User talk:Uli Elch

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 20:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filemoving rules

Rules in

Commons:File renaming
Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2 (change meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays.)
Commons:Dateien verschieben > "Welche Dateien sollten umbenannt werden?"
Commons:File naming
Commons:Dateibenennung.

Renaming Frola images

Hi, Uli. I have just discovered that some (many?) of the images in Category:Unidentified aircraft by Frola, particularly those from Jetphotos, are duplicates of some already in Commons. eg see File:Frola ? 87967 1252094359 (5718133305).jpg and compare with the images in Category:VH-UXL (aircraft). Another shot is in Category:VH-ABH (aircraft). May I suggest that you do not rename them until they are copied to the relevant aircraft type categories, then rename them to suit. They can then perhaps also be tagged as duplicate images if applicable. No reply necessary.PeterWD (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft landing or take off

Hi, thanks for identifying photos. Please can you also add location category e.g Category:Airliner take offs at xyz airport, Category:Aircraft landing at xyz airport. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, a friendly reminder ! regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boeing 767-31K(ER), Airtours International Airways JP5839237.jpg

Hi, how certain are you that this is a take off ? I left it undecided due to the extended flaps which usually indicate landing. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - take a look at the open main landing gear doors. Except in case of a malfunction (hydraulic loss etc.) they are usually closed well ahead of the landing. The flaps are only partially extended. For takeoff, one usually has the option of selecting one of 2 or 3 different flap settings, of which the most extended one may create the impression of (almost) a landing flap setting. --- In most cases so far, I was not absolutely sure to decide between T/O and Ldg, so I left it open. The ones I have edited, are 99,8 % certain in my opinion. --- NB: I have some 17000 airliner flight hrs, split about evenly between different Boeing and Airbus types. BRGDS --Uli Elch (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partial flap is normal for takeoff and the AoA looks like takeoff, not landing. So why question this one? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of Wikipedia accuracy. It's great that experts are participating. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take off or landing ?

File:Airbus A330-200 Emirates A6-EAL.jpg How to distinguish between tire smoke on landing and water spray on a wet runway ? This looks like a landing to me but photographer calls it "started". And I don't see flaps extended. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) On a very wet RWY like this one, it is highly improbable to see such an excessive amount of tyre smoke. 2) The main wheels are clearly off the ground (which, however, could also have happened during a severe bounced landing). 3) The flap setting does not look like landing flaps.

If you have a question, please be so kind and complete it before sending it to me (instead of several bits and pieces). It will make it much easier to answer instead of being disturbed several times whilst writing, thank you. --Uli Elch (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a take off with spray from wheels ? regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, almost 100% sure. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree (mostly because of the spray from the tyres) - but it's a rare photo, as the photographer must have panned from quite some distance away, then they've captured exactly the moment the tyres lifted. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flybe at Glasgow.jpg please comment

Like to comment on what's happening here ? regards, Rod

Compare the flap setting with this one here - and the description appears to be wrong: No landing, but a takeoff. --Uli Elch (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is that water spray behind wheels, typical of wet take off ? Heat haze from engines ? Rcbutcher (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks like water spray from a damp or slightly wet RWY, which would not be produced in such a way behind a landing A/C with low power. Concerning the flap setting: On most jet A/C, in some cases, a flap setting with a smaller angle than full LDG flaps might be used for landing, for example with certain technical malfunctions or very strong crosswind, windshear or downdraft conditions. But still, it would be more than T/O-configuration. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What distance out do passenger jets lower their undercarriage ?

My info is typically 3-5 km, is this correct ? Variables ? Reason I ask - identifying take offs and landings. I notice many jets seem to take off quite steeply and then level out, is this correct ? I have flown many times, but inside and outside is a different world ! Rcbutcher (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) Gear: Typically, the gear is extended at 2000 - 1500 ft above airport elevation, but not lower than 1000 ft. Reason: Landing flaps settings can only be achieved after gear down, otherwise you get a pretty loud warning (horn). Occasionally, the gear extension is done earlier, especially if you are way too fast or too high (gear used as kind of an airbrake). NB: Turboprops are able to extend the gear later due to their capability to use the propeller RPM as a means of decelerating.

2) Climbout: Depending on individual airport regulations and operator procedures, a steep climb is performed after liftoff to standardized heights of between 1000 and 3000 ft. When reaching, the nose is lowered in order to accelerate, and during acceleration the flaps are being retracted. How steep the climbout will be depends partly on takeoff weight; a fully loaded B-747 to Buenos Aires cannot climb as steeply as an A-321 to Paris. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daten von mir verschieben

Moin Uli Elch, vielen Dank das Du meine Bilder verschiebst und ihn somit bessere Namen gibt, ich bitte aber drum bei der Verschiebung das Datum der Aufnahme sowie mein Kürzel "by-RaBoe" mit anzubringen, damit ich meine Bilder besser wiederfinde bzw, ich sehe wohin sie gewandert sind. Tschüß und Danke -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moin. a) Wiederfinden: Ganz einfach unter Category:Images by RaBoe oder, sogar schon von Dir selbst vorsortiert, unter User:Raboe001/Flugzeug.

b) Zumindest bei den letzten war in Deinem file name gar kein Datum enthalten; im übrigen ist es ohnehin meist noch zweimal zu finden: in den Metadata und in der description, wenn vom Autor ordentlich eingetragen (hier nicht der Fall). Inhalt des file name: Obwohl ganz oft nicht beachtet, gehören hier bei "Aircraft" nach dem uralten Konsens rein: Typ, Betreiber, evtl. noch Kennzeichen. Bereits der Aufnahmeort war damals strittig, und das Datum soll ebenso wenig rein wie der Autorenname.

c) Ganz andere Frage: Ich habe mal in tagelanger Arbeit und mit sehr viel Mühe eine große Anzahl Deiner Bilder kategorisiert (z. B. "Aerial photographs of Sylt") und eine Beschreibung des Inhalts eingefügt, z. B. "Sylt Nordspitze" usw. In den inhaltlich völlig irrelevanten Kategorien "Fotoflug 2012-05-05 - uncategorized", "Fotoflüge Nordsee 09/11" oder "Luftaufnahmen Nordseekueste 2012-05-by-RaBoe" schlummerten seit 3 Jahren Hunderte von Aufnahmen, denen auch ohne jegliche Motivbeschreibung fehlte, die meisten von Dir. Ich habe es als äußerst merkwürdig empfunden, dass hier mit WP-Geld ("Supported by Wikimedia Deutschland") eine gewaltige Menge Photos erstellt, dann sogar mit den eigenen copyright-Vermerken versehen werden (den längsten, die es bei WP überhaupt gibt) und einfach kommentarlos ins Commons-Netz geschmissen werden, ohne den geringsten Hinweis auf den file-Inhalt. Auch in den folgenden 3 Jahren bis heute gab es keine Bemühung, sie ordentlich einzusortieren oder wenigstens zu löschen. Ich bin gespannt auf eine plausible Erklärung für diesen Umgang mit Stiftungsgeldern. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dash 8-Q100/Q200 at Frankfurt Airport

Hello again, for my educationb can you say why you moved images out of this category to Category:De Havilland Canada aircraft at Frankfurt Airport ? I understand Bombardier took over this aircraft type from De Havilland Canada, but they are still "Dash 8". Or am I wrong ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De Havilland Canada developed both the DHC-8-100 and -300 and had them certificated, subsequent owner Bombardier the later -200 and -400.

All variants are certificated as DHC-8-100 to DHC-8-400 (see FAA & EASA TCDSs). Both the term "Dash 8" and the "Q"-prefix are pure marketing names, established by the manufacturer (like "Dreamliner" for the 787). Thus, "DHC-8" is the correct and official name, not "Dash 8" or "Q400".

Unfortunately, for Frankfurt airport there are only the categories "Q100/Q200" combined and "Q300", "Q400". To be absolutely exact, the first cat would have had to be divided.

By the way, the same applies to certain variants of the Douglas DC-9. The MD-81 to MD-87 are MDD marketing names, their official CofA designation being DC-9-81 to DC-9-87. The MD-88 and on were the only ones bearing this as official type name as well (see article in en:WP).

As in the DHC-8 case, WP Commons is wrong concerning the cat names. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we split the -100 and -200 categories so that they can appear under the correct parent. And rename as DHC-8-100 thru DHC-8-400, correct ? Rename will leave a redirect under the popular existing name so readers can find it. Regarding the MD-8n categories : I feel that the general public knows them by that name so we can rename it as DC-9-8n and keept the existing popular name as a redirect to aid categorizing. I can rename the categories : the rename process creates an automatic redirect. Do you want me to proceed ? I think a brief comment at the head of the category will serve to avoid confusion in readers. Rcbutcher (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good proposal! Having the -100 and -200 in one category is illogical, since the sequence of first deliveries was: 1984 (-100), 1989 (-300) and 1994 (-200). In this source (current) one can nicely see the still existing official type names for the DHC-8: FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet</ref>. A brief comment at the head of the category might read as follows (copied from above): "All variants are certificated as DHC-8-100 to DHC-8-400 (see FAA & EASA TCDSs). Both the term "Dash 8" and the "Q"-prefix are pure marketing names, established by the manufacturer (like "Dreamliner" for the 787). Thus, "DHC-8" is the correct and official name, not "Dash 8" or "Q400"." This is a proposal only - if you have better ideas please tell them!

