryd; بزرگترین هواپیمای مسافربری جهان; 四發動機中長程雙層客機; Wide-body, dobbeltdækket, firemotors fly, i øjeblikket det største passagerfly i verden; ფართო ტანის, ორსართულიანი, ოთხძრავიანი თვითმფრინავი, ამჟამად ყველაზე დიდი სამგზავრო თვითმფრინავია მსოფლიოში; エアバス製の総二階建て4発ジェット旅客機; מטוס נוסעים רחב-גוף דו-קומתי; Киң гәүдәле, ике катлы, дүрт двигательле самолет, хәзерге вакытта дөньядагы иң зур пассажир самолеты; वाइड-बॉडी, डबल-डेक, चार इंजन वाला विमान, वर्तमान में दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा यात्री विमान है; వైడ్-బాడీ, డబుల్ డెక్, ఫోర్-ఇంజిన్ ఎయిర్‌క్రాఫ్ట్, ప్రస్తుతం ప్రపంచంలోనే అతిపెద్ద ప్యాసింజర్ ఎయిర్‌క్రాఫ్ట్; maailman suurin matkustajalentokone; Wide-body, double-deck, four-engine aircraft, currently the largest passenger aircraft in the world; பரந்த உடல், இரட்டை அடுக்கு, நான்கு எஞ்சின் விமானம், தற்போது உலகின் மிகப்பெரிய பயணிகள் விமானம்; modello di aeromobile a doppio ponte; Laia kerega kahekorruseline neljamootoriline lennuk, hetkel suurim reisilennuk maailmas; 四发涡轮风扇大容积远程客机; පුළුල් ශරීර, ද්විත්ව තට්ටු, එන්ජින් හතරේ ගුවන් යානා, දැනට ලෝකයේ විශාලතම මගී ගුවන් යානය; Dünyanın en büyük yolcu uçağı; Corpus latum, duplex deck, quattuor machinae aircraft, nunc maxima viatoribus aircraft in mundo; aeronave quadrimotor a jato para transporte de passageiros; อากาศยานไอพ่นลำตัวกว้างสองชั้น; europeiskt fyrmotorigt jetflygplan för långdistansflygning; avion de linha civil fòrça gròs-portaire long-corrièr quadrireactor de doble pont produit per Airbus; Plataus korpuso, dviejų aukštų, keturių variklių lėktuvas, šiuo metu didžiausias keleivinis lėktuvas pasaulyje; Širokotrupno, dvonivojsko, štirimotorno letalo, trenutno največje potniško letalo na svetu; एयरबस द्वारा डबल-डेक विमानको निर्माण; passagiersvliegtuig; silnik Airbus'a A380Samolot pasażerski; pesawat dek ganda berbadan lebar; Ndege yenye mwili mpana, yenye sitaha, yenye injini nne, ambayo kwa sasa ni ndege kubwa zaidi ya abiria duniani; വൈഡ് ബോഡി, ഡബിൾ ഡെക്ക്, ഫോർ എഞ്ചിൻ എയർക്രാഫ്റ്റ്, നിലവിൽ ലോകത്തിലെ ഏറ്റവും വലിയ യാത്രാ വിമാനം; 搭載4台引擎的空中巴士巨無霸客機; vierstrahliges Großraumflugzeug; Авион со широк каросерија, двокатни, четири мотори, моментално најголемиот патнички авион во светот; Լայն թափքով, երկհարկանի, չորս շարժիչով ինքնաթիռ, ներկայումս աշխարհի ամենամեծ մարդատար ինքնաթիռը; Keng korpusli, ikki qavatli, to'rt dvigatelli samolyot, hozirgi vaqtda dunyodagi eng katta yo'lovchi samolyoti; avión de pasaxeiros; Өргөн биетэй, хоёр тавцантай, дөрвөн хөдөлгүүртэй онгоц нь одоогоор дэлхийн хамгийн том зорчигч тээврийн онгоц юм; τύπος αεροσκάφους της Airbus; avió civil fabricat per Airbus; A380; Airbus A3XX; A380; A380; A380; 空中巴士A380; 空客A380; A380; A380; A380; 空巴A380; 空巴巨無霸客機; A380; Airbus Jumbo Jet; A380 Jumbo Jet; ए३८०; Superjumbo; A380; A380; A380 Jumbo Jet; Airbus Jumbo Jet; A380 Jumbo Jet; A380; A٣٨٠; أيرباص ٣٨٠; إيرباص A٣٨٠; إيرباص آي ٣٨٠; إيرباص آي٣٨٠; إيرباص إيه ٣٨٠; إيرباص إيه٣٨٠; إيرباص ٣٨٠; إيه ٣٨٠; اير باص ايه-٣٨٠; ايرباص A٣٨٠; ايرباص ايه ٣٨٠; ايرباص٣٨٠; ايرباص ايه 380; إيرباص A380; إيرباص إيه380; ايرباص A380; إيرباص آي380; اير باص ايه-380; إيرباص 380; ايرباص380; أيرباص 380; A380; إيه 380; إيرباص آي 380; سوبر جامبو; Airbus A380 (dopravní letadlo); A380</nowiki>

--Fractaler (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those infoboxes are well suited to gallery pages, but not so much for categories. Wikidata doesn't have items for individual aircraft registrations ~~as far as I am aware~~. I just looked it up and there are no items with instance of: Q838849 (aircraft registration) Josh (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean these items? About definition: in order to be able to display the definition (by version of WD, if there is no version of Commons) on a category page, I'm now trying to make a template {{DescriptionWD}} (using Module:Wikidata description). For example, "aircraft registration": registration and identification assigned to an individual aircraft by national aviation authorities --Fractaler (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try Template:Individual aircraft and Template:Wdd. Josh (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fractaler: Yes, none of those items you linked are instances of aircraft registrations. Josh (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@De728631, Fractaler, Nilfanion, Auntof6, and Huntster: Can we possibly close this out? There was a lot of discussion but not much in the way of specific proposals or consensus of said proposals. The OP (de728631) was correct that this category violates COM:OVERCAT when sub cats such as Category:Airbus A320 by registration are included. There is no reason it should, so I propose we fix this by simply restricting this category to actual categories which include the registration in their name (e.g. Category:B-6140 (aircraft)) and not other metacats and such. For the purposs of this category, the term 'registration' includes all officially assigned aircraft IDs, and thus includes civil aircraft registrations issued by national aviation authorities as well as military aircraft serial numbers assigned for the aircraft's service life. Is it possible that we can agree on this simple tweak to come into compliance with COM:OVERCAT and then tackle the other issues raised above in their own conversations? Josh (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously expressed my opinion that keeping this a super-category for all registrations is not an issue and is a reasonable exception (as with Category:Ships by name and others). There is the very real potential for a flat-list to be useful to end users. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this should be a flat category containing all registrations. I understand the concerns about overcategorization, but I think categories containing all individual entries are useful. Maybe this cat should be renamed to indicate that it's a flat category. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Would it make sense to have Category:Aircraft by registration (flat list) as one of many subcategories in Category:Aircraft by registration ? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would make sense. That way we'd have a cat with a subcat for each registration ID, and we could also have categories that group the IDs by whatever criteria are useful. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huntster, Auntof6, Themightyquill, and De728631: Closed (no consensus for a significant change to how category is used; category is exempt from COM:OVERCAT limitations; perhaps can be styled as a flat list in the future if someone wants to take on that task; any further discussion can be a new CfD) Josh (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Douglas DC-8 by country of service[edit]

