User talk:Joshbaumgartner

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
2006-2016 archive, 2017-2018 archive

Category V5-MAG[edit]

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

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

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

@Hp.Baumeler: Fixed at Wikidata. You can change/create data there. Josh (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
You can also set correct labels per language there. Josh (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Joshbaumgartner:

V5-KCC / Beechcraft A 36

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

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

@Joshbaumgartner:

Cessna 182, V5-TCD (2017)

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

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

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

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

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

  • V5-MXM Beechcraft A36 at Buitepos

  • V5-MXM, Flying Beechcraft A36

  • V5-MXM, Flying Beechcraft A36

  • V5-MXM, Flying Beechcraft A36

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

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

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

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

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

House numbers[edit]

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

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

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


@An Errant Knight: Yep, sounds about right. I am thinking that putting them under "Buildings numbered n" would be better than "Houses numbered n" because of this issue. It is more of what we might call a street number in the US versus just being for houses exclusively. At any rate this is pretty simple to do, it just takes a little doing. As for the second issue, it sounds like something that will be cleared up once the transition is complete. Josh (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Since a large number of the items in question are houses, it might be worth keeping them as a subcategory. However, there is also the issue of the difference between a building numbered n and a building with a "house number" n. U.S. Government facilities (military, NASA), etc.) often number their buildings, even though they already have a "house number" for their street address. An Errant Knight (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I wonder if there is value to this distinction when it comes to managing media. Of course there is a material difference between a number that is part of the postal address and one that is some other kind of identifier for other purposes, but if I have two pictures of buildings with 14 on them, do I really need to have them in different cats because one is used by the national postal service to locate the building and another is used internally within the campus to locate the building? Josh (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
This editor believes that, while not of great importance, there is some need to distinguish between the two. While the house number category is the overwhelmingly most common, categorizing a numbered building by house number (when it is not its house number), does not work. (The number of the building is usually not the same as the street number.) Another issue is the house numbers on letter boxes (mail boxes). These are house numbers, but they are not on buildings. An Errant Knight (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@An Errant Knight: Well by all means go for it, I don't see any problem with having it if you think it's worth the effort. Josh (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft in Uganda service by name[edit]

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

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

I agree...changing it presently. Josh (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
"Type" is the official ICAO and Wikipedia term, not "model" (see Category:Models of aircraft)). Using "model" for general aircraft categories is wrong, because it should only be used for categories of scale models. See administrator in Category:Aircraft by registration, 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC). --Uli Elch (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Uli Elch: Is that why we have both Category:Aircraft by type (which contains subcats for gliders, fixed wing aircraft, ultralight aircraft, etc.) and Category:Aircraft by type name (which has subcats for Beechcraft 1900, Beechcraft Skipper, Blackburn Type I, etc.)? I think there's a lot of inconsistency in this naming. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Yes, Category:Aircraft by type is exactly that. Category:Aircraft by type name is ill-defined and not really a good place to put anything. It used to be Aircraft by model name but apparently this was too confusing for Uli and he renamed it Aircraft by type name. However he made a redirect but left a bunch of categories under the old Category:Aircraft by model name. Cleanup is underway. Josh (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Low wing aircraft[edit]

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

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

So they ARE monoplanes but should not be called monoplanes. Okay, makes perfect sense. Josh (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it makes sense to not have "Low wing monoplanes" because there are no low wing biplanes or triplanes either. Similarily, we have Category:Four-wheeled vehicles but there is no Category:Four-wheeled automobiles for obvious reasons. Category:Automobiles with more than four wheels exists because these type of cars are special, but nobody would need a diffusion for 4-wheeled automobiles. De728631 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Why not just go all the way and call it "Low wing objects"? Nothing else out there is low wing but aircraft so why that distinction? I'm sure a creative person could come up with some outliers (as you mentioned with cars) but no current categories exist for other low wing things. I'm fine with it being airplanes, monoplanes, vehicles, or objects, really. I just think making it out like it is a big deal is pretty silly...you already basically admitted it doesn't matter because either way it is referring to the same exact set of items. So at that point, does it really matter? Josh (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it does matter. As you aptly put it: Nothing else out there is low wing but aircraft, so why did you even create a subset called "Low wing monoplanes"? Just because the parent category is called Monoplanes it doesn't mean that the subcategories should follow this pattern – especially if the naming would be redundant. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. De728631 (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't create a subset called "Low wing monoplanes". If I had, I'd agree with you 110%. That would have been redundant. Josh (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
By moving the category page to the new name, you did create a new category called "Category:Low wing monoplanes" which was still part of Category:Monoplanes. So how was that not a subset of "Monoplanes" or "Aircraft" further up in the category tree? De728631 (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The category already existed under Monoplanes. I did not change where it sat in the category 'tree'. Josh (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Category:Boeing aircraft by operator[edit]