Concerning the DC-9, we should retain the "McDonnell Douglas" part, as this a/c was produced by Douglas for a very short time only before their merger into McDonnell Douglas. However, the Category:McDonnell Douglas MD-80 should be split as well:

1) renamed Category:McDonnell Douglas DC-9-80, containing the DC-9-81 to DC-9-87 and moved into Category:McDonnell Douglas DC-9, and

2) something containing the MD-88, MD-90 and MD-95 (renamed Boeing 717 before first flight).

Another source (current) for the existing official type names: FAA TCDS, as of March 25, 2014.

Proposal for comment at the head of the category: "All variants up to MD-87 are certificated as DC-9-81 to DC-9-87 (see FAA & EASA TCDSs). The "MD-80" designators were established by the manufacturer as pure marketing symbols. Thus, "DC-9-xx" is the correct and official designation, not "MD-8xx"." --Uli Elch (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll proceed... BUT please consider that non-experts who know the "popular" name for an aeroplane, but not the "correct" name, still need to be able to use tools like cat-a-lot to categorize images. So if they want to categorize an image, they may not think of De Havilland Canada DHC-8-400 because it's made by Bombardier and everybody calls it Dash 8 Q400 or something similar. I.e. people need to be able to access content by the "popular" name as well as the "correct" name. That's why category redirects are so useful. Rcbutcher (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree absolutely concerning the importance of category redirects. Automatic redirects work perfectly using HotCat: inserting "Airplane" results in "Aircraft". However, with cat-a-lot entries first arrive on the redirect page, which is a long known problem; the WP software experts should try to solve it! Still, I consider it more accurate to adhere to WP's own quality requirements and have correctly named categories. --Uli Elch (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure there is no confusion : Does "De Havilland Canada DHC-8...." in catategory names replace all references to "Dash 8" and "Q Series" ? You may like to look at the EN Wiki article which begins : "The Bombardier Dash 8 or Q-Series, previously known as the de Havilland Canada Dash 8 or DHC-8...". Does this also need revision to indicate what is the current "official" name and what are the popular/marketing names ? Because people will be thinking "De Havilland Canada disappeared years ago ??" Rcbutcher (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verschiebungen

Unterlasse es, Bilder von mir zu unsinnigen Namen zu verschieben! Original war im Dateiname Datum, Urheber und Ort enthalten, alles ist rausgeflogen. --Ralf Roleček 16:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nichts ist rausgeflogen: Datum, Urheber und Ort sind in der Description enthalten, alles noch da. Das andere gehört nicht in den Dateinamen, siehe im nächsten Abschnitt. Es steht Dir auch selbstverständlich frei, wie so viele andere zum leichteren Auffinden eine "Category:Images by Ralf Roletschek" oder ähnlich einzurichten. Diese kann ja auch noch in die vorhandene "Category:Photographers from Germany" integriert werden.

Allein beim besagten A319 tragen alle 6 (sechs!) Dateien den selben Namen "2009-09-18-flughafen-berlin-tegel-by-RalfR", lediglich unterschieden durch eine Folgenummer am Ende, ebenso wie bei Photos von Air Berlin und Turkish Airlines. Dies ist genau der Fall, in dem nach den Richtlinien eine Umbenennung erfolgen soll. Bitte hierzu lesen: Commons:File renaming, hier insbesondere "Which files should be renamed?". Punkt 2.: "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays." Näher erläutert noch einmal in der Fußnote 2., Erläuterungen Punkt 7: "... that do not describe the subject of the file." Genau das ist der Punkt: Die alten, im Text allesamt identischen Titel beschreiben eben nicht das Motiv der Bilder, sondern sind diesbezüglich "meaningless", also nichtssagend.

Inhalt des file name: Obwohl sehr oft nicht beachtet, gehören hier bei "Aircraft" nach dem uralten Konsens rein: Typ, Betreiber, evtl. noch Kennzeichen. Bereits der Aufnahmeort war damals strittig, und das Datum soll ebenso wenig rein wie der Autorenname.

Im Übrigen möchte ich es mir von einem auf diesem Gebiet offenbar nicht bewanderten Laien verbitten, die geänderten Dateibezeichnungen als "unsinnige Namen" bezeichnen zu lassen. Ich weiß schon, warum ich z. B. nichts über Fahrradtechnik schreibe: weil ich davon absolut keine Ahnung habe. --Uli Elch (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Der Dateiname ist doch vollkommen unwichtig. Die Beschreibung ist wichtig und sonst nichts. Irgendwelche Richtlinien interessieren mich nicht, wenn sie englisch sind. Aber solche sinnlosen Aktionen wie deine bekräftigen mich darin, in Zukunft nur noch kiryllische Dateinamen zu benutzen. Das ist sinnloser Aktionismus. --Ralf Roleček 17:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dann müßten wir uns doch eigentlich einig sein, wenn ich Dich zitieren darf: "Die Beschreibung ist wichtig und sonst nichts." - warum also die Aufregung, wenn "Der Dateiname ... doch vollkommen unwichtig" ist?

Mit einem Vorgehen nach Sätzen wie "Irgendwelche Richtlinien interessieren mich nicht" fängt man sich ja auch ganz flott eine VM ein, was Du als früherer Admin sicher kennst.

Für mich persönlich wäre es kein Problem, wenn Du ein Photo z. B. mit "Ильюшин Ил-62 1356344, Москва - Домодедово" betitelst - außer dass auch hier der Betreiber fehlt (Россия - МЧС)!

Zum weiteren Vorgehen: Möchtest Du die restlichen Dateien entsprechend selbst umbenennen oder erst eine neue Kat für Deine Bilder einrichten und die Umbenennung dann anderen überlassen? --Uli Elch (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hast du keine eigenen Dateien, an denen du herumschieben kannst? Und wenn schon, dann lade einfach unter deinem gewünschten Namen neu hoch aber laß die Dateien anderer Leute in Ruhe! Deine Verschlimmerungen bringen zudem neue Probleme, denn Sonderzeichen in Dateinamen machen nur Ärger. --Ralf Roleček 15:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nachdem Du knapp eine Woche zwar kräftig anderweitig editiert hast, eine Antwort auf meine obige Frage aber nicht für nötig hieltest, wirkt die jetzige Beschwerde etwas deplaziert. Noch einmal: Die sinnvolle Änderung inhaltsleerer Dateinamen von einem ahnungslosen Laien als "Verschlimmerungen" bezeichnen zu lassen, braucht sich nun wirklich niemand gefallen zu lassen. Im übrigen sind Deine Bindestriche genauso Sonderzeichen wie Klammern - oder genauso wenig (Bezug).

Mach das mit den Dateinamen doch einfach von Anfang an korrekt, dann brauchst Du Dich nicht zu ärgern, und wenn Du sagst "Irgendwelche Richtlinien interessieren mich nicht", dann darfst Du Dich wirklich nicht echauffieren, wenn andere Mitarbeiter sich um deren Einhaltung kümmern und immer wieder hinter Leuten aufräumen müssen, die meinen, dass Regeln immer nur für die anderen gelten. --Uli Elch (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ich bin hier seit 10 Jahren und kein Anfänger. Klammern und Leerzeichen sind Sonderzeichen, Bindestriche jedoch nicht. Deine Änderungen sind weder sinnvoll noch werden sie irgendwo gefordert. --Ralf Roleček 17:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verschiebungen Teil 2

Moin Uli, vielen Dank das Du den Flugzeugen einen besseren neuen Namen gegeben hast, ich würde mich noch mehr freuen wenn Du bitte, wie ich hier nachgearbeitet "Piaggio P.149D D-EOBW (aircraft) 2011 by-RaBoe-015.jpg" das (aircraft) 2011 by-RaBoe einbauen könntest.

Es ist für mich wichtig zu wissen wann es war, also das Jahr, dann das es ein Flugzeug ist und bitte auch mein Kürzel, damit ich auf meiner BO eigene von fremden Bilder unterscheiden kann, damit ich die Fremdbilder löschen kann und nur meine behalte. Danke und noch frohes Schaffen Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 20:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More take off/landings questions

File:Boeing 747-45EF-SCD, EVA Air Cargo AN2109762.jpg How do I read the situation on this wet runway ? I see flaps down, does that prove it's landing ?

Also : how to read take off or landing for turboprops : they don't seem to take off steeply liake jets. So what is this doing ? : File:Bombardier Dash 8-Q402, Lufthansa Regional (Augsburg Airways) JP7439824.jpg . thanks, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EVA Air Cargo: a) flaps are not fully down (landing position); b) spoilers are not extended; c) reverse thrust is not activated; d) the wall of water behind is much bigger than one which would be created by reverse thrust; e) I personally took off more than thousand times from that RWY 18 at FRA, which is a takeoff only RWY (no landings permitted).

DHC-8-400: Not quite sure. Very small flap setting and heat distortions behind engines point to a takeoff. However, when you use Google Earth and zoom in on Munich airport, southwestern corner = threshold RWY 08R, you can see the fuel tanks and building structure of the runup-shelter. That position relatively close to the threshold makes it look more like a landing. --Uli Elch (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on ideas to link photographs together ?

Many photographs of aircraft flight sequence in Commons such as take of, approach, landing include sets where vhere linking them together in some way gives an idea of the flight process, like time-lapse sequence. How to link them to add value to the user ? As far as I know there is no existing way to link sets of photographs.

Example of what I've done so far : File:Boeing 737-7K5 (D-AHXE) 02.jpg

But this doesn't cater for language translation. I feel we need a template or some better system that doesn't become so complicated (like some existing templates) that few can use it. ?? Rcbutcher (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you wish, but I do not know any solution either. Besides, I am presently concentrating on continuing the Dash 8 > DHC-8 transformation work - there ist still much to do! --Uli Elch (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a bounced landing ?

