User talk:PeterWD

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, PeterWD!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

File:Heston Aerodrome July 1935.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

Aero Vodochody[edit]

Hi! The new name of the category is not correct. The name of the factory was in years 1919-1991 Aero - továrna letadel (Aero – Aircraft Factory) and the site was Prague in years 1919-1953. Factory was moved to Vodochody in 1953. The company name Aero Vodochody is used since 1991. See here. --Gampe (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am no aircraft or Aero specialist, I only got some images for Commons. So I will ask our Czech aviation editors for their suggestions. Best regards! --Gampe (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation museums in California[edit]

Category:Aviation museums in California has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

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

Afrikaans ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

BrokenSphere (Talk) 17:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am disputing the speedy deletion of this category, so I converted your request into a regular DR for discussion. BrokenSphere (Talk) 17:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation: Discussion about Categorization of aircraft images by registration[edit]

Hello PeterWD,

I noticed that you are doing a lot of aviation-related categorization and thought you might be interested: There is a discussion about how to deal with registration-categories such as Category:N192JM (aircraft) in the aircraft-type- and airline-categories. I would like to invite you to join the discussion and state your opinion here (you might want to read the preceding paragraphs too). Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DC-4[edit]

Thanks for the identification of the TACA DC-4, I guess I don't find airplanes interesting enough to do the necessary research. Cheers, Mr.choppers (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain...[edit]

Could you please explain this edit? Geo Swan (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polish War memorial[edit]

Hi,

I'm not sure your categorization of the Polish War memorial is right. It is a memorial to the individuals who gave their lives in the war -who just happened to be pilots. Aviation concerns the design, development, production, operation, and use of aircraft. --P.g.champion (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Havilland twin-engine airmail plane in snow storm, 1920.jpg[edit]

Could you please make a note on the talk page of this file as to why you think the National Postal Museum & Smithsonian got the ID wrong? TIA, Tillman (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation -- you're obviously knowledgeable on the topic. You might consider dropping that note to the NPM curator -- here's their contact form. Best regards, Tillman (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian International Air Show[edit]

Hello. Thank you for identifying an aircraft from File:TorontoLabourDay-AirShow-2011 3.jpg. Could you please help to identify and find proper categories for other images from Category:Canadian International Air Show, especially from 2011 year? Thank you again. ZankaM (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft registered in CountryX categories[edit]

Hi! I am just curious for the reason of this and similar edits. The pictured aircraft was registered in Finland at the time the picture was taken, the file does not belong to any sub-category of Category:Aircraft registered in Finland, and Category:Aircraft registered in Finland is not a meta category. Thus I don't see any reason why it should not be categorized under that category. Of course, we could create Category:OH-LAA (aircraft) but I don't think it's a good idea since there is only one picture of that aircraft. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 13:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apalsola, thanks for your comments. Although the categories in that group are not meta-categories, I treat them as if they are. If you look at those of the most numerous nations, eg UK and USA, they are devoid of individual image files. Most uploaders who have a 'registration focus' typically create a new category such as OH-LAA (aircraft), even for single occurrences. Otherwise, there are many thousands of images with declared identities that could go into those country level categories, that would then overwhelm them. My main activity here is to seek out and identify/categorise images that have not had a definitive manufacturer/type/model category applied, without laboriously looking at every XX-XXX (aircraft) category. If I see other examples that look out of place, as with OH-LAA, I attempt to 'clean up' the situation. Perhaps I should just stay away from the registration categories, at least until they have clearer rationales.PeterWD (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft registered in CountryX categories are not registration categories. They are categories for images of aircraft registered in that country. Of course, if there is a registration category for that aircraft it should be categorized instead of individual images. But that doesn't mean that individual images couldn't be categorized if there isn't a registration category, and that's how it is done in for example with ship categories. For example, Category:Ships of the United Kingdom includes both per-ship categories and individual images if there isn't a category for that ship. (I know, there is some inconsistency in category naming: "Ships of CountryX" is for ships registered in that country, but "Aircraft of CountryX" is for aircraft designed or built in that country. But changing this is a subject of another discussion.) ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 12:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, Apalsola. The problem here is that categories do not yet have fixed definitions, so your first two sentences are disputable. It could be a meta-category of XX-XXX (aircraft) categories, or the form you favour, or it could contain XX-XXX (aircraft) categories where there is more than one image in each of those - with the single image cats deleted from commons; I just want one definition. The Aircraft of Country X categories similarly lack definition; look at the contents for various countries - I have often tried to separate the designed/built groups from the registered/operated groups for clarity, eg see UK, USA, etc. IMHO, the biggest problem we have is lack of aircraft type/model in image files in XX-XXX (aircraft) categories, but some editors are deliberately removing them, against current consensus at Category talk:Aircraft by registration.- PeterWD (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that some categories do lack precise definitions, but this is not the case with "Aircraft registered in CountryX" – it is for the aircraft registered in the aircraft register of CountryX. According to Commons:List of meta category criteria and Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION meta category titles should end with "by XXX", so "Aircraft registered in CountryX" categories definitely are not meta categories, either. I am going to revert some of your edits.