re your reverting my addition. This is what happens when the only concern is metacats and not presentation of meaningful information to users. So what if it doesn't have a country name in it, it is very helpful to users to quickly be able to access related information. I look at all this from a viewers/users point of view not from a metacats. Ardfern (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But your adding Category:Douglas DC-8 by country of service to the top of Category:Douglas aircraft by country of service does not make navigation easier or improve presentation. A 'by country' category is useful for looking up things by the name of the country. If there is no country name, how could that possibly be useful to have in a 'by country' list? If you are looking up DC-8s, then you are looking by aircraft type, not by country, so that is why there can be Category:Douglas aircraft by country of service by aircraft (which adds the additional sort criteria to drill down on the aircraft side) for that use. If for some reason you think we should be able to look up "DC-8" in a "by country" list, then your plan still wouldn't work as I can look under "D" and I don't find "DC-8" since you have clumped that at the top with a space key. I get why you don't want it in the main list, then you would look in "by country" under "C" and find "C-130", "Canada", "Concorde" and "Costa Rica" -- not exactly making much sense. So instead you created a whole seperate list under the space key, which isn't clear to the user, since the category says it is "by country". Two seperate lists should be two seperate indexes, each appropriately sorted by their respective key: "Denmark" under "by country" and "DC-8" under "by aircraft". If you think users would benefit from a link between the two, that is fine, use Template:Cat see also or use an index such as Category:Douglas aircraft by country of service by aircraft (a little easier to add, but can create COM:OVERCAT violations). Do not just directly categorize a category such as Category:Douglas DC-8 by country of service at the top of Category:Douglas aircraft by country of service. It may even look okay and be navigable when there are only a few categories present, but especially as the categories grow, it becomes completely inappropriate. Josh (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft in United States service by operator[edit]

Did you really just copy the content of en:category:Aircraft in the United States by airline into the above cat? Talk about overcategorisation, never mind the mixing up of airline and other aircraft in the operator cat. Please revert, it just does not make any sense, by airline is a subcat of by operator, so this is duplication as well. Ardfern (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The cat you linked to doesn't exist, but I think I know what you mean. Category:Aircraft in United States service by operator and is an index of all operators regardless of type. Category:Aircraft in United States service by airline is an index of all airline operators. I don't know that the second really serves any purpose, but there is no harm in it. It is not COM:OVERCAT if they are properly set up as indexes of the parent Category:Aircraft in United States service. I fail to see why you would have a problem with a category that shows a listing of all operators. Josh (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sortkeys - again[edit]

1. It is clearly an improvement that you have replaced "Category:Four-engined jet aircraft" with Category:Aircraft with 4 jet engines, since it allows to have all numbers of engines worded in the same manner (1, 2, 3 or 4), as shown in Category:Aircraft with jet engines. However, sorting part of them with "#" as sortkey and others with "1" and "2", as in Category:Military aircraft with jet engines is illogical.

I think both "#" and "1" are flawed. Right now, there are some one way and some the other. Really they should be in their own index "by number of engines". In the meantime, at least "#" groups them together, but I would not call it a perfect solution.

2. It is not logical either to mix "Military aircraft with 4 jet engines" in the middle of (potentially) dozens of individual types as in Category:Aircraft with 4 jet engines. This is not a question of personal preferences, but it should be a metacat as well. Even if not, it has to be put on top of all the individual types by some other sortkey like "!" etc. --Uli Elch (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware that the situation is far from perfect in these categories, and when I'm in them I try and take them another step forward. Step one has been getting the names consistently formatted, which you have noticed. Mixing all of the different sorting criteria together makes it kind of a mash, but I have not yet been inclined to break things out into seperate indexes yet due to the quantities involved. Say with Category:Military aircraft with 4 jet engines, if you use a sort key of "Military", it ends up sorted under "M" alongside types that start with "M" so not exactly ideal. But if you sort it at the top with a special character, you are essentially admitting that this belongs in a seperate and distinct list, so the real answer is to create that category, say Category:Aircraft with 4 jet engines by function or some such to put it in and then sort it by "Military". If we are going to use a special character, just avoid the space key, reserving that space for the real metacats. Using "!" or somesuch as a temporary grouping pending creation of an appropriate index is fine, but long term, the categories should either be able to be sorted normally amongst the content of the category, or they belong in their own category. Josh (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have sorted Category:Airliners with 4 jet engines with a space as sortkey even though it's not marked as a metacat. Concerning importance it is on exactly the same level as Category:Military aircraft with 4 jet engines, i.e. much higher in priority and sorting function than all those individual types. So it cannot remain there in the middle; either it gets a space as well (why not?) or both are sorted under the same label like "#" etc. --Uli Elch (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, you added the space key to Category:Airliners with 4 jet engines with this edit a while ago. I recently did a hotcat move and didn't remove the space, which I should have done but didn't notice it was there. I'll fix this now. Josh (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, what needs to happen is for the specific types to be diffused correctly, then there will be no need for elevating categories. Josh (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lufthansa to other operator cat[edit]

Category:Aircraft of Lufthansa, to other operator[edit]

and Category:Aircraft of Lufthansa, no longer in fleet

Delete Categoris should be removed for same reason as current/former fleet categories. They require active maintenance that cannot be reasonably implemented across the world's airlines. It is unclear what the purpose of a cat like this would be even if it could be maintained. Commons is a repository for media. Categories should reflect the media they contain. See Category:Retired aircraft for more on this. These categories show either aircraft that are currently in Lufthansa service (in which case they depict the opposite of the stated category title) or are in another airlines colors with no relevance to Lufthansa, but for the trivia that they may have served Lufthansa at some time in the past. This is information for which Wikipedia and Wikidata are well suited to maintaining, but maintaining time-relative data is not a proper function for the category scheme on Commons. Josh (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC) (additions Josh (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Keep

1) It should not be a problem to move Category:Aircraft of Lufthansa, no longer in fleet back (!) into Category:Lufthansa Passage.

:: Side-comment by user:Joshbaumgartner: It is already in that category, which has its own issues, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.  Josh (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2) The Category:Aircraft of Lufthansa, to other operator is very well maintained. Wikipedia has ~ 50 million users in the German-speaking countries. According to independent polls, more than 70% are "interested in aviation". Thus, it can correctly be deducted that there is an interest in what happens to the planes of Europe's largest airline.