File:TUIfly_Nordic_Boeing_767-300ER_Prasertwit.jpg This looks to me like it has bounced after landinjg, based on flaps and tire smoke, correct ? Tail looks dangerously low, is this a really bad landing ? Rcbutcher (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a landing, with some kind of bounce. Things happen. Howeve, the retractable tailskid still has a good margin to the ground. So, not dangerous at all, and "bad" is a relatively vague description. "Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing." --Uli Elch (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll never foget a 737 jerking about on approach and landing in a storm at Johannesburg : felt like the pilot was having to fly the plane like a fighter - everybody clapped and cheered when he landed ! Presumably to him it was just "another landing at Joburg". Rcbutcher (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umbenennungen Flugzeugbilder

Hallo Uli Danke für deine Anfrage bezüglich der Dateinamen meiner Flugzeugbilder. Du kannst die Dateinamen gerne gemäss deinem Vorschlag umbenennen (verschieben). Ich habe jeweils leider keine Zeit, schon beim Hochladen jedes einzelne Bild mit dem korrekten Typ zu benennen, und bin sehr froh, wenn dies jemand nachträglich übernimmt. Viele Grüsse, Noebu (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solche Umbenennungsorgien treffen aber nur selten auf Gegenliebe. Sämtliche per InstantCommons genutzte Dateien warden nicht mehr angezeigt. Die Umbenennungen bieten keinen Mehrwert, schaffen nur Probleme. --2003:84:AC76:4916:C948:11CB:E888:913C 19:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Habe mal die ganze Diskussion gelesen, die eigentlich hierher in Commons gehört und nicht in ein deutsches Fachportal. Die Lage zur "Gegenliebe" ist demnach durchaus geteilt, z. B. "... dass sich einige vor einer gewissen Ordnung fürchten."

Hilfreich wäre für alle Diskutanden, auch für diese anonyme IP hier, sich einmal der Lektüre von Commons:File renaming zu widmen: "an official guideline on Wikimedia Commons" - vollständig, mit allen Zwecken, Einschränkungen und dem Konsens: "Currently there are six widely undisputed uses for rename requests".

Ebenfalls ignoriert wird offenbar von vielen, die sich in der obigen Disk auslassen, was in Commons:Dateibenennung steht:

- Names should be descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray.

- Titel von Mediendateien sollten in der gewählten Sprache aussagekräftig und hilfreich sein.

Was offenbar viele nicht wissen (wollen): Mit der üblichen Suchfunktion rechts oben kann man files auch unter dem alten Namen jederzeit wiederfinden, da ein automatischer redirect angelegt wird. --Uli Elch (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Das hilft bei InstantCommons rein gar nichts. --2003:84:AC76:4998:E1C1:1356:333A:D166 20:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another request for education on tagging images of landing aircraft

File:VH-QPE 'Port Lincoln' Airbus A330-303 Qantas (8634739330).jpg Dark band around rear of engine shows thrust rever deployed, is this correct ? Is this tyre smoke or just dust behand main wheels ? Seems like the aircraft has touched down for some time... Rcbutcher (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reversers is correct. Behind main wheels appears to be just some water spray of a wet or moist runway, in about the middle to late part of the landing roll phase. --Uli Elch (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Landing with no tyre smoke ?

File:7T-WIU (8589226277).jpg judging from leading-edge slats deployed looks like a landing... but no tyre smoke on what looks like a touchdown. Do some aircraft have mechanism to avoid that ? I would have tough conserving tyres on military transports was a good idea.Rcbutcher (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:7T-WIU (8590326716).jpg with the same timestamp appears to show the aircraft further back on the runway and fully grounded.. so is this actulally a take off ? So why the leading slats deployed ? thanks for your patience. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- The "second" picture ...716 is actually the first one: the a/c is still 4 to 6 m above the RWY! Attitude and flap setting are typical for a landing. The real second photo ...277 may be the exact moment of touchdown, just before any smoke could develop.

- There is NO mechanism to reliably avoid the friction leading to tyre smoke, neither civilian nor military.

- The leading edge slats are being deployed for takeoff on almost any a/c equipped with them, see this one or (my all-time favourite type of those I've flown) this B-727. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for patient response. I should study photos more carefully and think more before posting. I could have looked at take off photos for examples of slat settings such as you provided (which in fact I had tagged as take offs !) Rcbutcher (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Volga-Dnepr Antonov An-124 Mancin.jpg landing on 35R at Milan Malpensa ?

This time I studied the enlarged photograph and the Google maps airport runway layout... runway looks near south end of 35R, indicating landing ? But I can't see extended flaps even on large image view.. but no sign of aircraft rotaing. What have I failed to spot this time ? thanks, Rod

After having thoroughly checked the the Google Earth images, I agree with you that threshold 35R is the only possibility, definitely making it a landing. Concerning the flaps, which are not retracted, but indeed look to be somewhat on the takeoff side: I'm not familiar with the different possible flap settings of the An-124. Maybe it's a normal option for landing, maybe they had some abnormal reason to deploy flaps only partially for that landing. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rear-engined landing angles

Rear-engined aircraft such as DC-10, Tristar seem to land at a much steeper angle i.e. with high nose, correct ? I find it diificult to differentiate these between landing and take off e.g. File:Lockheed L-1011-500 Tristar, EuroAtlantic Airways JP377877.jpg - seems to have have leading-edge slats and flaps extended, looks like a landing, correct ? This would be very steep for a Boeing or Airbus landing though ? Rcbutcher (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pitch angle for landing approach has nothing to do with the engine configuration, such as rear-engined aircraft. See this Lufthansa CityLine CRJ-200 or Air Nostrum CRJ-200; somebody (???) kindly supplies whole lists of aircraft "on final approach" (grin) ...

Instead, the pitch angle depends on several other factors:

aerodynamic properties of the type
approach speed, itself depending on weight and wind correction factors
selected flap setting

(...to be continued - complex subject. Please standy with replies.) --Uli Elch (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Aircraft at unidentified locations"

Hello - today it's my turn to ask you for something. I stumbled upon the "Category:Aircraft at unidentified locations". Noticing that some photos have been inserted into this cat which show just sky, but do not contain any clue whatsoever to find out the location, I think those should not be labelled as "unidentified". An example is this one. Best regards --Uli Elch (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put them in "unidentified location" because that is factually correct, to at least put them somewhere, whether or not they can be later located. It is possible that location can be identified by metadata : date + aircraft registration/type + airline, or by looking at metadata of original source, or by contacting the author. My attitude is that most such images are locatable, info in the metadata is as useful as the image itself - that is detective work !
In the case of your example photograph, author Philippe Noret - AirTeamimages, all his photos seem to be at Paris-Charle de Gaulle, I will contact him.

Rcbutcher (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also notice that the original photo uploaded on 14 Jan 2006 by EyOne (taken by Philippe Noret, Charles de Gaulle, 23-January-2005) was replaced on 1 April 2006 by a totally different image not in Philippe Noret's collection. Seems to be an example of Wiki uploader screwing things up, needs reverting to correct sourced version. So - another mystery solved.Rcbutcher (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another takeoff/landing question

1) File:J-Air CRJ200ER(JA201J 7452) (2520885162).jpg a) Shows main wheels semi-extended, indicating retraction after take off to me, but flaps appear to be extended which looks like landing to me. What am I failing to understand here ? b) Does nose wheel normally extend/retract before or after main wheels ? regards, Rod.

2) File:UsairwaysN419aw 07302009.jpg shows a CRJ200 landing with apparently much more extreme flap angle. So is the answer that flaps are deployed to a small angle, depending on aircraft model, on take off but to a much greater angle on landing ? thanks. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) File:Canadair CL-600-2B19 Regional Jet CRJ-200LR, Lufthansa Regional (Lufthansa CityLine) AN1060227.jpg here's CRJ200 take off with no apparent flap setting at all. I'm confused. Do I need to take a pilot's course to really understand the settings ? Rcbutcher (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again after a break. File 1): a) Obviously a gear retraction after take off (or, rather seldom, in a go-around). For takeoffs usually more than one flap setting is available, depending for example on RWY length, obstacle climb gradient, RWY contamination, wind & temperature and other factors. So no contradiction here. b) The sequence of retraction of nose (NLG) and main (MLG) landing gear varies from type to type. Some retract everything simultaneously, others NLG first, others MLG first. Even an assymetry between left and right MLG may occur (typical for the DC-3!). NB: The same applies for extension.

File 2): The answer is YES. On almost all types the takeoff settings (plural!) are smaller than the standard landing settings. Smaller flap angles than usual for a landing may occur in technically abnormal cases or in extreme wind conditions like possible windshear etc.

File 3): If you look closely at the aft wing root, you see a flap angle, albeit small (maybe 5 to 8 degrees). This could be the smallest possible takeoff flap setting for this type. Example: On the B-727 you have 3 flap settings available for takeoff: 5 - 15 - 25 degrees, and 30 or 40 for landing. Also refer to my reply for File 1). --Uli Elch (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! I am now a qualified pilot. (or maybe photo tagger). regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about plane landing or takeoff

File:DutchCaribbeanExel Boeing 767-300ER Hoppe-1.jpg Hi Uli, flaps appear to be extended indicating landing, but wheels appear to be retracting indicating takeoff. Your opinion ? thanks, Rod. 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hallo after a while ... The gear is indeed in the retraction phase. The flaps, however, appear not to be in the fully extended landing position; please compare with the considerably different angle in this one. --- Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sinnlose Verschiebungen

Unterlasse es, sinnvoll benannte Dateien zu verschieben. Dafr gibt es weder einen Grund noch Konsens hier. Trage lieber selbst Fotos bei, die kannst du dann benennen, wie du willst - und die können dann andere Aktivisten umbenennen. --Ralf Roleček 09:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ich kann Dir nur noch mal raten, hierzu zu lesen: Commons:Dateibenennung: Dateinamen sollten beschreiben, was auf dem Bild dargestellt wird - und eben nicht Hunderte von Bildern mit exakt demselben Text reinschmeißen, der eben gerade nichts über den Bildinhalt aussagt.