About the lack of aircraft type/model in image files in "XX-XXX (aircraft)" categories: that is a different subject and irrelevant to categorizing the images under "Aircraft registered in CountryX" categories. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 11:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up[edit]

Dear Peter WD,

I would like to follow up the email below. Please contact me by email to confirm your availability at bekti.mulatiningsih@student.qut.edu.au

Kind regards,

Bekti Mulatiningsih Information Systems Faculty of Science and Technology Queensland University of Technology bekti.mulatiningsih@student.qut.edu.au

--Bmulatiningsih (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Participate in a research study user participation in the categorisation of the SLQ images[edit]

Dear Peter WD,

My name is Bekti Mulatiningsih from the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). As part of Masters of Information Technology Library and Information Science (Coursework) study, I am doing a project titled: “User participation in the categorisation of the State Library of Queensland digital image collections: characteristics, motivations and experiences”. The purpose of this project is to examine the users’ experiences emphasising users’ characteristics, motivations and personal experiences in the categorisation of the State Library of Queensland (SLQ) digital image collections.

You are invited to participate in this project because have been identified as users who frequently participates in categorisation activity on the SLQ digital image collections on Wikimedia. Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from the project without comment or penalty. Any identifiable information already obtained from you will be destroyed. Your decision to participate, or not participate, will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT or with the State Library of Queensland. Your participation will involve an audio recorded interview via Skype or other agreed location that will take between 15 and 60 minutes of your time.

Your contribution to this project will benefit QUT, its students, SLQ, and its staff in providing better understanding of its users and might be use to improve the access to SLQ’s image collections.

Please contact me by email to confirm your availability.

Please note that this study has been approved by the QUT Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number 1100001525).

Many thanks for your consideration of this request.

Kind regards,

Bekti Mulatiningsih Information Systems Faculty of Science and Technology Queensland University of Technology bekti.mulatiningsih@student.qut.edu.au

Floatplanes[edit]

So what is the scope of Category:Floatplanes of the Unites States supposed to be? It may be an unworkable category but at the moment I see no catagorization guidance nor do I see much difference between what is there and what you have removed. Just wondering. Dankarl (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but then why are Cessna 206 etc subcategories of Floatplanes of the United States rather than of Floatplanes? I had taken "of the United States" to refer to country of registration, not of manufacture. Dankarl (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a heads-up[edit]

Canadair manufactured two models of water bombers. the 215s were the originals. The 415s were the later models. From a distance they are hard to distinguish. Hence Category:Canadair water bombers. Do you know that images you changed were 215s, not 415s? Geo Swan (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crusader1117.jpg[edit]

File:Crusader1117.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ford 5-AT ABHO 0483.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 18:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Good day. Please note that neither magazines, newspapers, nor sheet music are "posters". Thanks. Cheers, -- 03:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You recently moved Category:Roundels of the United Kingdom to Category:Roundels of the Royal Air Force - unfortunately most of these insignias were also used by organizations other than the RAF (including the Royal Flying Corps, Royal Naval Air Service, Fleet Air Arm and the British Army), so despite having been named as such are more correct as they were.NiD.29 (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I see you categorized a plane in one of my images. Would you care to do the same with this one? ----DanTD (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category Fighter Aircraft[edit]

Hi, I recognized that are removing categoeries from many aircraft pictures, such as cat fighter aircraft from File:Junkers J 2 E-252-16.jpg. For ensuring that I use categories correctly, I would like to understand this. So, what's the purpose? --JuergenKlueser (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization[edit]

Stop removing categories and adding misleading ones. You didn´t take these pictures so you can´t know where were they taken, but I do know, and they have nothing to do with the museum which category you have added. --Jagermeister (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also stop removing the alfabetical order in Westland categories. There is no sense to find all models under the letter "W" for Westland. --KuK (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas VC-118[edit]

Hi, you added the Category:Douglas VC-118 Independence‎ to three VC-118 photos. However, the VC-118 "Independence" (USAF s/n 46-505) was the personal aircaft of the US President Truman and is today preserved in the USAF Museum. The VC-118 of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson was s/n 53-3240, today at the Pima Air & Space Museum. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loading a Piper Cub on the Pioneer 1950.jpg [edit]

Hello Peter, would you take a look at this and confirm it is a PA-18 (or is it a J3?) Dankarl (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dankarl (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luftstreitkräfte[edit]