The same can certainly not be stated of Category:Letters on aircraft and Category:Numbers on aircraft, most of them having been created by just the person who complains about this category in discussion here. "Numbers on aircraft" has 2600 members; almost all of them hold 1 or 2 files only. Just how many Wikipedia users might be interested in Category:Number 12342 on aircraft? These are categories without the slightest chance of ever being completed and maintained properly. It is entirely unclear what the purpose of cats like that could be, possibly except for the creator by just creating a cat for every random number or letter that comes up.

So there are many thousands of almost empty cats with no apparent or proven interest to more than <5 people which could be put up for discussion rather than the one disputed here. --Uli Elch (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that other categories might be worse (that would be for another discussion to determine) is not a valid defense. These two categories do not belong and should be deleted. You might be right that the Lufthansa categories could be maintained by your personal effort for the time being. But your comment essentially admits that it could not be used across the airline category scheme, and that is a red flag. You are absolutely right that knowing the aircraft history of aircraft that served with Lufthansa is interesting and valuable, but that isn't the point. We have Wikidata and Wikipedia to maintain that data and narrative. That is where this kind of information should be maintained, not here in the Commons category scheme. Josh (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Uli Elch: You'd be welcome to make a gallery page linking to these categories if you want. Former Lufthansa aircraft for instance. But it's not useful as a categorization tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would suggest that the category 'Lufthansa Former Fleet' be used to replace 'Aircraft of Lufthansa, no longer in fleet', 'Aircraft of Lufthansa, to other operator' (which are hardly the most elegant of titles). The Current and Former fleet format is widely in use (although there is a discussion seeking to remove it). Some Lufthansa aircraft are already categorised in this way eg Category:Former Airbus aircraft of Lufthansa, but I haven't got round to processing the rest yet. Hope this suggested positive solution is helpful. The requiring active maintenance excuse is an old and poor one as there are many users, including myself, heavily involved in active maintenance and categorisation. Ardfern (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion (and others) reflect different philosophies on what Commons in relation to aviation is all about. There are those who see it just as a media repository (albeit categorised to within an inch of its life eg red aircraft, blue and white aircraft, aircraft facing left, aircraft with the letters EA, etc etc) and as just a big index site. Whereas there are many others (like myself) who see it as more than just a media repository, but one that also contains useful relevant information on the media contained. I have never heard of anyone accessing Commons looking for blue and white aircraft or aircraft facing right, but professionals and enthusiasts do access Commons looking for aircraft by type, registration, airline, current fleet, airport etc etc and find the information attached, eg aircraft history and current fleet, useful, meaning they come back. This argument is about the heart and soul of Commons aviation media and one that perhaps need much wider discussion. Ardfern (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, changing Commons from a media repository (it's founding and current purpose) into a replacement or duplication of Wikipedia and Wikidata would indeed require very broad consensus, and not just among the aviation community. This would change not only aviation media, but it would change the entire scope of Commons' role among the WMF projects. Josh (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the change I am suggesting at all. I want it to actually be useful, not just a massively over-categorised dumping ground. Ardfern (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but you are the one talking about changing the very philosophy of Commons. You can have relevant information on the media contained all you want. Make a gallery or even add a bit of text to the category if you want. Better yet, go put this info on Wikipedia or Wikidata, which is where most users looking to find data will go. Perverting the media repository scheme is not the best way to do it. Josh (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ardfern Bidgee (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Clear majority to delete the two nominated categories. Besides, these categories' name parts (ie <to other operator> and <no longer in fleet>) are unique in Commons database.--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boeing 707 by operator[edit]

Is it your intention to create cats by operator for every Boeing aircraft? It is causing massive duplication and adds no value. There is no need to do this if you accept category:Boeing 707 by airline for instance as a subcat. This allows both to be available and since these by airline cats already exist (not only for Boeing but across the whole aviation field of Commons) it would also be much easier and simpler to implement. Ardfern (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggest elsewhere I would propose separate 'by airline' indices are created as a subset of 'by operator' indices. This seems a reasonable solution allowing both approaches to be in place. As a result I would ask that you take action on other cats you have similarly treated to restore the 'by airline' indices. Ardfern (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Beechcraft aircraft by airline[edit]

I see you have replaced this entire cat and moved it all into Category:Beechcraft aircraft by operator. This is just unacceptable. This is yet another entire by airline cat you have removed and replaced by operator. There has to be some discussion before these wholesale moves you are making. Ardfern (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to categories for discussion (although I probably haven't done it correctly)Ardfern (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Beechcraft aircraft by operator[edit]

This category has arbitrarily replaced the Beechcraft aircraft by airline category (and is only one of a number that have been similarly treated). The by airline approach is in extremely widespread use (and within this by operator cat) and I can see no good reason for its replacement. In my view the by airline cat should have been retained and moved to be a subcat of by operator. A consistent approach is required and when the by airline cat is so prevalent it seems foolish to replace it, particularly on an arbitrary basis and without discussion. Ardfern (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between airline and operator in this use? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Auntof6: "by operator" includes all types of operators, such as military and other non-airline operators. Several of the operators of the ~25 listed in the nominated category are military or government operators, so do not fit in a "by airline" category. Note the higher-level Category:Aircraft by operator. Category:Aircraft by airline iswas (Ardfern (talk · contribs) has apparently noted that Category:Aircraft by airline was a redirect and has since populated it) a redirect to this category. Josh (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Too right, and would never have felt the need to do so but for your arbitrary and unnecessary deletion of 'by airline' cats. Ardfern (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add a "by airline" category if you really feel the need. A "by operator" category should exist capable of handling all operator-specific categories. In those cases where there are sufficient airlines to warrant a separate index exclusive to airlines (not to mention enough other types of operators to make it worth separating them out), then that separate index can be created and stand on its own (e.g. a "by airline" index). This separate category can be a subset of what is in "by operator", but "by operator" should remain as an index of ALL operators regardless of the type of operator. This way users are not forced to parse exactly what type of operator they are dealing with to find media or categorize images quickly and accurately. Josh (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My objection here (and with regard to multiple other cats) is that the wholesale changes were being made on an arbitrary basis by an individual without any discussion or consensus. Personally I don't really mind either way as long as it is consensus driven, given the amount of work that a move to 'by operator' would mean. Clearly it is all being metacat and indices driven rather than anything else. Having two very largely duplicate cats would be a nonsense. Happy to go with consensus approach one way or the other. Ardfern (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggest above I would propose separate 'by airline' indices are created as a subset of 'by operator' indices. This seems a reasonable solution allowing both approaches to be in place. As a result I would ask that the Beechcraft aircraft by airline cat that you 'gutted' is restored as a subset of Beechcraft aircraft by operator. Action on other cats you have similarly treated would now be necessary. Ardfern (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ardfern, by airline should be reinstated and be placed as a subcategory of by operator. Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ardfern, Auntof6, Bidgee, De728631, and Uli Elch: Sounds like there is agreement on the main points here, with some hashing to be done on the details. It seems that really it is just a question of exactly how to implement it that remains to be decided:

Options for implementation of "by airline/operator" indices

Option 1:
Category:Aircraft Category:Aircraft by operator Categories:Aircraft of Airline Categories:Aircraft of Military operator Categories:Aircraft of Other operator types Category:Airliners Category:Aircraft by airline Categories:Aircraft of Airline Category:Military aircraft (... or other functions) Category:Aircraft by military (... or appropriate operator type) Categories:Aircraft of Operator Category:Boeing aircraft Category:Boeing aircraft by operator Category:Boeing airliners Category:Boeing aircraft by airline Category:Boeing military aircraft Category:Boeing military aircraft by operator	Use: "Aircraft by operator" is the index for aircraft in general. "Aircraft by airline" is the index for airliners sorted by operator. Other functions can have indices for the related operator type as makes sense per function. All operators are found in "by operator" while "by airline" is limited to airlines. Template:Cat see also should be used to facilitate cross-navigation. Criteria: Avoids COM:OVERCAT: Yes Complies with Universality principle: Yes (can be applied consistently throughout aircraft tree) Maintains both operator and airline indices: Yes Allows users to see all operators in one index: Yes Can browse and categorize without parsing operator type: Yes Can refine browsing to a specific operator type: Yes (by navbox or Template:Cat see also) Allows sorting in indices without special characters: Yes Related index available from within aircraft functional class: Yes "Aircraft of Operator" categories only need to be in one index: No (for most) Allows all "Aircraft of Operator" categories to be indexed: Yes Work required to implement: Moderate (needs some additional structure, but can be implemented over time, bots can do some)
Option 2:
Category:Aircraft Category:Aircraft by airline Categories:Aircraft of Airline Category:Aircraft by military (or any other operator type) Categories:Aircraft of Military operator Category:Aircraft by operator Categories:Aircraft of Airline Categories:Aircraft of Military operator Categories:Aircraft of Other operator types Category:Airliners (no index by operator/airline) Category:Military aircraft (no index by operator/airline) Category:Boeing aircraft Category:Boeing aircraft by airline Category:Boeing aircraft by operator	Use: "Aircraft by operator" and "Aircraft by airline" (or other user types) categories sit at the parent category level. All operators are located in "by operator" while "by airline" is limited to airlines. Template:Cat see also should be used to facilitate cross-navigation. Criteria: Avoids COM:OVERCAT: Yes Complies with Universality principle: Mostly (can be applied throughout most of the aircraft tree) Maintains both operator and airline indices: Yes Allows users to see all operators in one index: Yes Can browse and categorize without parsing operator type: Yes Can refine browsing to a specific operator type: Yes (by navbox or Template:Cat see also) Allows sorting in indices without special characters: Yes Related index available from within Category:Airlines: No "Aircraft of Operator" categories only need to be in one index: No (for most) Allows all "Aircraft of Operator" categories to be indexed: Yes Work required to implement: Minimal (missing indices can be added over time and as needed)
Option 3:
Category:Aircraft Category:Aircraft by operator Category:Aircraft by airline Categories:Aircraft of Airline Category:Aircraft by military (or any other operator type) Categories:Aircraft of Military operator Categories:Aircraft of Other operator types Category:Airliners (no index by operator/airline) Category:Military aircraft (no index by operator/airline) Category:Boeing aircraft Category:Boeing aircraft by operator Category:Boeing aircraft by airline	Use: "Aircraft by operator" would be the parent index with "Aircraft by airline" as a sub-index. "Aircraft of Operator" categories for airline operators would go exclusively in "by airline" and other operators remain at the "by operator" level (or go in their own operator type index if it exists). Criteria: Avoids COM:OVERCAT: No (Inherently will invite overcat violations, but can be overcome with regular maintenance) Maintains both operator and airline indices: Yes Complies with Universality principle: Yes (can be applied consistently throughout aircraft tree) Allows users to see all operators in one index: No Can browse and categorize without parsing operator type: No (must parse at a minimum if operator is an airline) Can refine browsing to a specific operator type: Yes (by the category tree) Allows sorting in indices without special characters: No (would need special groupings to sort sub-types) Related index available from within Category:Airlines: No "Aircraft of Operator" categories only need to be in one index: Yes (for most) Allows all "Aircraft of Operator" categories to be indexed: Yes Work required to implement: Minimal (missing indices can be added over time and as needed)
Option 3B: (provisional improvement of Option 3 to improve meeting criteria)
Category:Aircraft Category:Aircraft by operator (flat list) (where reasonable) Category:Aircraft by type of operator Category:Aircraft by operator type (airline, military, etc.) Categories:Aircraft of Operator Category:Aircraft by airline Categories:Aircraft of Airline Category:Aircraft in military service Category:Aircraft in government service ... etc. Category:Airliners (no index by operator/airline) Category:Military aircraft (no index by operator/airline) Category:Boeing aircraft Category:Boeing aircraft by type of operator Categories:Boeing aircraft by Operator type Categories:Boeing aircraft of Operator	Use: "Aircraft by operator" would be the parent index with "Aircraft by airline" as a sub-index. "Aircraft of Operator" categories for airline operators would go exclusively in "by airline" and other operators remain at the "by operator" level (or go in their own operator type index if it exists). Criteria: Avoids COM:OVERCAT: No (Inherently will invite overcat violations, but can be overcome with regular maintenance) Maintains both operator and airline indices: Yes Complies with Universality principle: Yes (can be applied consistently throughout aircraft tree) Allows users to see all operators in one index: Yes (using flat list) Can browse and categorize without parsing operator type: Yes (browse for sure, categorize maybe) Can refine browsing to a specific operator type: Yes (by the category tree) Allows sorting in indices without special characters: Yes (no need if sort criteria is by type of operator) Related index available from within Category:Airlines: No "Aircraft of Operator" categories only need to be in one index: Yes (for most) Allows all "Aircraft of Operator" categories to be indexed: Yes Work required to implement: Minimal (missing indices can be added over time and as needed)
Option 4: ("Aircraft by Operator" only - started a while back but aborted)
Category:Aircraft Category:Aircraft by operator Categories:Aircraft of Airline Categories:Aircraft of Military operator Categories:Aircraft of Other operator types Category:Airliners Category:Airliners by operator Category:Military aircraft Category:Military aircraft by operator Category:Boeing aircraft Category:Boeing aircraft by operator	Use: Only 'by operator' categories would be maintained. All operators would be indexed there Criteria: Avoids COM:OVERCAT: no (With a tree of indices, either you get no substance to higher-level indices, or you get overcat) Maintains both operator and airline indices: No Complies with Universality principle: Yes (can be applied consistently throughout aircraft tree) Allows users to see all operators in one index: Yes Can browse and categorize without parsing operator type: Yes Can refine browsing to a specific operator type: No Allows sorting in indices without special characters: Yes Related index available from within Category:Airlines: Yes "Aircraft of Operator" categories only need to be in one index: No Allows all "Aircraft of Operator" categories to be indexed: Yes Work required to implement: Major (conversion/merging of a large number of categories, bots could do most though)
Option 5: ("Aircraft by Airline" only for airliners, "Aircraft by Operator" for others - i.e. the old way)
Category:Aircraft Category:Aircraft by airline Categories:Aircraft of Airline Category:Boeing aircraft by airline Category:Airliners (no index by operator/airline) Category:Military aircraft Category:Military aircraft by operator Categories:Aircraft of Military operator Categories:Aircraft of Other operator types Category:Category:Boeing aircraft Category:Category:Boeing aircraft by airline Categories:Boeing aircraft of Airline Categories:Boeing aircraft of Non-airline operator	Use: Only 'by airline' categories would be maintained. Airline operators would be indexed there. Non-airline operators would not be indexed. Criteria: Avoids COM:OVERCAT: No (With a tree of indices, either you get no substance to higher-level indices, or you get overcat) Maintains both operator and airline indices: No Complies with Universality principle: No (different names and structure for each type, determined case-by-case) Allows users to see all operators in one index: No Can browse and categorize without parsing operator type: No (must know what counts as which type of operator) Can refine browsing to a specific operator type: No (for any type only one index will exist) Allows sorting in indices without special characters: Yes Related index available from within Category:Airlines: Maybe (could put there or at parent level or both (overcat)) "Aircraft of Operator" categories only need to be in one index: Yes Allows all "Aircraft of Operator" categories to be indexed: No (for those done by airline, but yes for others) Work required to implement: Minimal (matches many existing cats, those with both need work to combine but could be bot work)