Auch noch mal zum Nachlesen: Commons:File renaming, hier insbesondere "Which files should be renamed?". Punkt 2.: "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays." Näher erläutert noch einmal in der Fußnote 2., Erläuterungen Punkt 7: "... that do not describe the subject of the file." Genau das ist der Punkt: Die alten, im Text allesamt identischen Titel beschreiben eben nicht das Motiv der Bilder, sondern sind diesbezüglich "meaningless", also nichtssagend.

Mach das mit den Dateinamen doch einfach von Anfang an korrekt, dann brauchst Du Dich nicht zu ärgern, und wenn Du sagst "Irgendwelche Richtlinien interessieren mich nicht", dann brauchst Du Dich wirklich nicht künstlich aufzuregen, wenn andere Mitarbeiter sich um deren Einhaltung kümmern und immer wieder mit viel Mühe hinter ein paar Leuten aufräumen müssen, die meinen, dass Regeln immer nur für die anderen gelten. Mit den Regeln für alle ist es ein bißchen so, wie mit 80 km/h durch die Stadt zu rasen und sich über dann Abzocke zu beschweren, wenn man geblitzt wird.

Bemerkenswert ist es natürlich, wenn ausgerechnet jemand öffentlich kundtut, dass ihn die Regeln nicht interessieren, der sich mehr als oft genug schöne Reisen von Wikipedia-Geldern sponsorn lässt.

Da Du auch seither keinerlei Dateien in diesem Bereich entsprechend selbst korrekt umbenennannt hast, was ich Dir schon letztes Jahr vorgeschlagen hatte, werde ich zukünftig solche im bellenden Vopo-Ton vorgetragenen "Befehle" wie "Unterlasse es!" ignorieren. Ich habe mir schon genug Mühe mit den Versuchen gemacht, Dich um Regeleinhaltung zu bitten. Das war's dann. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Na gut, dann werde ich die kiryllischen Beschreibungen und Namen wieder übernehmen, dann habe ich vor Trollen wie dir wenigstens einigermaßen Ruhe. Die Dateinamen beschreiben bei mir, was drauf zu sehen ist, haben Datum und Urheber. Deine Sicht der Dinge ist eben nur deiine. --Ralf Roleček 13:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nur mal auf die Schnelle gefunden zu Deiner Behauptung "beschreiben bei mir, was drauf zu sehen ist": Hier hast Du 52 mal exakt denselben Text als Bildtitel eingegeben ("fotofluege-cux-allg"), obwohl die Bilder lauter vollkommen verschiedene Objekte zeigen.

Genau für solche völlig sinnlosen (und massenhaft identischen) Dateibenennungen ist die Regel gemacht, die eine "Änderung komplett bedeutungsloser oder zweideutiger Namen in sinnvolle, die beschreiben, was auf dem Bild zu sehen ist" vorsieht.

Ansonsten keine Angst - ich werde mich nicht dazu provozieren lassen, mich auf Deine sprachliche und geistige Ebene zu begeben, die Du mit "Troll", "Vandale", "Bockmist" aufweist, auch nicht in Sachen Rechtschreibung (denn soviel Mühe sollte schon sein). --Uli Elch (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another take off/landing question

File:747-8I (N6067E) takeoff.jpg Hi there Uli, would you like to give an opinion on whether this is a landing or take off, and why ? Caption says it's a take off but there seems to be a heavy flap angle... Rcbutcher (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Though I have never flown the 747-800 (only the -200 and -400), I presume the flap settings are similar or even identical. If so, this appears to be the maximum flap setting for takeoffs. However, the open landing gear doors are more important: They indicate the start of the transition phase during which the gears are being moved, in this case probably retracted. It would be theoretically possible but extremely unlikely to land with open gear doors. Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, I assume that there is a short interval just after take off when the doors will still be closed ? Here's the same aircraft at Boeing Field 52 minutes later, with the doors closed. I'm assuming this is a landing approach after a short test flight ? File:Wide-angle Boeing 747 Intercontinental.jpg Thanks. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) "short interval just after take off when the doors will still be closed": on big airliners there is a widespread procedure to move the gear lever to "Up" once "positive rate" of climb is indicated. This takes a few seconds after liftoff.

2) "Landing approach" is correct. Note the different angle of the aft part of the inboard flaps, which are of the double-slotted type. --Uli Elch (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft in rain question

File:Boeing 747-428F-ER-SCD, AirBridgeCargo Airlines - ABC AN2053697.jpg

Based on non-extended flaps this looks like a take off in rain, correct ? Thanks, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct! --Uli Elch (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date at airport

Hi Uli, please add date at airport if you update an airplane photograph, it adds value to the image. Regards, Rod in Sydney. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am presently trying to provide hundreds of files with the most important and basic category of all: The type. More than half did not have ANY cat at all - some uploaders are reckless enough not even to put them into the "Aircraft" cat. If I would add several considerably less important categories like dates, places, colors, flight phases etc. I would never have a chance to pull most of those files out of their current hidden anonymity. You are very welcome to add any other cats, but please be so kind and respect the priorities. Thank you! --Uli Elch (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand your process. Regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dateibenennung

Hallo Uli,
Ich war im Urlaub und habe Fotos von Fliegern gemacht, die recht selten zu sehen sind und ich gerne hier hochladen will. Gedacht habe ich mir beispielsweise folgende Benennung:

F-ONGA Air Austral Boeing 737-89M(WL) (???????????).jpg

Dabei ist mir aufgefallen, dass einige Dateien einen elfstelligen Zahlencode in den Klammern haben (bspw. hier oder hier). Weißt du, was diese Zahlenkombinationen bedeuten? Vielen Dank im Voraus! Grüße --KSF350 (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo KSF350. Soweit ich weiß, werden diese Zahlencodes irgendwie automatisch vergeben. Bei meinen wenigen uploads ist das allerdings noch nicht passiert. Vermutlich wird das bei von Flickr hochgeladenen files (von einem bot?) generiert, denn der Code entspricht den Endziffern der ursprünglichen Flickr-Nummer. Fazit: eigentlich keine echte Ahnung.

Zum Inhalt des Dateinamens: Es gab mal in den vielhundertseitigen Diskussionen wenigstens einen (1) Konsens, nach dem bei Flugzeugen mindestens enthalten sein sollten:

- Typ (immer)

- zusätzlich: Betreiber und / oder Luftfahrzeugkennzeichen und / oder Ort & Datum. Von diesen zusätzlichen Merkmalen sollte möglichst mindestens eines enthalten sein.

Siehe hierzu auch

Commons:Dateibenennung bzw. Commons:File naming,

Commons:Dateien verschieben > "Welche Dateien sollten umbenannt werden?". --- Viele Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, vielen Dank! Eine Frage hätte ich dann noch. Wenn ich von ein und demselben Flugzeug mehrere Bilder hochladen will, soll ich dann beispielsweise (2) oder (DDMMYYYY1/2/...) hinzufügen? Bei der zweiten Variante wären nämlich alle Kriterien für die Dateibenennung erfüllt.--KSF350 (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fall a): ein und dasselbe Flugzeug, mehrere Bilder am selben Tag & Ort (z.B. verschiedene Perspektiven): >>> dann entweder (DDMMYYYY 1/2/...)* oder einfach (1), (2) (*: besser mit Leertaste nach Datum, wg. Übersichtlichkeit & Suchfunktion)

Fall b): ein und dasselbe Flugzeug, verschiedene Tage/Orte: >>> dann bieten sich die jeweiligen Einträge für Datum bzw. Aufnahmeort an. --- Viele Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, vielen Dank! Ich werde mich daran halten.--KSF350 (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Uli Elch, neue Namen wie File:Airbus A400M (Airbus) FIA2014 (15054088459).jpg sind aber auch nicht optimal. Dass das zweite, eingeklammerte "Airbus" für den Betreiber steht, ist nicht selbsterklärend. Auf den ersten Blick sieht es einfach wie eine überflüssige Dopplung aus. Hier könnte man z. B. den Betreiber genauer ausführen (Airbus Defence and Space). Das wäre aber immer noch nicht ganz eindeutig, weil es gleichzeitig der Hersteller ist, außerdem ist es unnötig lang. Also besser gleich das Kennzeichen nehmen gemäß Bildinhalt oder Kategorie. Falls das nicht erkennbar oder sicher ist, könnte man einfach "(prototype)" schreiben. Das ist kurz, legt sich nicht auf das evtl. nicht erkennbare oder aus dem Kontext zu erschließende Kennzeichen fest, impliziert aber gleichzeitig, dass es ein Herstellerflugzeug ist. Bei großen Flugschauen wie hier Farnborough sollte sich das Kennzeichen allerdings recherchieren lassen, da fliegt ja gewöhnlich nur ein A400M gleichzeitig. Gruß, --Sitacuisses (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umbenennung

Hallo! Ich habe gerade gesehen, dass du eine der von mir hochgeladenen Dateien umbenannt hast: File:Juist, Flugplatz, Britten-Norman Islander -- 2014 -- 3706.jpg. Ich habe sie wieder in das von mir gewählte Schema zurückbenannt. Davon hängen u. a. weitere Funktionen ab. Allerdings habe ich einen Teil des von dir gewählten Namens übernommen, um deinem Wunsch Rechnung zu tragen.--XRay ^talk 19:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bevor ich es vergesse. Die entfernte Kategorie mag zwar überflüssig erscheinen, wird aber wiederkommen. Das erledigt mein Bot, der die Aufgabe hat, bestimmte Dinge nachzutragen, Kategorien zu sortieren, Fehler zu finden und und und. Das ist für mich der einfachste Weg, wiederkehrende Aufgaben zu erledigen und neuere Erkenntnisse oder Korrekturnotwendigkeiten bei allen meinen Bildern zu berücksichtigen. Von Hand wäre das gar nicht zu machen. Also bitte nicht wundern. --XRay ^talk 19:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für die Infos. Die Umbenennung erfolgte nicht, weil sie "mein Wunsch" war, sondern weil das (Haupt-)Motiv des Bildes nicht "Juist, Flugplatz", sondern das Flugzeug ist. Da dies leider mehrdeutig und ein glasklarer Fall für Commons:File renaming Punkt 2. war, musste ein Dateiname her, der "describes what the image particularly displays", hier also ein bestimmter Flugzeugtyp und dessen Betreiber.