Hi, I notice that in 2011 you created Category:World War I people of the German Air Force, that appears to be a duplication of the existing Category:People of the Luftstreitkräfte, and the latter is both a parent and child of the former. I'm no expert on WWI German forces, so perhaps you might merge those two cats, and any related anomalies, or at least make it clear in description headers for the likes of me what the difference is. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Thanks for pointing that out. I've moved all the images and categories to Luftstreitkräfte and redirected World War I people of the German Air Force to it. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windtunnel[edit]

Thank you for identifying my mystery windtunnel models, seen at Blythe House. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Dear Filemover![edit]

العربيَّة ∙ Deutsch ∙ español ∙ English ∙ français ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（中国大陆）‎ ∙ 中文（台灣）‎ ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hi PeterWD, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

I granted you the filemover right as I think you can make use of it. If you don't want this right, please inform me about that. --Didym (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Segelfluggelände Sundern-Seidfeld[edit]

Hi Peter,

is there any specific reason why you removed Category:Segelfluggelände Sundern-Seidfeld from Category:Former airfields? Sundern-Seidfeld has been closed since 2006. I'll add the category again - if you think that's wrong feel free to remove it again, but please provide a reason then.

Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Z-04 Béke[edit]

Hi Peter,

thank you observing this error. I changed the description, but the filename is the old one. I think, it could be even Wintson Churchill.svg.

Cheers, Kaboldy (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Float planes and fuel tank, Bethel.jpg[edit]

Hello Peter - I believe both aircraft are FWS. My preference would be to add the category back since I do not like single-entry categories. But if you prefer to create a category for the second plane I won't object Dankarl (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bush planes in Alaska[edit]

Hello Peter - You've been removing Category:Bush planes in Alaska from images of FWS floatplanes and I have been reverting. I'd like to understand your reasoning. Dankarl (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bush plane categories are based on use of the aircraft, either as directly specified by the source, or as inferred from equipment and location (and, in the case of FWS in Alaska, ownership). Tho not as well defined as a pure hardware category they are nevertheless consistent. Bush service means landing and taking off in locations other than improved airports, usually remote from cities. Since any float plane is potentially capable of this, the category requires for float planes some additional evidence of how the plane is used, either a)that it is pictured in a wild or unimproved location or b)that the business or activity of the owner or user necessarily involves such landings. FWS float planes and FWS amphibious aircraft generally fall under b and sometimes also a. For land-based aircraft I also accept the presence of skis or tundra tires on a high-wing STOL plane as evidence. Finally, I presume any high-wing plane in Alaska before WWII was a bush plane given the lack of improved airports in that period. Bush planes are generally but not exclusively high-wing STOL aircraft, but that description is not in itself sufficient.

Bush planes are intrinsic to the history, culture, and economies of Alaska, Northern Canada, and several other areas. The categories are part of the Air-transport-in-xxx category tree Dankarl (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Cat-a-lot: Moving from Category:Firefighting to Category:Firefighting in art)[edit]

Hallo PeterWD, du hast einige Bilder mit einer neuen Category versehen. Diese sind leider nicht immer richtig. Bitte immer kontrollieren, ob dies sinnvoll ist --Woelle ffm (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swiss Air Force PC-21 A-107 parked.jpg[edit]

I see you recently renamed this image but did you notice it is "A-102" and not "A-107" per image description, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor @ ar.wiki[edit]

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing files from categories like Aircraft facing left[edit]