I know there has been some emotion expressed around these cats but I would really like this to be an objective consensus on which scheme to go forward with. I've done my best to list the pros and cons of each scheme, including a couple that may have no support at all. If there are some other options to consider or criteria that should be evaluated, by all means, they can be added. Respectfully, let's leave any personal issues aside and just get a consensus on which way to move forward. I look forward to your constructive input. Thanks! Josh (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option 1, 2, or 3B. Option 1 seems to best meet the criteria and be the most elegant up and down the aircraft category structure, but Option 2 is not far off. Option 3 seems ripe for overcat violations, endless diffusion issues, and generally muddy indices, so I am not crazy about it. Option 3B meets the criteria better while maintaining a natural flow to the index. I am opposed to Options 4 and 5 as both fail several criteria and do not seem to have the support of any of the participants thus far (AFAIK). Josh (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Option 3 even on the risk of introducing overcat. The reason is that "by operator" is a neutral parent container for "by airline" and "by military". Also "by airline" should not just be a subcategory of "Airliners" because many airliners have military derivatives, and small airlines may not use airliners at all but just large executive aircraft (Beech, Cessna, Dassault Falcon, etc.). So the sorting criteria should be on the kind of operator. De728631 (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @De728631: Interesting input, thank you. I would agree that overcat is a minor consideration and can be waived for indices. A few questions:
  - 1) I do agree with you 100% that not all airliners are used by airlines and airlines do not only use airliners. The same is true of military or any other kind of aircraft, the aircraft function and operator type are not 100% analogous. In all honesty, I have thought on that more than a bit. To be really correct about that, we should have Category:Aircraft by operator with children Category:Airliners by operator and Category:Aircraft by airline and the intersection sub-cat of these called Category:Airliners by airline...but I can hear the screaming already about the name of that one, not to mention it would take a bot task to implement. Without opening that can of worms, and just sticking with Category:Aircraft by airline to encompass that, would you not list it under Category:Airliners? Or do we go ahead and name it correctly so that the distinctions can be made for these cases? Or do we just leave it in the parent index and not list an index under Category:Airliners for now? Open to ideas!
  - 2) As you state, in this case the sort criteria is the kind of operator, so maybe it makes sense to call the parent Category:Aircraft by type of operator. That way it would be clear that it is not a list of operators itself, but instead is diffused by type. What do you think?
  - 3) Where would one go to find a listing of all operators, regardless of type of operator? Would you be okay with a Category:Aircraft by operator (flat list) for users who want to see all operators listed?
- Thanks again for the excellent input. I've added an Option 3B with some minor tweaks to build in your comments and meet the most criteria possible. Do you think that would satisfy your concerns, or do you have some more tweaks you would make? Josh (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3B looks like a runner (I think). Grateful if someone could confirm that it means retention of the 'by airline' approach and an end to arbitrary deletion of 'by airline' cats and replacement with 'by operator'. I hope this can be confirmed so that I can get on with the real work - still over 100k files to be classified folks. Ardfern (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ardfern: it doesn't look like option 3B retains the "by airline", I do think Josh as added far too much detail and options that it takes time to digest. I'm going to be refraining from making a view until I have the time to study each in greater detail. Bidgee (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ardfern: I can confirm that Option 3B does retain "by airline". All "Aircraft of Airline" categories would be under "Aircraft by Airline" which would be under the parent index "Aircraft by type of operator". They would not be listed separately under that parent, so they would only go one place for most levels. There might be a flat list but this would stand separate and would only be for the main Category:Aircraft and maybe some of the larger manufacturers or classes. I have tried to be detailed so that when we implement we don't immediately find ourselves back again with different directions. I know you have been wanting me to reinstate some more airline cats and I am looking forward to doing so just as soon as we wrap this discussion. Josh (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bidgee: Good thinking, I knew I probably hadn't got the right hang of this. I find all this category speak very confusing. If 'by airline' is not retained, then the proposal is useless. Ardfern (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bidgee and Ardfern: To be clear, Option 3B DOES retain the 'by airline' categories! I think in the interest of keeping the listing from getting too long, I wrote "Categories:Aircraft by operator type", so operator type would include "airline", so these categories would be Category:Aircraft by airline, etc. whatever is appropriate, but obviously, 'by Airline' would be the most often present! Sorry if it was not clear, but if there are any other questions, I'll be happy to clarify! I've added them more explicitly so everyone can see they are there for sure! Frankly, I would assume any scheme that did not include something 'by airline' would be a non-starter. Josh (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added Category:Beechcraft aircraft by airline into the new Category:Beechcraft aircraft by type of operator. If this is the proposed way forward across the board then I am all for it. Presumably it applies equally to cats like 'Aircraft by operator', 'Boeing aircraft by operator' etc. It is great that it negates the need for big catch-all by operator cats like these, thus reducing duplication and work (no double entries for 'by airline' and 'by operator'). Let me know if this interpretation is wrong. I have to say that it is rather like what I was originally proposing (that 'by airline' be a subcat of 'by operator'), but tweaked in a more generally acceptable way apparently. Good job. Ardfern (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried the approach in Category:Aircraft in Netherlands service by type of operator. Obviously you need to decide what to call the cat re aircraft in military service, otherwise perhaps you could have a look and see if I have implemented the right approach (when you get time. Ardfern (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ardfern: It looks fine to me. I second the motion that it is great to have an agreeable way forward and appreciate everyone bringing it to a conclusion. Military, government, and other operator cats can be fleshed out as we go forward. I have been creating those groups even if they have one cat at the moment (these numbers will rise as members are identified and categorized). At any rate, 'by type of operator' can hold them all. There are some cases where I have moved the 'by operator' category to 'by type of operator' in accordance with this CfD, but do not have every individual operator yet diffused into the appropriate cats, this will take a bit to do. Josh (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making moved such as this, the discussion has not yet concluded. I work and don't have 24/7 week to play with and not only that we yet to have a finalised consensus. Bidgee (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ardfern and Bidgee: Closed (seems like a solved issue after several months of going forward with proposal 3B) Josh (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boeing aircraft in United Kingdom service by operator[edit]