Die Kategorie "Autumn 2014 in Lower Saxony" hatte ich in der Tat fälschlich entfernt, da ich übersehen hatte, dass die andere nicht "Autumn 2014 in Juist" heißt (was eine Unterkategorie gewesen ware), sondern ohne "2014". Sorry dafür!

Noch zwei ganz andere Fragen. 1) Da ich mich noch nie näher mit dem Thema befasst habe: Was macht ein Foto wie dieses zu einem "Quality image"?

2) Aus welchem Grund trägt es die Kategorie "Objects with inscriptions in German needing translation"? --Uli Elch (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerne will ich es erklären. Es ist ein Qualitätsbild, weil ich es nominiert habe und ein anderer es für gut befunden hat. Wahrscheinlich wolltest du das gar nicht wissen, aber du kennst Commons:Qualitätsbilder? Es entspricht den Kriterien dort, das ist alles. Nur man muss es halt durch das Nominierungsverfahren bringen. Bei Interesse kann ich dir gerne Unterstützung anbieten. Ein Qualitätsbild muss nicht ausgesprochen schön sein, aber fotografisch in Ordnung. Für die richtig tollen Bilder gibt es Commons:Exzellente Bilder. Der Dateiname wäre vielleicht ein kleines Problem, denn du hast Recht, er sollte besser sein. Ich neige manchmal zu zu kurzen Namen. Wenn es mir selbst auffällt, benenne ich sie direkt um. Nur mein Namensschema muss halt bleiben. Ich habe da einen etwas komplexen Bot, der auch Kategorien ergänzt und vieles kontrolliert. Er zieht Informationen aus den Dateinamen, anderen Kategorien, Beschreibungstexten und etlichen, auf meine Bilder zugeschnittenen Konfigurationsdaten, die aber nur auf meinem heimischen PC liegen. Die eher langweiligen, vielleicht aus Sicht mancher User unnützen Kategorien würde ich nie von Hand ergänzen. Das wäre mir zu öde und kostet zu viel Zeit. Nur es sollen halt alle meine Bilder im Grunde alle Informationen beinhalten. Und der zweite Teil deiner Frage: Es ist ein Automatismus des Inscription-Templates. Taucht Text im Bild auf, ergänze ich das Inscription-Template oder ein ähnliches. So steht der Text in der Beschreibung und kann auch bei der Suche erfasst werden. Suchmaschinen haben mit Inhalten von Bildern eher Probleme. Eigentlich müsste ich die englische Übersetzung noch ergänzen, aber damit komme ich nicht nach. Fehlt die Übersetzung, steht dort die von dir bemerkte Kategorie. --XRay ^talk 14:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft in flight

Wie ich sehe, hast du massenhaft Starts (und Landungen?) aus dieser Kategorie entfernt, obwohl die Flugzeuge eindeutig noch fliegen und nicht etwa am Boden rollen. Soweit ich sehen kann, sind Category:Starts in aviation und Category:Landings in aviation keine Unterkategorien von Category:Aircraft in flight. Ebenso gibt es bei "Aircraft in flight" keine Einschränkungen für Flugrichtung und -eigenschaften, also warum hast du dann diese Bilder entfernt? De728631 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N'Abend!

Betreffend Deinen revert hier:

Das Flugzeug fliegt in der Tat ganz offensichtlich. Aber: "Saab 2000 take offs" ist halt doch eine Unterkategorie von "Aircraft in flight":

Aircraft in flight > Aircraft maneuvres > Starts in aviation > Starts in aviation by aircraft type > Airliner take offs by aircraft type > Fokker 50 take offs.

Ich gebe allerdings zu, dass man dies nicht auf den allerersten Blick auch nur ahnen kann (eher auf den sechsten!).

Ich hatte schon vor rund 2 Jahren in Category talk:Starts in aviation darauf hingewiesen, dass "Starts" hier eher "Takeoffs" heißen sollte, leider ohne Erfolg.

(Bis hierher hatte ich schon einen Entwurf für Deine talk page fertig)

Nachtrag zu Deinem neuesten Beitrag auf meiner Seite:

Category:Starts in aviation und Category:Landings in aviation sind sehr wohl Unterkategorien von Category:Aircraft in flight, und zwar via Category:Aircraft maneuvres, wie schon oben erläutert.

Viele Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ganz so weit nach oben war ich doch nicht gegangen. Dann ist alles klar. Vielen Dank für die Erklärung. De728631 (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Das ist ja unter den Kategorien auch ein regelrechter Mammutbaum und kein Kategorie-Bonsai. Noch n'schönen Abend! Viele Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luxair Bombardier DHC-8-402 Q400 LX-LGH (23782418804).jpg

Hi,

May I ask why you've put this file and some other in Category:Images of aircraft without type category - the file is in Category:LX-LGH (DHC-8-Q400) which shows the aircraft type?

Regards --Jwh (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning (same local time in Luxembourg as in your easterly neighbor country) and thank you for your friendly and polite question.

The background for the above error - for which I have to apologize - is the uploading of many thousands of aircraft files by user "The Photographer". As you can see here, he uploaded an awful number of files, about 99,8% of them without any category. Therefore I first put them into the above mentioned category on a wholesale basis in order not to miss files which would have gone completely undetected for possibly a very long time. Due to the sheer number of files a few mistakes inevitably happened; the idea was to correct them one by one when going through that more or less temporary category "Images of aircraft without type category". Fortunately there are several more experts (not only me!) who are working through that cat and assigning the appropriate type categories gradually.

The same problem occurred with uploads by user "Slangcamms". Since he is new here and possibly inexperienced I dropped him a note in order to prevent such actions in future.

If you should note any other cases like LX-LGH you are very welcome to remove this temporary cat. You are also invited to take care of any other files which actually lack the aircraft type, thus helping to reduce the currently very high backlog. By the way: If you prefer, we could as well communicate in German. --- I hope you may understand my intentions and sorry again for that mistake. Best regards --Uli Elch (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see (thought I missed the point...). Thanks for your explanations, have a nice day! --Jwh (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rcbutcher - Passed away

I have been in communication with friends of Roderick Charles Butcher (11 November 1954 – 28 April 2017) since he passed away, and "Rcbutcher" stopped editing here at Wikimedia (14 November 2005 – 28 April 2017). Rod's extraordinary contributions to Wikimedia, especially on WWI history and imagery, was mentioned in an eulogy at the service held Tuesday 16th May, 2017 at 12:45pm at Northern Suburbs Memorial Gardens and Crematorium, North Ryde.

Vale Roderick Charles Butcher (Rcbutcher).

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences go out to his friends and family. RIP Rcbutcher.--John Cline (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rcbutcher was one of our most prolific contributors to Wikimedia Commons, with over 228,000 edits on that project making a significant contribution to the quality and accessibility of our collections. This is sad news. I only knew him by his account name in our virtual world, occasionally working together in a quiet and collegiate way. His many years of steady improvements to avionics and military images using his expert knowledge in these topics will be much missed, and leaves a legacy that benefits public knowledge and education. I am grateful for his volunteer work and enjoyment of the subject. --Fæ (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences, too. We had a lot of very friendly exchanges on my talk page. He was always eager to learn something new about the operation of heavy jets in order to categorize files in a correct manner. I miss a very professional and friendly colleague. --Uli Elch (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vickers VC10

Are you going to rename the VC10 as a military aircraft too? After all, the RAF operated those too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. It was used as both a tanker and military transport aircraft. Would you dispute the DC-3 was a military aircraft too, in addition to an airliner? And what about the AW Argosy, of which 17 were delivered to airlines (and "only" 56 to the RAF, clearly disqualifying it as military A/C)?.

By the way: Your user page appears quite outdated: "... no longer active on Wikimedia Commons" - ??? --Uli Elch (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the DC-3 wasn't military, that was the C-47.

You are the reason I'm no longer active here. Not alone, but you, and this sort of behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you actually want to tell us that a C-47 is not a DC-3, OK. Many aircraft types are or have been used in different roles, like the C-130 or the Argosy, even if you prefer not to answer that point.