Hi Peter, I saw you just removed some files from Category:Aircraft facing left and Category:Taxiing in aviation, for example here. What is the reason for that? It looks like a perfect side view of a left-facing aircraft during taxiing to me. Thanks. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comment. The purpose is to reduce overcategorisation, in which categories are judged to be excessive or redundant for anyone wishing to find a particular image. For most aircraft images, the aircraft type plus perhaps registration and/or operator, is sufficient to find a suitable image. Descriptive categories such as taxying or facing left should only be used if there are insufficient other categories to enable the image to be found. Similarly, Aircraft in flight could be applied to a large proportion of aircraft images, and the general rule is to minimise category size to 200 images or fewer, to enable users to quickly find images. The article Commons:Categories should provide some suitable policy guidance in this matter, and I hope that will help explain my actions. PeterWD (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the response, but I can't fully follow your explanation. Over-categorization, as mentioned in the link you posted, is the placing of a file in several levels of the same branch in the category tree. That's not the case here, so avoiding this can't be the objective. Your explanation that the categories we are discussing are very broad and that not all appropriate files can be placed in them because they would then not be useful any more, with the conclusion that the categories should therefore only be used for files with no other way of categorization doesn't make sense to me. Either these categories are too broad, then they should not exist, or they aren't, then they should be applied to all appropriate files. The category-tree for aircraft is pretty complete with a category for unidentified aircraft that rarely contains a large number of files, definitely not a large percentage or the overall amount of aircraft-related files. In addition to that, almost all files within Category:Views of aircraft are categorized properly in other ways. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Over-categorization, as used in Commons:Categories, covers a number of issues, not just a file in different branches of a tree. Categories such as Aircraft facing left are undoubtedly too broad to be useful in categorising aircraft images, but they are created by users who are perhaps unfamiliar with details of a concept such as hierarchical categorisation. If we deleted them, people would add them in again, so we tolerate them while reducing their use. The categorisation hierarchy ideally results in only one category per image, and I can't visualise such a single category containing the phrase Aircraft facing left. In the real world, I administer an archive of 300,000 aircraft images, employing data fields instead of categories or keywords, and while I sometimes use the phrase '3/4f' or 'far' to describe (ie not categorise or index) a view, I would never use 'facing left' or similar. A descriptive view, while true, is no more useful for finding an aircraft image than other existing general categories such as Blue sky, White aircraft, etc. A general description can be seen and interpreted by the viewer. As stated in the article Commons:Categories, the overall purpose of categorising is to help people find a suitable image, and I can't imagine such categories being on anyone's list of search requirements. Please also understand that unlike some other websites, the purpose of Wikimedia Commons is to provide images that are useful for learning, and not to satisfy the personal wishes of photographers, uploaders or those who wish to see images with a large amount of information within the categorisation system. While I and others constantly strive to apply identification of aircraft make/type/model to every aircraft image, we usually only need to add relevant linked categories such as operator, location, registration, date, to enable users to find suitable images without searching categories larger than one screen. I hope that you will study the system more to gain better understanding of the subject.PeterWD (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop implying that I'm not aware of how the category system works. I'm working with this system for some time now, I've followed this discussion a few months ago and I'm not trying to do things that are not useful for someone else (that would really be a waste of time). In theory, I think that the categories referring to the orientation of aircraft are useful for Wikipedia articles, since they often need specific views of aircraft, for example a good left-facing photo for the infobox (although browsing logical combinations of categories isn't really implemented in a user-friendly way, which reduces the usefulness here). I do see the problem in maintaining these, however, so I'm really interested in a solution that is maintainable. Right now, though, I just don't really know when and when not to put my images in any of the subcats of Category:Views of aircraft. If I have a clear guide to follow, I'm fine with any solution. Ideally, that should be written down in Category:Aircraft by registration#How to categorize. That's what I followed in the past, but obviously, that's not what I should follow. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for implying a lack of understanding or experience with the categorisation system, because I only used your recent comments as a basis for my responses. I agree that Commons policies are not at all clear in specific areas of categorising, but are constantly evolving. I continue to maintain that some view parameters are best left to the viewers of images, in preference to embedding them in categories. For example, surely taxying (or 'taxiing' - ugh) implies motion that is only assumed from a static photo.PeterWD (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help.[edit]

Just wanted to thank you for helping categorizing the photos that I transferred to the aircraft section. I will be helping out as time permits.

Articseahorse (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alan-Cobham0344.jpg[edit]

File:Alan-Cobham0344.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

January (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish F-190s and Spitfires.[edit]

Found this on the net and I and trying to find a legal way that we can add them to the commons website. Any thoughts? Articseahorse (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spitfire Close, Roundshaw. - geograph.org.uk - 1403555.jpg[edit]

Hi, Attn. I don't know why, but the User:Oxyman wants this file in the Category:Supermarine Spitfire --JotaCartas (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories removed from File:Brokaw Bullet.jpg[edit]

Would you please give your reason(s) for the removal of categories from File:Brokaw Bullet.jpg with this edit? All three categories do describe the subject aircraft, and don't result is an "over-categorization" problem.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  07:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amy mildred winifred.jpg[edit]

File:Amy mildred winifred.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

—LX (talk, contribs) 20:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gloster AS31 Survey.jpg[edit]

File:Gloster AS31 Survey.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

—LX (talk, contribs) 20:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Short-Tandem-Twin-1160.jpg[edit]

File:Short-Tandem-Twin-1160.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

—LX (talk, contribs) 20:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft categories[edit]

Hi Peter,

I apologize for having caused you grief with respect to the aircraft categories. I was looking to be useful somewhere on the Commons, but considering that I am not very knowledgeable about aircraft, I will apply myself elsewhere. Thank you for directing me to COM:CAT. Would you mind quoting the portion of the guideline to which you refer? I thought you might be referring to the "Over-categorization" section, but that seems to be referring to something else (ie. including files in both a category and one of its subcategories simultaneously).