You appear to have created this category by simply copying over the content from Category:Boeing aircraft in United Kingdom service by airline. This is just duplication and over classification and adds no value whatsoever. I would suggest that a better approach is that in category:Aircraft in United Kingdom service by operator, category:Aircraft in German service by operator In both cases the by operator cats can be clearly seen and are not swallowed up and hidden as they would be in a by operator cat containing airlines as well. In my view the latter UK and German by operator cats are the sensible way for this to be done. I am suggesting the same sort of approach with Beechcraft aircraft by operator above. Ardfern (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per earlier discussion, "by operator" is the inclusive category for all types of operators. You are correct that a "by airline" category may be useless duplication. Josh (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Space missions by number[edit]

Hi, Joshbaumgartner. I see that you created this category last month. Currently the only thing in it is Category:Space missions numbered 3. Are you planning to finish populating it? I was going to suggest deleting it, but I thought I'd first ask if you have plans for it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no plans at this point. If someone wants to flesh it out in the future, it can be created at that point, but I don't see a reason to keep it around for now if no one is interested. Josh (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Let L-410 by airline[edit]

I see you have 'gutted' this category and moved the entire contents to Category:Let L-410 by operator, again without any discussion. Could you please restore the original cat and its contents. The same goes for any other categories where you have taken the same arbitrary action. Clearly a wider discussion and more views on the way forward are required. Ardfern (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and that discussion is underway, as you already know. When it is resolved we will worry about implementing the consensus. As for this category in particular, it was wrongly named 'by airline' because it contains many non-airline operators (and did at the time the name was changed to 'by operator'), so it would be wrong to rename it 'by airline'. If you want however, you are welcome to create a seperate 'by airline' cat with only airline operators listed. We have already discussed this and there is a COM:CFD underway already to have wider input. Josh (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the 'by airline' category. You say it was wrongly named as it contains many non-airline operators. I don't believe that having 10 out of 70 non 'by airline' operators justifies the deletion of the entire 'by airline' category. Same goes for Boeing aircraft which I have restored. Ardfern (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, but not sure why you are bothering to mention it. It's a moot point since it is under CFD at the moment. What would be more constructive is to help bring the CfD to a conclusion so we can all move forward with consensus. Just a thought ;) Josh (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Embraer aircraft by operator, category:Cessna aircraft by operator, category:Antonov aircraft by operator etc[edit]

Yet more instances of wanton duplication. Up until now 'aircraft by airline' had been held as a sub-cat of 'aircraft by operator' and is in place in hundreds of instances eg category:Douglas aircraft by operator and is easy and common sense to use. You seem intent on single-handedly changing all that by parallelling 'aircraft by airline' cats with 'aircraft by operator cats', the latter featuring in most cases only 5 or 6 non airline cats lost in the mass of airlines. (At least you have stopped deleting 'aircraft by airline cats', although you have yet to re-instate a number). The previous way of doing this made maintenance and updating easy and allowed non airline cats to be clearly seen. I have asked before why this change 'must' be made and have yet to get a clear answer. I would be grateful (and so would many others) for a definitive explanation for the change so that we can have informed discussion. Ardfern (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The case is on Commons:CFD at the moment and has been for a while now. I have commented there and as you know on numerous posts on both of our talk pages. I am glad to see you finally have realized that I am not gutting 'by airline' categories as you have been so often claiming in several posts. For some time there were a number of people that converted 'by airline' to 'by operator' to permit all operators to be indexed. This made sense and so I helped out with that for a few categories that I was working on. It seems that you and a some others have taken it upon yourselves to revert that work and try and make 'by airline' the standard. You did this without discussion or consensus. The result is that there is currently a CFD to see what others in the community might think and see if there might be a consensus. In the meantime, both 'by operator' and 'by airline' exist aside each other. I am respecting this until there is a consensus to change it. You have been quick to duplicate 'by operator' categories with 'by airline' categories, the very behavior that you are finding so offensive on my part. What I don't understand is why you cannot just let the discussion on CFD wrap up civilly and insist on continuing to make new posts as if I'm running roughshod over your favorite categories when in fact I am not removing any correctly placed categories from your 'by airline' indices (I might remove a non-airline operator if I find one but this is hardly controversial). I have not done this since the very first time that someone mentioned the issue! Your misrepresentation of my actions has been noted. You claim to want an explanation, but you know it has been given and it is as clear and definitive as any could ask for (see my post in the CFD); if there is something you do not understand about it, I am more than happy to elaborate. Josh (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not over categorise and create a mess because you think it works. I've just had to undo your overcat mess, rather spending the time uploading or fixing uncategorised photographs. Bidgee (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bidgee: Had you just paused for half of a second, there would have been no mess for you to clean up. You got your elbows out so quick, I just let you go ahead and finish. Had you but asked or paused a moment you would have saved the trouble. You may prefer the method of name-calling and deleting things off your talk page from me just because you don't agree with them, but I'll decline to follow suit. However, until you can be a bit more civil, I will not feel obligated to respond at length to your provocations. Thanks! Josh (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cat-a-Lot performance degraded - hung at 42.png[edit]

File:Cat-a-Lot performance degraded - hung at 42.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

--Krdbot 22:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Hi, Do not create nonsense and useless category as Category:Number 1 depicted by black Western Arabic numerals on rectangles by color of rectangle. Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Don't worry, already halted that experiment. They should be deleted. Thanks! Josh (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft of NASA[edit]

Out of curiosity, what was the reasoning behind these edits? This removed valid categories. Is the new template you installed intended to automatically categorise things? If so, it isn't working. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the template, I was experimenting with doing the categories with the template but I had to disable that part of the template earlier today and was in the process of restoring the manual categories. No intention to actually remove those category links permanently. Thanks for adding the three missing ones back, I've been working on some others and will be through the list of affected cats (~20 only) pretty shortly. 06:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Done Should be all repaired at this point, let me know if you find any more glitches. Josh (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this edit, but the template still doesn't appear to be properly adding categories. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huntster: Correct. The categories need to be added manually for now. Categories by template may be instantiated again at a later date, but it will take some design work to have them work correctly. Category:Aircraft of NASA is under Category:Aircraft in United States government service which is under Category:Aircraft in United States service by operator, so I removed Category:Aircraft of NASA from Category:Aircraft in United States service by operator to eliminate COM:OVERCAT -- it should only be at one (most specific) level of the branch. Hopefully that is all cleared up for now. Thanks! Josh (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I misunderstood what exactly was happening with the template. Thanks! Will be pretty cool if/when it can semi-automate some of that category work. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js[edit]