100 edits in one week = no longer active, OK. - Maybe you might consult a neutral person about your own "behaviour". --Uli Elch (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just stuck here cleaning up the idiocy. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Andy Dingley: Guess what is on the cover page of the latest "Aeromilitaria"? Right, it's a RAF Vickers VC10, namely XR808 delivered to the RAF in 1966 and serving until 2008. "Aeromilitaria" is the AIR-BRITAIN Military (!) Aviation Historical Quarterly.

According to the above, you probably accuse Air-Britain of publishing "idiocy" as well. However, I'm afraid there are too many people around, not you alone, who are lacking the required in-depth knowledge of the subjects they are complaining about. --81.224.250.30 13:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RAF also bought Morris Marinas. That doesn't make them a tank. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kategorien-Zu- und Abgänge beobachten

Hallo Uli!

Bin gerade mit einer schweren Grippe zu Bette, deshalb die Verzögerung. Das mit dem Beobachten der Kategorien-Zu- und Abgänge ist einfacher als gedacht: In den Commons-Einstellungen gibt es im Tab "Beobachtungsliste" ein Kästchen "Kategorisierungen von Seiten in der Beobachtungsliste ausblenden / Hide categorization of pages". Wenn ich das aktiviere, sehe ich keine Zu- und Abgänge in den beobachteten Kategorien. Ich hab's also inaktiv, weiß aber nicht, ob das schon ausreicht, oder ob da noch was anderes hinzukommen muss. Vielleicht hilft Dir das ja weiter!

gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

N'Abend Frank! War eine Weile inaktiv, deshalb die Verzögerung meinerseits. Vielen Dank für den guten Tip(p) - klappt tatsächlich prima!

Anscheinend war der Erkältungsverlauf bei Euch ähnlich wie bei uns: Ich bin meiner Frau mit ca. 5 Tagen Verzögerung hinterhergehinkt; da es genauso ablief, wußte ich immer schon vorher, was mir als Nächstes blüht.

Euch beiden herzliche Grüße und Gute Besserung ! --Uli Elch (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danke! Wir sind schon wieder rekonvaleszent (besser drauf). gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unbefestigte Flugplätze

Hallo Uli Elch, gibt es hier außer deiner Benutzerdiskussionsseite eigentlich ein Forum für Luftfahrtfragen? Mir fallen diverse Lücken im Bereich der Kategorisierung im Zusammenhang mit unbefestigten Flugplätzen auf. Es fing an mit der vergeblichen Suche nach der richtigen Einordnung für Category:Airbus A400M at Pembrey Sands. In Category:Runways gibt es keine Unterteilung nach Material. Dementsprechend finde ich auch keine Kategorie für Flugzeuge, die auf unbefestigten Pisten operieren. Es gibt wohl Category:Aircraft with sand, wo dies und das gesammelt wird, unter anderem auch Flugzeuge in Sand- bzw. Staubwolken. User:ВоенТех hatte kürzlich viele solcher Bilder in die viel zu allgemeine Category:Dust eingeordnet. Die meisten davon habe ich daraufhin nach Category:Aircraft with sand verschoben. Ich könnte mir jedoch auch so etwas wie Category:Aircraft with dust clouds vorstellen, was zur Überkat von Category:Brownout (aeronautics)‎ würde und mit Category:Downwash below helicopters verbunden bzw. abgeglichen werden müsste. Zusätzlich dann aber auch so etwas wie (Bezeichnungen nicht endgültig sprach-gecheckt):

Category:Runways by surface
Category:Aircraft on unpaved surfaces (?)
- Category:Aircraft on sand
- Category:Aircraft on grass
- Category:Aircraft on snow
- Category:Aircraft on gravel

Alles ein bisschen viel auf einmal. Was meinst du zum Thema? --Sitacuisses (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Du bist recht! Wir sollten ein paar mehr schaffen. ВоенТех (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moin. Wie Du sagst: "Alles ein bisschen viel auf einmal." Ich werde versuchen, mich mal in das Thema reinzuknien, fahre aber in Kürze in Urlaub.

Generell (aus dem Bauch heraus) schon mal: Eine Unterteilung nach Material halte auch ich für sinnvoll (befestigt/unbefestigt, Beton/Asphalt/gravel/Gras/Schnee etc.; siehe auch en:Runway#Surface type codes).

Zu dem anderen mit Category:Aircraft with sand: Aircraft im Sand, über Sand oder Ilyushin Il-76 auf Sand bin ich mir noch nicht so schlüssig. Soll man das wirklich immer weiter aufdröseln mit "dust clouds", "brownout", "downwash"? Bei den verwandten Kategorien Category:Aircraft with snow und Category:Aircraft with water gibt es ganz andere Ansätze. Aber - wie gesagt - dies ist noch kein ausgegorener Standpunkt.

Ganz was Anderes: Ich finde, wir sollten das Thema "Bildbeschneidungen (Luftfahrt)" nicht länger der Willkür (dem persönlichen Geschmack!) eines Einzelnen überlassen, zumal wir nun schon zu zweit sind. Die Tätigkeit als Biologielehrer allein [1] ist noch nicht unbedingt die höchste Qualifikationsstufe für solche Fragen. Der selbstgewählte Nutzername hat ja einen interessanten Hintergrund.

Wir sollten m. E. das Thema im (deutschen) Luftfahrt-Portal zur Diskussion stellen. --- Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moin Sitacuisses. Zwischendurch denke ich immer mal wieder über unser Thema "Unbefestigte Flugplätze" nach. Aus dem Hinterkopf heraus habe ich wieder was gefunden: In der etwas zweifelhaften Category:Aircraft with grass fand ich die Category:Aircraft take offs from grass runways und dort tatsächlich: Category:Grass airfields.

Sowohl dort als auch / oder in der Category:Runways ware Potential für (zumindest) einen Teil der von Dir angedachten Ergänzungen.

Aber nur keine unnötige Eile - Omnia tempus habent. Viele Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ja, vielleicht findet sich ja noch mehr. In Category:Aircraft with other subjects würde dann auch so etwas wie Aircraft with dust clouds reinpassen. --Sitacuisses (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moin Sitacuisses. Ich werde im Urlaub mal in Ruhe qua Nachdenken versuchen, einen sinnvollen Aufteilungs-Vorschlag zu erstellen. Bis dahin brauche ich jetzt noch einfach etwas entspannende und wunderbar geistlose Strukturierungstätigkeit. Viele Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dann wünsche ich erst einmal schönen Urlaub. Gruß, --Sitacuisses (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

type-location or manufacturer-location categories

Hi Uli! Sorry for bothering you again. I’m a bit confused about aircraft location-type categories. For example, I expected the Category:Bombardier aircraft at London Oxford Airport to be in the "Aircraft at London Oxford Airport by manufacturer" not "Aircraft at London Oxford Airport by aircraft type". But apparently all the similar categories mix the aircraft type and manufacturer. Another example is Category:Aircraft at Sywell Aerodrome by aircraft type which most of its subcategories are manufacturers not aircraft types! Am I missing something or should they be separated into two branches like:

Aircraft at XXX Airport > Aircraft at XXX Airport by manufacturer > Bombardier aircraft at XXX Airport > Bombardier Challenger at XXX Airport
Aircraft at XXX Airport > Aircraft at XXX Airport by aircraft type > Bombardier Challenger at XXX Airport

-- Meisam (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. To my knowledge there is no category "Aircraft at XXX Airport by manufacturer" so far. Formally, you are quite right since the category name is "Aircraft at London Oxford Airport by aircraft type", but the list is a mix of individual types and manufacturers.

As an example, at Salzburg you have such a mix: Category:Aircraft at Salzburg Airport by aircraft type (except for Agusta).

However, I personally think that omitting an additional layer for just one type is very favourable for both editing and searching:

Until now, it has always been handled by simply creating mid-parent categories like Category:Embraer aircraft at London Oxford Airport, in cases where more than 1 individual type is mentioned (like Embraer Phenom 100 and -300).
With just 1 type there is (mostly) only 1 cat, e.g. Category:British Aerospace BAe 125 at London Oxford Airport instead of creating the additional layer of "BAE aircraft at XXX ...". However, this is very different, and at many airports there are manufacturer cats like "Embraer aircraft at XXX" even if only 1 further sub-category (for 1 type) exists.
Still, everything can be found in Category:Aircraft by location by manufacturer, see Category:Embraer aircraft at London Oxford Airport in the first case. In the second case one goes through the type, like Category:BAE aircraft by location.

As you are nicely showing in your category trees 1. and 2. creating a new layer "Aircraft at XXX Airport by manufacturer" would add to complexity. Apparently, almost everybody has been happy with the current situation, even it is not 100% formally correct but still very well usable. --- Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your wisdom. Hopefully, when I finish with my off-wiki deadlines, I will gather all these information in a draft for aircraft categorization guide. Cheers! -- Meisam (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uetersen Airport renaming

As per Commons:Language policy, it (categories) should be in English (which would make it Uetersen Airfield and not Flugplatz Uetersen). I do hope that there is a solution in the future with the use of Wikidata to solve the multilingual challenges on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed over and over again during many years. As can be seen for French or for Argentinian aerodromes, the respective official airport names are being used, such as "Aérodrome de ..." or "Aeropuerto de ...".

The problem appears to be that the local word for "Airfield" etc. usually is official part of the airport proper name.

As per Commons:Categories "... there are exceptions such as some proper names ... (if) there is no evidence of usage of an English-language version." Please see the definitions in the article proper noun, where "proper name" is defined as well. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft_of_Lufthansa,_to_other_operator

Aircraft of Lufthansa, to other operator 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) 06:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airplanes used as libraries

Hi. Have we got cats for "airplanes used as cafes/libraries/restaurants" etc? Please find a cat or two for File:Çankırı uçak kütüphane.jpg. Ty. --E4024 (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. As far as I know (= I have never seen) there is no category for "airplanes used as cafes/libraries/restaurants", although there may be a few with photos of those.