Neelix (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

François Hollande ???[edit]

Why did you add the Category:François Hollande to File:F-II-LL (7734293472).jpg ? The drawing doesn't look like him and the text says nothing about him... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Charles Daniels Collection Photos[edit]

What is the significance of Category:Charles Daniels Collection Photos? I ask because you added two photos I took (File:Roger Daniels 01.jpg and File:Roger Daniels 02.jpg) to the category. - Jmabel ! talk 14:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heat_haze[edit]

Heat haze 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 ∙ +/−

--El Grafo (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team![edit]

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roundabout Stardom[edit]

I see your photo is starring in a calendar and making the press. Miss September: "Charming" Kingston traffic island scoops coveted place in national calendar JMiall (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Albatros L101 0895-4.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, Ariadacapo (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arpin1353.jpg[edit]

File:Arpin1353.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Afrikaans ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

Hchc2009 (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hello PeterWD! To satisfy my nosiness: How did you identify this plane File:Harvey Crawford and biplane at Tacoma 1912.jpg as being a Curtiss Model D? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crawford[edit]

Aloha! I found some information about Harvey Crawford and started a little something in my sandbox. Feel free to edit the stub, I try to find more photographs first. Cheers! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category on Commons added as well. Category:Harvey Crawford. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janka Gyöngyös[edit]

Hi, PeterWD. I don't understand, what does it mean "Janka Gyöngyös"? Janka is a female name and has nothing common with this glider. The planes name comes from a Hungarian town Gyöngyös, and its designer was Lajos (Louis) Rotter. Kaboldy (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. Janka refers to [1], and the aircraft is referred to as a "Janka Gyongyos 33", identity "H-C05.01", in my copy of Ogden 2009 Aviation Museums and Collections of Mainland Europe, p. 296. Ogden's data is usually compiled from data supplied by museum officials, and often confirmed in personal visits. Zoltan and Rotter often collaborated in glider designs.PeterWD (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-00569, Fritz Heidt.jpg[edit]

To tell the truth, I have no idea why I described it so :) I must have looked at some registry, searching for D-?007, but I really don't remember :) ...Oh, I got it: apparently it's the same plane. However, I don't know if it's DP IIa. Pibwl (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G-AEML/EC-AAY categories[edit]

Hi, thanks for editing those categories. I'm usually too strict with aircraft registrations, and it's easy to forget that this Wiki is for everyone ;-). Back to the registrations, in both categories there's explanatory text; but the categories are not directly related to each other. To make navigation easier for users who are looking for the DH.89 of the FIO in G-AEML category, I propose making Category:EC-AAY (aircraft) a subcategory of Category:G-AEML (aircraft). That way, both categories can still be accessed from "Aircraft by registration" or similar categories, as it can be done now; and photos be organised according to the "shown" registration. It has been done that way with other aircraft, such as 430823 (aircraft). Regards, --Spotter LEVT (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added EC-AAY as a subcategory of G-AEML. By the way, there have been three different "EC-AAY" aircraft, not just two: the original DH.89, the current one (G-AEML) and a DC-2 which operated before the current registration system started working.--Spotter LEVT (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albatros Flugzeugwerke[edit]

Curious why you figure Albatros Flugzeugwerke needs a single sub-category containing all the other sub-categories? There is nothing that else in the main category making it pointless additional clicking.NiD.29 (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dupuy de Lôme airship[edit]

Hello PeterWD. First I would like to thank you for your great work helping to get better categorizations on Commons. However, I am not fully convinced of the validity of your redirection of the category Dupuy de Lôme airship to Dupuy de Lôme (airship, 1872). In the sources available to me, I have never seen a name given to the airship, and it would surprise me quite a bit to learn that Dupuy de Lôme had indeed named it after himself. So the simple question is: What is your source? Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice compromise, and fine with me. Thanks for your swift reply. --Rsteen (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Description and deleting Categories[edit]

Hello PeterWD, I do appreciate you taking the time and effort, modifying my Categories for the image you have titled/description "Mountain scenery - Juneau International Airport"; which I believe is not part of your authority from my original title: Alaska Airlines Boeing coming in for landing at Juneau international Airport, with Chilkat Mountain Range. I feel that you are taking away information that is relevant to the image, the fact is that Alaska Airlines and Boeing are the only Commercial and largest civilian North American carrier that operates here in Southeast Alaska. Drawing attention to the mountains is not necessary the airfield and approach make this a special place every Alaska Airlines' Boeing that land from the Northeastern end of runway have to make this very tricky and potentially dangerous manoeuvre in all weather and seasons, and this is also reason for including in Alaska Transport category, which illustrates how difficult conditions are here, and it's not just pretty scenery. (Gillfoto 18:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC))

File:Propeller Research Tunnel (9424070840)[edit]

I can only apologise. I just didn't see the trees when looking at the forest. For whatever reason I just didn't see the aircraft on top of the truss-work or the starting mechanism!--Petebutt (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Air transport in Algeria[edit]

Hi ;-)
You have moved the category, but it contains a sub-category which can't be moved automatically. It depends on templates... Can you fix it, please? Wieralee (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, for now. The problem was caused by a user incorrectly applying Template:Airlinesofcountry after the category was cleanly made into a category redirect.PeterWD (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Unidentified aircraft)[edit]

Hardly a valid category as the identity is in the title FFS--Petebutt (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category Aircraft[edit]