Hi, your JS-script is member of several subject categories like Category:Aircraft by number. Can you please change the code to prevent this? Thx. --Ju Ta 06:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's interesting. I'm surprised that it does this from the code, but okay. I'm relatively green at JS...~~would 'includeonly' work?~~(it doesn't) I use that to control category links in templates, but not sure how to shield from JS. I'll look into it, but help would be appreciated. Josh (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try to add some js comments into the middle of the category names like: [[Cat//Comment//egory:Aircraft by registration]]. I hope this will disable the categorization of you JS-script. --Ju Ta 11:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps [////[Category:Aircraft by registration]////] could do the job. --Ju Ta 11:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and look too into the '{{category redirect|', line please. --Ju Ta 11:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! I think that worked. Thanks for the help! Josh (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well it got rid of the categorization, but the //// come through in the snippets. Well I will leave it for now, but still looking to improve it. Josh (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Code issues in User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js[edit]

Hi Joshbaumgartner, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new jshint issue — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ISSUE: line 1 character 10: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: __NOCAT__

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 18:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Code issues in User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js[edit]

Hi Joshbaumgartner, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 5 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ISSUE: line 14 character 1: Expected an identifier and instead saw '<'. - Evidence: <nowiki>;
ISSUE: line 14 character 2: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: <nowiki>;
ISSUE: line 14 character 9: Expected an identifier and instead saw ';'. - Evidence: <nowiki>;
ISSUE: line 14 character 1: Unrecoverable syntax error. (7% scanned). - Evidence: undefined

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 18:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Code issues in User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js[edit]

Hi Joshbaumgartner, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new esprima issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ERROR: Cannot parse line 14 column 1: Unexpected token <

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 18:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Aircraft in Austrian service by airline and others[edit]

Oh dear Joshbaumgartner, just as I thought we were all pals and learned the lessons about consulting, consensus etc etc you perpetrate the design crime of the flags/info boxes on these cats. I know that you meant well, but the box/flag is very obtrusive on the page and needs to be reduced by at least two-thirds. That is if it is needed at all. The main info (aircraft and Austria) is already in the title of the page and the box adds no new info. It also includes that indescribably naff definition of aircraft (Yes I know it is used on main pages etc), but really. Sorry to appear negative (again), but I think a much smaller design would be better, if one is needed at all. Ardfern (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did ask for your input on the template, so I'm glad you took me up on the offer (not to mention super stoked that we are pals). The template is new and a work in progress so right now has a lot of improvements that should be made, both to improve its appearance and fit as well as its functionality. I agree on the size thing, certainly for what is in the template now. I have reduced the size and added parameters to aid in customizing it for pages as needed. As for the data, that is currently limited static information that does little for the page, but that will be expanded with template design, such as adding context-related navigation menus for cross-navigation among categories. I look forward to your continued input, thanks! Josh (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Glad they are smaller even though still unnecessary. I know nothing about the technicalities of template design (nor want to), but I do know about web design and user experience, so happy to input on look and feel and whether they are required at all etc. I have to say though it is not priority, sorting the files/cats is though (to me at least).Ardfern (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft by operator (flat list)[edit]

Hi. I have recategorised and cleared out as much as I can from the above category. Nearly all that is left is directed there from your templates. I didn't want to touch the templates, so I'll have to leave them to you. Ardfern (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Douglas Skyraider[edit]

Hi, I would like to get to know the reason for moving the category from Category:Douglas A-1 Skyraider. The Skyraider may be one of the worst example of redesignations in the U.S. Navy, but common policy was always to use the most common prefix. That is, of course, debatable in case of the Skyraider. However, it was flown for at least ten years after the A-1 designation was introduced, both by the USN and the USAF. Therefore I would like to return to the A-1 designation. Also, I think that the "BT2D Dauntless II" designation is misleading. All aircraft that were ever accepted under this designation were quickly redesignated XAD-1 or AD-1. The category gives the impression, that this were different aircraft, which is wrong. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize and this is a valid point. I have raised the issue at Category talk:Douglas Skyraider and Category talk:BT2D Dauntless II for discussion. Thanks! Josh (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BuNos[edit]

I found that you now are making aircraft categories by registration. PLEASE! leave the aircraft in the variant category (like A-4A Skyhawk) and just add the BuNo category. I would prefer a "A-4A Skyhawk by registration" or "Douglas A-4 Skyhawk by registration" for these categories. Why? Because you'll otherwise have to open zillions of categories with a single photo to find a photo. PLEASE! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobatfor: Sorting images of individual aircraft into registration categories is normal practice and has been for a long time (see Category:Aircraft by registration). I am not now making them; I have been doing so, as is the normal practice, for many years now. When the aircraft in an image is positively identified it is standard practice to create a '### (aircraft)' (### being the registration (buno used for USN aircraft)) category and place the image in it. That said, it shouldn't affect variant categories, which I am all for and not getting rid of any. In fact I've sorted tons of images INTO variant categories, so I'm not sure what you are asking here. I am fine with 'by registration' indices as well so no problem there either. I have made some of those where they make sense and sorted registration cats into them. Again, I'm not sure where the problem you are finding is. Do you maybe have a specific example in mind? Josh (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you, for example, are looking for a nice picture of a Category:F-4F Phantom II, you have to open 69 categories. Of course, categories are very useful, absolutely necessary, and many single cateogries of a single U.S. Navy ship have thousands of photos (my opinion. because of questionalbe bot-uploads, but that is another topic). I also have no problems with the single aircaft by registration categories. However, I think moving the files out of the sub-type category makes it almost impossible to find a photo. If you have a photo for every single F/A-18 Hornet produced, you'll have 1,480 categories. No problem. But I think it will be easier to get an overview, if you have general category by variant (F/A-18C Hornet) and, if there are too many photos in it (... in flight, ... on flight decks, etc.), instead of hiding the photos in (often only single file) registration categories. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobatfor: Ah, yes, okay I see what you are going at. And I agree, but comes down to the issue of COM:OVERCAT. I would love to have all of the A-4 images available in a single place, and then have sub-cats if you are looking for a particular sub-type. Say you are seeking the best available image to illustrate the A-4, you have a billion cats to inividually open and scan through. Even then you can't really compare without managing different windows or creating temporary galleries. Galleries can be made to collect images, but they are never complete and rarely include more recently added images. It is a pain to be sure. However, Commons cats are not structured that way. The rule is that when a sub-cat exists, the image must be moved to the sub-cat and removed from the original parent category. To have an image both in a category and a sub-category would be an overcat violation and there are both bots and human editors who will come behind you and clean up those violations. One way to work it would be to have a flat list category that contained all images from all of the sub-categories for the category. For example, under Category:Douglas A-4 Skyhawk you could have Category:Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (flat list) which would contain every image that contains an A-4, regardless of any other categorization that has been done. We could do the same for categories such as Category:A-4A Skyhawk or whatever. Of course this would still have the maintenance issue as with galleries of making sure new images get added to the flat list, but it is at least easier to do that than add them to a gallery page. As for the single-image registration categories, while normally single-file cats would be discouraged, aircraft registration cats are an exception due to their special nature. I don't think the problem is the existance of those categories, but as you find, the fact that overcat rules mean those images are now siloed into a zillion little categories instead of laid out in a way convenient for anyone looking for an image and not needing it to be of a specific individual aircraft. I think we share the same pain on this issue and I'd love to come up with a way to improve this that isn't going to get grief from the community, so any ideas are welcome. Josh (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobatfor: I have created a sample category and placed it up for discussion, look forward to your comment there. Josh (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Northern_France[edit]

Northern France has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Identical category content[edit]

Could you please tell me the difference between

(Airliners with) "... piston-propeller engines" and
(Airliners with) "... piston engines" ?