If it should be created, it would best fit into Category:Preserved aircraft.

Please be so kind and add the Type of aircraft to the categories; I assume it is an Airbus A300 ? --Uli Elch (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aucune idée. I thought you might know. Thanks for the cat. --E4024 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important message for file movers

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]

Welcome, Dear Patroller!

English ∙ español ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ∙ Türkçe ∙ +/−

Hi Uli Elch,

You now have the Patroller right and may call yourself a patroller! Please take a moment to read the updated Commons:Patrol to learn how Patrolling works and how we use it to fight vandalism.

As you know already, the patrolling functionality is enabled for all edits, not just for new-page creations. This enables us to keep track of, for example, edits made by anonymous users here on Commons.

We could use your help at the Counter Vandalism Unit. For example by patrolling an Anonymous-edits checklist and checking a day-part.

If you have any questions please leave a message on the CVU talkpage or ask for help on IRC in #wikimedia-commons.

-- ~riley (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Registrierungskat

Hallo Uli. Du hattest mir im Juli 2018 verboten, Flugzeugregistrierungskategorien anzulegen, wenn nicht vollständige Angaben gemacht werden. Ich habe es jetzt trotzdem noch einmal gewagt: Category:N357PN (aircraft). Ist das so in Ordnung oder soll ich das löschen lassen? --Gereon K. (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Gereon K.. Das ist (fast) perfekt, denn der Flugzeugtyp (Partenavia P.68) ist als Kategorie angegeben, sogar noch in der richtigen Unterkategorie "by registration" (die es bei manchen Flugzeugtypen allerdings nicht gibt - dann eben nur den Typ angeben).

Der einzige kleine, aber nicht schädliche Wermutstropfen: Beim Kategorisieren hast Du außer der korrekten, neuen Kennzeichen-Kat "N357PN (aircraft)" auch noch zusätzlich den Type "Partenavia P.68" eingegegeben. Auf Deutsch sagt man "doppelt gemoppelt", bei WP nennt man das "Over-categorization", weil die Category:Partenavia P.68 by registration schon eine Unterkategorie von Category:Partenavia P.68 ist. Aber - wie gesagt - besser doppelt als gar nicht!

NB: "Verbieten" kann ich natürlich nichts, es war eben eine ganz dringende Bitte, um das "Verstecken" von files zu vermeiden.

Danke für die Rückfrage, und wie gesagt: Bei Fragen zur Luftfahrt allgemein wie auch einzelnen einschlägigen Dateien stehe ich gerne zur Verfügung, sowohl hier als auch in der de:WP. Freundliche Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:F-ZBGG (aircraft)

Hallo Uli, du bist doch jetzt schon lange dabei. Da müsstest du doch wissen, dass es sinnlos ist, Kategorien anzulegen, die nicht in Oberkategorien sind. Was soll denn das? Wenn es von diesem Hubschrauber nur ein einziges File gibt, ist es doch auch total sinnlos, eine eigene Kategorie dafür anzulegen. Grüße --Stanzilla (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo. Zuerst mal zu Punkt 2) (... nur ein einziges File gibt, ist es doch auch total sinnlos, eine eigene Kategorie dafür anzulegen.): Wenn Du Dir z.B. mal die Category:Boeing 707 by registration anschaust (ein Gerät, das ich selbst etliche Jahre bewegt habe), wirst Du sehen, dass es für ganz viele Flugzeuge nur 1 Bild gibt. Wenn die alle - wie du meinst - keine Kat bekommen sollten, dann könnte man nicht ohne weiteres und vor allem nicht nach System nach der D-ABUG oder der F-BLCF suchen; die Fotos davon würden freischwebend und weitgehend unauffindbar im Orbit schweben. Wie ich sehe, befasst Du Dich eigentlich gar nicht mit Luftfahrt, sondern eher und viel mit Botanik, Insekten, Schlössern und anderem. Wenn es nun von einem bestimmten Schloss oder Käfer nur ein einziges Bild gäbe, würdest Du dann auf eine Kategorie innerhalb unserer sehr nützlichen Kategoriebäume verzichten? Im hiesigen Luftfahrtbereich wird das jedenfalls nicht gemacht, und das ist nicht meine Erfindung, sondern "war schon immer so".

Und zum Punkt 1): Ebenfalls gängig ist es im Luftfahrtbereich, für ein neues Luftfahrzeugkennzeichen manchmal zunächst erst mal einen Rotlink anzulegen (dürfte Dir bei Deiner noch viel längeren zeitlichen Erfahrung geläufig sein), von denen dann meist etliche "auf einen Rutsch" aktiviert werden, um die weitgehend gleichen benötigten Eigenschafts-Kategorien nicht immer wieder neu kopieren zu müssen.

Ich hoffe, ich konnte verständlich erklären, was und warum so manches in dieser anderen Welt (Luftfahrt) Usus ist. Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bei euch ist also alles anders, denn nein, das machen wir beides weder bei Schlössern, noch bei Tieren, noch bei Pflanzen so.--Stanzilla (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue skies

Hello, you have removed a lot of images from the category Blue sky, like in this case. What's the problem with that? Poco a poco (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. The problem is that "blue sky" per definitionem is a purely blue sky without any clouds. How would you define a "blue sky", with 30%, 50% or 90% clouds ? In the file you have reverted there is a 100% blue sea, but not more than about 60% blue sky. Best regards --Uli Elch (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft_at_Imperial_War_Museum_Duxford_by_aircraft_type

Aircraft at Imperial War Museum Duxford by aircraft type 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) 12:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Uli Elch (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why this edit?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Super_Guppy_N941_NASA_landing_(crop).jpg&diff=586783295&oldid=570109727&diffmode=source

Not a big deal, just curious if I'm missing something. Perhaps it's category should be in Category:Blue, silver, white aircraft instead? — Huntster (t @ c) 20:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. The linked one belongs into Category:Unpainted aircraft, into which I have put it now, somewhat belatedly - sorry. It is unpainted, in natural metal.

"Silver-colored aircraft" are not "unpainted", they are painted like this example or like this Bristol Freighter. Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, though the blue strip and white bottom make any of our classifications problematic, lol. Do you think it would be inappropriate to just drop Category:N941NA (aircraft) into Category:Unpainted aircraft, rather than individual photos, since the aircraft has been in that livery since just after it was acquired by NASA? — Huntster (t @ c) 12:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, can you tell if its sister ships in Airbus livery (Category:F-BTGV (aircraft), Category:F-BPPA (aircraft)‎, Category:F-GDSG (aircraft)) are painted silver or bare metal? — Huntster (t @ c) 12:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After thoroughly checking a lot of files, the Airbus Guppies are definitely not painted silver.

If (!) the NASA one should be categorized, it would be more practical to move the entire category iso all the individual photos.

However, in both cases the a/c are not really "unpainted", considering all the stripes. Strictly speaking, "unpainted" would not even allow a stripe or a logo. --- Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think you're right on that last point. Probably better to just leave them uncategorised rather than improperly classifying them. Appreciate your thoughts on the matter! — Huntster (t @ c) 13:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airports by year, Teil 1

(copy from User talk:AnRo0002) :moin @Uli Elch, nachdem ich 2011 auf ein Minimum reduziert habe, bin ich jetzt bei 2012 dran, in bälde sind dann alle Bilder möglichst in den Monatskategorien. Gruss anro (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:P.S. : Im übrigen habe ich dieser Tage eine Navi-Vorlage für Verkehrsflughäfen in DE erstellt (Militärische Flugplätze hab ich außen vor gelassen), die auch die Unterkategorien erfassen kann, siehe z.B. Category:Frankfurt Airport. Die Vorlage liegt hier Template:Airports in Germany. Falls ich einen Flughafen übersehen haben sollte, sag mir bescheid. Gruss anro (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Airports by year, Teil 2

(copy from Category talk:Frankfurt Airport photographs taken on 2012-05-14)

Vorlage

@Uli Elch, für die Erstellung einer Tages-Kategorie für den Frankfurter Flughafen kannst Du die Vorlage {{Frankfurt Airport photographs taken on navbox}} benutzen, die verlinkt automatisch auf die Monatekategorie für den Flughafen und die Tages-Kategorien für FFM und für aviation. Gruss anro (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Airports by year, Teil 3

Hallo noch mal, User:AnRo0002.

Was mir nicht klar geworden ist, sind die verschiedenen Resultate bei identisch aussehenden Templates

Stuttgart: [2]
München-Riem: [[3]

Im ersten Fall ist die Category:1990 at airports vorhanden, im zweiten fehlt sie. ??? Viele Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Uli, die Vorlagen-Einbindung ist identisch, nicht aber die Vorlage selbst. Das habe ich jetzt geändert. Gruss anro (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prima, vielen Dank!