Whilst I understand the need to add categories, please could you regard the Aircraft category as a resting place for Categories rather than files. Please open a category in Aircraft for files requiring categorisation or something similar. Yes, I know that technically it is a correct category, but it is not convenient to have thousands of images in a single category with widely varying subjects.--Petebutt (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Petebutt: Thanks for your comment, but it is standard practice at Commons to place otherwise uncategorised images in the top level of a major topic, such as aircraft, until editors with time and relevant knowledge can move them into more appropriate sub-cats. A Meta Category, containing only sub-categories, is a special type of category but not applicable to a major topic. Until recently, a few editors carried out regular global searches for aircraft-related images that are uncategorised or without an aircraft related category, then regularly added them in batches to Category:Aircraft. I will now be carrying out such ad hoc operations to top up the images in Category:Aircraft, and planning to limit the number to 200, a target that should be aimed at for all Commons categories. BTW, some of your recent edits such as this one could be placed more appropriately and directly by using the registration (eg OO-VEH from the title or by eyeballing the image) via Hotcat verification or better still in Cat-a-lot, because eventually someone will have to move it to Category:OO-VEH (aircraft) anyway.PeterWD (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally i disagree with using registrations as categories, so i won't be going down that route--Petebutt (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N70GA Bucket of Bolts[edit]

Please keep in mind that the plane's registration is N70GA, and that it has been restored to look like RAF KJ508. It isn't necessarily the same plane, and is listed on the CAF website as N70GA [2]. I'm not convinced that the shift in category is advisable, but there isn't much in the way of history available to define its heritage. Acroterion (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this [3] the plane was built after the war for civilian use and repainted in 1991. KJ508 is fictitious, the categories should redirect the other way, to N70GA. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, but I fundamentally disagree. Commons is effectively an image catalogue, and its categories are designed to reflect what is evident in each image, not necessarily in the real world. In this case, the primary identity displayed to the viewer is KJ508, a secondary identity is the name observable in some views, and for such warbirds we typically add the unseen 'true' registration for reference purposes, where a user might be searching on that parameter. Without these principles, we would be hard put to gather all the images of each aircraft in one place. I hope this explains the concept.PeterWD (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but it makes it makes searching a little strange and confusing if it's not explained well. Is there a template that effectively says "This thing is categorized based upon its visual appearance, which is not necessarily its actual identity"? Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how we can explain the basic concepts better to users, other than point them towards the policy article com:Categories, particularly the lede and Quick guide. IMHO, that article is confusingly written and incomplete, but the principal editors seem reluctant to tolerate amendments. For aircraft images, I hope that we provide a very comprehensive hierarchy that enables users to browse categories to find images via several branches starting from Category:Aviation. Regards the identity of a subject, perhaps we might use the same concept as a human identity, that is basically whatever a person chooses to represent themself as, irrespective of what another person might believe is the subject's 'true' identity. For example, you would expect Bob Dylan stuff to be directly under that identity, rather then under Robert Zimmerman, his 'previous' identity.PeterWD (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That (Dylan/Zimmy) works pretty well where there's a lot of text to explain it all, less so in an image-based environment. On the encyclopedia side we'd go with the preferred identity, which as far as the CAF is concerned is the N-number as codes go, but "Bucket of Bolts" is probably the most comprehensive description that avoids registrations/codes altogether. N-numbers versus fictitious RAF codes seem to lead down a rabbithole. A category like Bucket of Bolts (aircraft) might be better where the plane has a name. Acroterion (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft categories[edit]

Hi,

If you move a category from one location to another, for instance Category:Hawker Hurricane LF363 - these should not be marked with {{Speedydelete}} but should instead be a {{Category redirect}} to the new title. This is to protect incoming links.

The old name should only be deleted if it is incorrect: To use LF363 as an example, if it had instead been at Category:Supermarine Spitfire LF363 then it should be deleted.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenten[edit]

It is actually a picture of the aircraft that was rebuilt into the aircraft Glenten. So I have inserted the category Glenten once again. Pugilist (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airbus_aircraft_by_name[edit]

Airbus aircraft by name 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 ∙ +/−

Josh (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft_with_rotodomes[edit]

Aircraft with rotodomes 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) 15:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2100882_(aircraft)[edit]

2100882 (aircraft) 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 ∙ +/−

Josh (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fire_in_diagrams[edit]

Category:Fire_in_diagrams 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 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important message for file movers[edit]

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

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

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

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

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

Category:Silhouette_views_of_aircraft[edit]

Silhouette views of aircraft 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 ∙ +/−

– BMacZero (🗩) 03:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CAB accident reports[edit]

CAB accident reports, are they available online? I am looking for the one for this accident: 1940 Floyd Bennett Field midair crash, please ping me when you respond. --RAN (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artist_drawings_of_aircraft[edit]