Hitherto I thought that a/c with piston engines are always being driven by propellers. Maybe I've overlooked something?

Otherwise we now have two categories with Identical content. --Uli Elch (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all piston engines power propellers, for example, helicopters, tilt-rotors, ducted fans, and a few more exotic things. Not all propellers are driven by piston engines either, which I'm sure you know well. Thus while you are right, piston engines very often are paired with propellers, it is not universal. At the moment, since many of the categories in the tree are under-populated, there may only be that combination in some cases. Also, I'm sure there are some types of aircraft that do not include any of the less common pairings. Josh (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have never heard of things like helicopter airliners, tilt-rotor airliners or ducted fan airliners, especially not types driven by piston engines. Therefore, I still consider this duplication to be deleted. --Uli Elch (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Uli Elch (talk · contribs) hasn't heard of something, it should be deleted... hadn't heard of that rule before. Josh (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you name real, existing examples of helicopter airliners, tilt-rotor airliners or ducted fan airliners, all driven by piston engines - great.

If not, it's really time that you stop inventing things that do not exist. --Uli Elch (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uli, you can cool your jets and save the lecture. You said you "thought that a/c with piston engines are always being driven by propellers", and I answered that was indeed incorrect, that not all aircraft with piston engines are driven by propellers. Now you claim I am creating things that don't exist, citing helicopter airliners and such, which I neither mentioned nor created a category for. What exactly are you so upset about? Josh (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While most tiltrotors are either experimental or in military use, the AgustaWestland AW609 could be called an airliner. Helicopters, however, are hardly labeled airliners even though some types are used for regular passenger transport. As far as I can tell, the term "airliner" is usually limited to fixed-wing aircraft. De728631 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'helicopter airliners' were more commonly called 'heliliners', a concept popular decades ago, but which proved not to be the way the industry was going to go, so more or less abandoned except in a few niche markets. Josh (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was Joshbaumgartner who created or recently renamed Category:Airliners with piston engines and Category:Airliners with piston-propeller engines. Until now he has still not quoted any single aircraft that is an "Airliner with piston engines", but not driven by propellers. How far do you want to go?

Btw, the AgustaWestland AW609 is driven by turbo-shaft, not piston engines. --Uli Elch (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You keep changing what you are arguing about everytime an answer is given. "How far do you want to go?" Nowhere, as it seems this a pointless discussion over your misunderstanding of how these categories even interrelate to eachother. Why you are so worked up has me baffled. Josh (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"... everytime an answer is given" - OK, I have asked 4 (four) times without getting any answer to that extremely clear and simple question. Logically that means you don't have one and there is no such thing like an "Airliner with piston engines not driven by propellers". That in turn means you have - once again - invented an absolutely illogical and unnecessary sub-category like you did with Category:Low wing aircraft when inventing "Low wing/High wing monoplanes" which had to be abolished by administrator as recently as July 2018. Info to De728631. --Uli Elch (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logically? Logically all you have presented is a big non-sequitor. A series of them in fact. Logically, anyway. Josh (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft by facing[edit]

Hello. {{Aircraft by facing}} seems to generate a link to Category:Aircraft by facing by model; however, the correct category should be Category:Aircraft by facing by type. --R'n'B (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories were renamed after the template was designed so yes, the template needs to be reworked. Perhaps those that changed the categories could complete their work and fix the template as well, but I'm not holding my breath for it. Josh (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Joshbaumgartner/Archive 2017

CFD[edit]

Category:Aircraft by operator by aircraft type[edit]

Category:Bombardier CSeries[edit]

Why?[edit]

Template:CRO[edit]

Albania[edit]

Template:SPA[edit]

Your changes to categories "Category:Aircraft of the (country)"[edit]

Template:Aircraft in country[edit]

Poorly worded[edit]

Category:Six-piston-engine_push-pull_triplanes[edit]

Category:Aircraft by year of photographing[edit]

Category:Boeing 737 by registration[edit]

Aircraft "models"[edit]

File:World operators of the MiG-21.png[edit]

File:World operators of the MiG-29.png[edit]

Le Bourget Airport[edit]

Numbers by media categories[edit]

Problem with Template:Aircraft cat?[edit]

Category:044 (number) and Category:00 (number)[edit]

Template:Number cat is not multilingual[edit]

Template:Aircraft views[edit]

Template:San Francisco Pier number[edit]

Category V5-MAG[edit]

House numbers[edit]

Category:Aircraft in Uganda service by name[edit]

Category:Low wing aircraft[edit]

Layout clash between your "Aircraft" template and Wikidata Infobox.[edit]

Category:Boeing aircraft by operator[edit]

Category:Airliners of Air Zimbabwe[edit]

Category:Airliners of Air Zimbabwe by location[edit]

COM:AN/U[edit]

Aircraft by registration[edit]

Category:Aircraft by registration[edit]

Category:Douglas DC-8 by country of service[edit]

Category:Aircraft in United States service by operator[edit]

Sortkeys - again[edit]

Lufthansa to other operator cat[edit]

Category:Aircraft of Lufthansa, to other operator[edit]

Category:Boeing 707 by operator[edit]

Category:Beechcraft aircraft by airline[edit]

Category:Beechcraft aircraft by operator[edit]

Category:Boeing aircraft in United Kingdom service by operator[edit]

Category:Space missions by number[edit]

Category:Let L-410 by airline[edit]

Category:Embraer aircraft by operator, category:Cessna aircraft by operator, category:Antonov aircraft by operator etc[edit]

File:Cat-a-Lot performance degraded - hung at 42.png[edit]

Warning[edit]

Aircraft of NASA[edit]

User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js[edit]

Code issues in User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js[edit]

Code issues in User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js[edit]

Code issues in User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js[edit]

Category:Aircraft in Austrian service by airline and others[edit]

Category:Aircraft by operator (flat list)[edit]

Category:Douglas Skyraider[edit]

BuNos[edit]

Category:Northern_France[edit]

Identical category content[edit]

Aircraft by facing[edit]

Navigation menu

Search