Aber wenn du ohnehin gerade beim Ändern unlogischer Templates bist:

Unter anderem in der Category:1990 in aviation ist wohl auch was komisch mit dem Template der sub-cat Category:Airlines disestablished in 1990. Die erscheint nämlich bei "1990 in aviation" unter "A", während die parallele Category:Airlines established in 1990 schon oben (korrekt) unter dem "*" auftaucht. Da staunt der Laie ... Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Das ist jetzt angeglichen anro (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nochmals herzlichen Dank! Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:2009-12-11 Loxx Berlin 80.jpg

Hallo Uli Ich möchte dich gerne vor den Folgen eines Edit Wars bewahren, aber was du an diesem Bild machst funktioniert so definitiv nicht. Du solltest dich an mich wenden, bevor du abermals meine Kategorie entfernst. Immerhin hast du es jetzt beim dritten Mal geschafft, endlich eine Begründung anzugeben. Das hätte ich gerne auf meiner Diskussionsseite gehabt, bevor du das dritte mal diese Änderung vornimmst. Hier an dieser Stelle werde ich keine inhaltliche Diskussion starten. Ich erwarte und hoffe, dass du dich bei mir meldest, wenn du mit meiner Kategorisierung unzufrieden bist. Bis dahin werde ich die Änderung auf den ursprünglichen Zustand zurück setzen. Lukas Beck (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"An aircraft is a vehicle or machine that is able to fly". rifft auf dieses Spielzeug definitiv nicht zu. Im Hinblick auf die weit auseinander klaffenden Zahlen unserer WP-Erfahrungen: erkennbar hoffnungsloser Fall. --Uli Elch (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ich muss meinem Vorredner Recht geben. Ich bitte dich auch, von arroganten Aussagen bzgl. vermeintlich mangelnder WP-Erfahrung abzusehen, da dies nämlich gegen die Wikiquette verstösst und uns in keinster Weise weiterhilft. Und um zum Thema zurückzukommen, unsere Kategorien hier auf Commons (in der (deutschen) WP mag das anders sein!) erfordern nicht zwingend, dass auf dem so kategorisierten Bild exakt dieses Objekt dargestellt ist. Ein inhaltlicher Bezug ist vielmehr notwendig, das heißt auch darauf bezogene abgeleitete Werke sind natürlich zulässig. Eine ebenfalls zulässige Alternative (die du jedoch nicht vorgeschlagen hattest) wäre, eine Unterkategorie für Modelle bzw. Nachbildungen dieses Flugzeugs zu erstellen und das Bild dorthin zu verschieben; diese Unterkategorie wäre aber dann, statt der Datei, genauso in die Flugzeug-Kategorie einzusortieren. MfG --A.Savin 18:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn eine offizielle (ICAO) und in Wikipedia zitierte Definition keine Rolle spielen soll, dann kann man auch einen Hund als "Railway" kategorisieren, vorausgesetzt, er hat mal eine gesehen. Irgendwo muss man doch einen seriösen Rahmen einhalten und dazu gehört auch, nicht ein Spielzeug als "aircraft" zu klassifizieren, das definitiv nicht fliegen kann. --Uli Elch (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dann mach'mal eine Unterkategorie wie bereits oben erwähnt, wobei sich das allerdings für dieses eine Foto, aus einem ganz anderen Grund, inzwischen erledigt zu sein scheint. MfG --A.Savin 18:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Man 1 4 12 (7035251579).jpg

File:Man 1 4 12 (7035251579).jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: Broken redirect (迷子のリダイレクト))

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : MathXplore.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:MAN 12 6 11 (5824780118).jpg

File:MAN 12 6 11 (5824780118).jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: Broken redirect (迷子のリダイレクト))

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : MathXplore.

And also:

File:Man 3 7 11 (5895110626).jpg ( Nominator : MathXplore | Reason : Broken redirect (迷子のリダイレクト) )

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Man 24 April 2011 (5650621887).jpg

File:Man 24 April 2011 (5650621887).jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: Broken redirect (迷子のリダイレクト))

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : MathXplore.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about category removal

Hi Uli, just wondering why the category was removed in this edit. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 14:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. Titles, categories etc. are usually related to the (main) subject of a picture. The pilot here is clearly such a subject, however this is a case where the aircraft, even though in the background, might be considered a secondary subject. I can set it back, if it disturbs you. Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: This file in question is a cruel example of a perverse accumulation of irrelevant categories. --Uli Elch (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it doesn't bother me per se, was just curious what I might have been missing. And I do agree with you on that second part; unfortunately, while I have seen a handful of discussions relating to overcategorization recently, nothing has come out of it. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:CV-600 N94253 Texas Intl. F0 A17-4-b.jpg

Hi, given the September 1973 date, are you sure that File:CV-600 N94253 Texas Intl. F0 A17-4-b.jpg was taken at DFW Airport (and not Dallas Love Field, or some other airport)? DFW wasn't (officially) open yet, and the buildings in the background don't look brand-new as one might have expected. I enjoyed seeing the photo, in any case. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Since I am absolutely sure of the date (September 17, 1973) and having checked DFW's history, you must be right. On that day I travelled from Acapulco back to Phoenix, changing planes at "Dallas".

Some 45 years later I had my photographs digitized and obviously wrongly put in "DFW" for Dallas.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment. I have checked whether there might be more pictures at Dallas during that journey and corrected them, like this one. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get in contact with you in your role as editor on https://aviation-safety.net =

I hope this is not an abuse of this page, but I would like to get in contact with you, as I suspect you are the same person as the one editing this here: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/192267 I think the pilot of this plane was my father. I know only what I was told about this plane crash (as a child), and I am wondering if there are strategies to find out more about my father's crash almost 50 years ago. You can contact me at ra@h5.or.at or +43 650 7257443. If this request is completely out of line, then please apologize. Ralph Aichinger (25Aug23)

Douglas DC-6 built in 1958

My change, which you reverted, merely made the cat consistent with the treatment of the DC-7 and DC-8 in 1958 and virtually every aircraft type and year. You are out of step here, please revert. Also I think calling my change vandalism was a bit out of order. Ardfern (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who is out of step here compared with ALL the other DC-6s. However, you are in line with yout prev ious contin ous vandalism of the of the DC-7 and DC-8. --Uli Elch (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft vs. airplanes

I'm categorizing De Havilland DH.106 Comet into 1940s airplanes to distinguish between airplanes and other aircraft. But I found that you're reverting my changes as "faulty deletions". What's wrong with this? Airplanes are powered fixed-wing aircraft. There might be helicopters, gliders or other aircraft in the 1940s that were not airplanes. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the hitherto complete and full categories like "1940s aircraft" (with 678 entries) do exist, it is pure vandalism to delete a few entries and put them into the really tiny categories like "1940s airplanes" (with just 9 entries!). --Uli Elch (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the logic. 678 entries are too much for hierarchical categories (it might be fine for non-hierarchical categories like flat lists). This is why I'm subdividing aircraft into different types. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot have 2 categories in parallel as long as there is no general solution. It will not be possible to find individual aircraft/airplane types which have been arbitrarily distributed between two cats.

You are invited to submit the problem to the administrators. Until then, refrain from continuing these measures. --Uli Elch (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Aircraft_vs._airplanes. "Airplanes" is a more specific subcategory of "Aircraft". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, avoid accusations of vandalism.

I just commented here: User talk:Tequask#Categories without type where I hope that your "vandalism" comments didn't deter this "retired" User:Tequask from future uploads of his valuable older unique photographs to this project. @Tequask wrote,

"Thanks to Wikimedia Commons for providing the impetus by keeping me busy in retirement scanning many old slides I have amassed since photographing in 1951 with an Argus C3."

He has about 5,000+ edits in 10 years. He may have needed more help at that time and needed your valid suggestions and category additions, but probably not threats of being taken to an Admin. Wikimedia Commons needs to retain more volunteers in the long-term, especially older volunteers.

I also notice that your recent comment to @Ardfern, mentioned "continuous [SIC] vandalism" as part of your response to his communication on your talk page here: User talk:Uli Elch#Douglas DC-6 built in 1958

In both instances, you cast the accusation without taking any further action. This is counter-productive to a volunteer project as well as ineffective. Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category

When you want to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category, best practice is to mark it with {{SD|C2}} if it would be OK to re-create it in the future, given that appropriate content becomes available or {{SD|C1}} if it is an inappropriate category name that should not be reused. In particular, this is better practice than just blanking the category page, as you did at Category:Aircraft of Caledonian Airways (1988–2000). ("C1" and "C2" come from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion). Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Uli Elch

Autopatrol given

Filemoving rules

Renaming Frola images

Aircraft landing or take off

Take off or landing ?

File:Flybe at Glasgow.jpg please comment

What distance out do passenger jets lower their undercarriage ?

Daten von mir verschieben

Verschiebungen

More take off/landings questions

Your comments on ideas to link photographs together ?

Is this a bounced landing ?

Umbenennungen Flugzeugbilder

Another request for education on tagging images of landing aircraft

Landing with no tyre smoke ?

File:Volga-Dnepr Antonov An-124 Mancin.jpg landing on 35R at Milan Malpensa ?

Rear-engined landing angles

"Aircraft at unidentified locations"

Another takeoff/landing question

Question about plane landing or takeoff

sinnlose Verschiebungen

Another take off/landing question

Aircraft in rain question

Date at airport

Dateibenennung

Umbenennung

Rcbutcher - Passed away

Kategorien-Zu- und Abgänge beobachten

Unbefestigte Flugplätze

type-location or manufacturer-location categories

Uetersen Airport renaming

Airplanes used as libraries

Important message for file movers

Welcome, Dear Patroller!

Registrierungskat

Category:F-ZBGG (aircraft)

Blue skies

Why this edit?

Airports by year, Teil 1

Airports by year, Teil 2

Vorlage

Airports by year, Teil 3

File:2009-12-11 Loxx Berlin 80.jpg

Question about category removal

File:CV-600 N94253 Texas Intl. F0 A17-4-b.jpg

Trying to get in contact with you in your role as editor on https://aviation-safety.net =

Douglas DC-6 built in 1958

Aircraft vs. airplanes

Please, avoid accusations of vandalism.

How to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category

Navigation menu

Search