Artist drawings of aircraft 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 ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to File:Un vol d'Otto Lilienthal, impression d'artiste.gif[edit]

It is surprising that the German inventor of the glider is not entitled to the categories "Gliders" and "Gliders of Germany". Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bernard de Go Mars, thanks for your comment, also your response to the CFD (already closed) about Category:Artist drawings of aircraft. I have created new Category:Otto Lilienthal aircraft and Category:Normal Soaring Apparatus, into which you may place relevant images (I'm not yet familiar with various versions of Lilienthal gliders). It is Category:Lilienthal aircraft that now qualifies to be placed in glider categories in the category hierarchy, rather than the inventor/builder. PeterWD (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand everything, but thanks... Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Bernard de Go Mars, I hope you can gain more understanding about Commons categories. In case you are unaware, the category system is not based on key words, but on a highly-organised hierarchy, see: Commons:Categories, particularly the lede paragraph, and the general principle of 'overcategorization'. For example, a person cannot be a glider or a concept such as 'fluid dynamics', but a person can be a glider pilot or glider manufacturer. I hope that my amendments to the categories and files in the hierarchy of the parent Category:Otto Lilienthal might help to illustrate the concepts. PeterWD (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PeterWD ! Thank you for this lesson which I really need... Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Friedrichshafen, Zeppelin-Ankermast-Denkmal, 4.jpeg‎[edit]

Saluton,

you added the Category:Monuments and memorials to airship accidents to the picture Friedrichshafen, Zeppelin-Ankermast-Denkmal, 4.jpeg‎. Of course the monument is related to airships but is it really related to an accident? There is no category such as Monuments and memorials to airships.

Maybe Category:Mooring masts could be appropriate.

Regards -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comments about my edit. At the time, I was gathering images of accident memorials via the combined search of "memorials" and "airships", and that one looked like many other such memorials. I have now removed the category from that image. Regards, PeterWD. PeterWD (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thank you. -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural spraying[edit]

Hi Peter,

I would like to ask you undoing [4]; I'm currently trying to separate Category:Agricultural spraying into

Category:Pesticide application (spraying pesticides)
Category:Irrigation ("water spraying" if this exists)

since it has been a mixed, redundant category --Mormöse (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. I agree that category "Agricultural spraying" needs an extra subcat (I did not think about plain water spraying). However, I'm not clear what my revert action might achieve, or what parent category you want for category "Pesticide application", to replace category "Agricultural techniques" - do you propose a different category about agriculture? Also, there is an existing category "Agricultural irrigation" that perhaps might be another parent for your new category "Spray irrigation"? BTW (By the way), your new category "DDT signs" does not yet exist - it must have at least one parent to make it visible in the category hierarchy on Commons. I look forward to your detailed proposals. PeterWD (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Agricultural spraying contains several photos of centre pivot irrigation, added by this user. I have no inclination for a category called "Spray irrigation".--Mormöse (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia image 'S.26 and 3 Sunderlands, Sullom Voe'[edit]

It's actually an S.23 Empire with the 3 Sunderlands, IWM caption now partially corrected so refers to the S.23 page Longshot1944 (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft_by_country_of_service[edit]

Aircraft by country of service 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 ∙ +/−

Josh (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category changes and additions[edit]

Hi Peter, I've uploaded a few figures from AAIB reports for air accident articles lately, and nearly every time I upload one, someone adds more categories or changes the categories I've assigned. I would like to do a better job assigning categories when I do the initial uploads. Is there a way to find out what categories are available? (Currently I just start typing and see what pops up.) Some categories come up that I specifically didn't find in my searches. I think the example is the category for BA Flight 38. Is there always a separate category for each air accident? Should I ever create new categories? (I've never done so, and I'm not sure I know how. I usually just use the upload wizard.) Is there a place I can go to learn more about how to assign aviation- and air accident-related categories more effectively so no one needs to follow behind me to clean up my work? I've read part of the article "Commons:Categories", which goes into painstaking depth on the subject. To research which categories would satisfy the principles, relations, etc, I think it would take far more time than the actual copying and editing the image from the original report and then uploading it. I do enjoy adding content from AAIB reports on the English Wikipedia because the OGL is so easy to work with, AAIB reports usually have less 3rd party content than NTSB reports (in my experience), and there is usually a lot of brilliant content available that can improve articles. Besides, I love aviation, and I love learning from these thorough investigations, but is there a way to categorize images during the upload process without imagining all possible categories and then following the subcategories of each? Thanks, and thanks for what you do. Dcs002 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comprehensive enquiry (I had to look up OGL). I note that you are a long-experienced editor. You can see my edit/contribution histories on both English WP and Commons, although I currently rarely do any editing due to overwhelming archiving work, mostly due to handling increasing numbers of bequests from former aviation photographers. The key to most creation and editing of categories is the use of tools (gadgets) Wikipedia:HotCat (both projects) and Commons:Cat-a-lot (Commons only), and both tools can create and modify categories, while also enabling visibility and movement throughout the hierarchical category trees. Note that the policies, application and use of categories differ between the two projects. As you have found during uploads, you can add single or multiple category names, and one common practice is to add one known category, then later use the gadgets to correct that and add others. As the name implies, Cat-a-lot can do the job for one or many files or categories (but note the danger of inadvertently highlighting both files and categories). If you add an unknown category, it will appear as a red link, which you can then create via a gadget or Edit like any other file, and the parent category or categories added using relevant syntax eg "Category:Aircraft accidents" between double brackets. Similarly, your 'unknown' category name might have an existing direct equivalent, so you might need to manually create a Category redirect (Commons syntax of that is different to a WP Redirect). As with all Wikimedia projects, simply highlighting and copying existing stuff saves a lot of original learning and typing. I hope the above helps you to quickly become a skilled category editor.PeterWD (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I now see that I erroneously moved File:BA 38 Cavitation explained.jpg into Category:AAIB aircraft accident PDF files, that highlights the absence of a suitable category for AAIB (image or PDF) files, that might need to be a hidden category. It is also evident that it might be better for you to upload whole AAIB PDF files, as in the category named above. Then, you or anyone else would be free to extract individual image files, and place them in the new AAIB files category. The PDF files should also be placed in a category (usually) named the same as the Wikipedia article name, so that all relevant files can be grouped there, rather than in Category:Air Accidents Investigation Branch. See some equivalent categories under Category:National Transportation Safety Board.PeterWD (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Peter! I don't fully understand everything you said, but I'm willing to learn a few new things. I have never used a gadget or a bot before, but the "Cat-a-lot" looks like a very useful tool to learn. That's where I'll begin.

I honestly did not know that whole pdf files could be uploaded, or that Wikimedia might be a good place to look for them! I'll try to make that a practice. (You can tell by my spelling that I'm American, so whenever I edit an article concerning a UK event, I always appreciate people who check for UK English spelling errors. It's difficult to read something that's spelled correctly, verified by my spell-checker, and know I need to make a correction!) That File:BA 38 Cavitation explained.jpg was from the AAIB report. I probably put it under the AAIB category when I uploaded it, with the logic being that's where I found it. I have learned these past few days that categories are less about the origin of the content and more about helping people find the content. That's a good start, I think! Thanks again for your tuition. I'll see what I can do with "Cat-a-lot" next. (I expect I will continue to blunder a bit before I get the hang of it.) Dcs002 (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, I just watched the "Cat-a-lot" tutorial video on that page you linked, and I feel like I'm all set! I'll enable it and use it on my next upload. Thanks again! Dcs002 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Museum"[edit]

Not sure I agree with this. It was, obviously, a museum-style display, but it was in a working hangar. - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hovermarine HM-2 Sidewall[edit]

It's an air-cushion vehicle, but not strictly a hovercraft. It has rigid sidewalls, rather than the skirts (and other aspects) of the Cockerell true hovercraft design.

It belongs in Category:Hovercraft of the United Kingdom, because it's a UK ACV and we don't structure that specifically. Also it was more commonly called a hovercraft than anything else. But it should stay in Category:Air-cushion boats too, because that's fundamentally what it is. The Flight drawing on this page might make it clearer. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BAE_(aircraft)[edit]

Category:BAE_(aircraft) 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 ∙ +/−

ZLEA _T\^C 23:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Passengers boarding Pan-Am Airways Fokker airplane, 1928.jpg[edit]

Just wanted to double check that the airplane is a Fokker F.VII/3m airplane (since the NY Times only identified it as a Fokker) and a few sources that I have checked have stated that Pan Am used Fokker F7s at that point. https://www.panam.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=709:paa-s-first-pax-to-havana&catid=21:take-off Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your query. It appears that the Commons image shows Fokker F.VII/3m NC3314 'General New', either at Cuba on the inaugural day, or on a day subsequent to the two inaugural flights from Key West. NC3314 made the first flight from Key West to Cuba carrying mail, while the so-called "Fokker F-7" followed with fare-paying passengers. The "Fokker F-7" NC53 'General Machado' was originally built as a F.VII/3m, but in 1927 it was converted to the equivalent of a military Fokker C-2, with the extended cockpit glazing as seen in some photos. The Wikipedia article Fokker F.VII explains the various versions, but no mention of "F-7", and that might have been an unofficial US designation. N53 'General Machado' ditched in August 1928 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/26658. I hope that all helps a bit. PeterWD (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Aviation history is not an area that I know much about, but as the U.S. public domain expands to cover the entire 1920s, I imagine more media on early airline history will become more readily available. (I personally vaguely remember Pan Am but I didn't actually board an airplane until I was an adult and Pan Am was long gone by then). Abzeronow (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]