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

+1 Agree. The existing and reasonable system must not be changed without prior discussion. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I also agree, 'by operator' is a superset of 'by airline'. If there are enough to warrant, they can both exist. Josh (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest that they both must exist as in Category:Fokker F27 by airline which is a subcat of Category:Fokker F27 Friendship by operator allowing clear distinction between airline operators and military or government operators for instance. If you look at Category:Aircraft in German service by operator or Category:Aircraft in Netherlands service by operator you can see the distinction being lost and civil and military operators being mixed together, which seems plain wrong. I would suggest use of the Fokker F27 airline and operator cats is the right model. Ardfern (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Both are index categories. All operators should be listed in 'by operator' and only airlines in 'by airline' categories. If there is no 'by airline', no need to create one unless you feel there are enough airlines to warrant it (in my book, 2 is enough, but others like a higher number). Personally, I don't see the value of the 'by airline' sub-group if you don't also see the same value in a 'by military operator' or 'by corporation' or other types of users. I have not been creating the 'by airline' sub cats in 'aircraft by country of service' cats because the 'by operator' group hasn't gotten too large yet. If you want to do so, feel free, but remember, there should always be a 'by operator' cat which is an index of all operators regardless of the nature of the operator. This is necessary because a user should not have to know the nature of the operator as a requirement to find them. Josh (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Airliners of Air Zimbabwe[edit]

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

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

Category:Airliners of Air Zimbabwe by location[edit]

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

+1 Agree. Aircraft at airports are not always airliners. The existing and reasonable system must not be changed without prior discussion. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'm all for it. Josh (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

COM:AN/U[edit]

বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Português | Русский | Sicilianu | Svenska | +/−

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

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

Aircraft by registration[edit]

Category:Aircraft by registration[edit]

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

Why does a function (set) with 2 parameters - "Aircraft (by registration, by type)" have a superfunction (superset) with 1 parameter - "Aircraft (by registration)"?
To display all parents click on the "▶":
► Aircraft by registration by type

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

That is how Wikimedia categories work. We define more specific categories the further we go down the category tree, and that means that more parameters come into play while the definition set out in a simple top category still remains valid for all elements further down the hierarchy. "Aircraft by registration" is for images where just the registration number is known. "Aircraft by registration by type" is a container for aircraft categories where the registration and the type is known, and "Category:Kawasaki C-1 by registration‎" and the like would be the next level. The problem, however, is that subcategories should only be part of one category level further up the direct line, and not be sorted into two related parent categories. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Having so many entries isn't always a reason to diffuse a category. This isn't a standard-type category. Another example of this type of category is Category:People by name, which has even more entries: 366,781 when I checked just now. There are categories that are subsets of that one, such as Category:Men by name and Category:Women by name (see Category:People categories by name for others), but the contents of those categories are also in Category:People by name. We should handle similar categories such as this one the same way. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
First, what is a "category tree"? If it is a taxonomy , then we have: ROOT <- 1) SUBROOT1 (by A); 2) SUBROOT2 (by B); 3) SUBROOT3 (by A, by B). Examples: "Aircraft by parameters" <- 1) "Aircraft by registration"; 2) "Aircraft by type"; 3) "Aircraft by registration by type" --Fractaler (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't place an item into a category and its parent. For example, a black and white photo of the Eiffel Tower should be placed in Black and white photographs of the Eiffel Tower. It should not be placed in both that category and the Paris category at the same time.
Maybe I didn't make it clear enough when I started this discussion, but my main concern is not so much the way we may want to diffuse this category in the future but a massive case of overcategorisation right now. Contrary to the Commons policy on categories, there are probably hundreds of subcategories that are placed into a category and its parent. So my approach is to remove all those subcategories from Category:Aircraft by registration that have already been sorted into a category "by registration by type". This is the commonly accepted standard to solve the issue, but it has been challenged in this case and needs discussion. De728631 (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
We have now, for example, 3 sets: 1) Category:Aircraft by registration, 2) Category:Aircraft by type, 3) Category:Aircraft by registration by type (the same for Category:People by name, Category:People by gender, Category:People by name by gender, etc.)‎. So, category tree (by the commonly accepted standard) must be ...? --Fractaler (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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

De728631 (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Category:Aircraft by registration, however, may very well contain registration categories like "Category:D-ECAB" if the aircraft type is unknown. Once the type becomes known, the registration category should be placed into "<Aircraft type> by registration" instead. De728631 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Level 4 - you are right, here COM:OVERCAT. But also I mean (level 2->level 1), why the set Category:Aircraft by registration by type must be a subset of the set Category:Aircraft by type (or Category:Aircraft by registration)
To display the taxonomy below click on the "▶":
► B-6140 (aircraft)

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

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

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

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

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

If you're looking for a specific category G-BOAC, your first start should be the search field anyway. It will guide you directly to the desired category without you having to browse the category tree. It is the fastest solution for "I want a plane with registration G-BOAC", so a direct entry in Category:Aircraft by registration is therefore not even necessary. Also, Category:Aircraft by registration by type includes the "registration" element, so the question would still arise why it is not linked back to Category:Aircraft by registration. Per our category policy, "each category should itself be in more general categories, forming a hierarchical structure." The hierarchical structure would be broken if Category:Aircraft by registration was not involved. Pinging @Joshbaumgartner: who created "by registration by type" as he might want to comment here too. De728631 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
PS: What I'm trying to demonstrate is that navigation in the category realm works both ways, not just top-down. So if I want to browse back from G-BOAC via "Concorde by registration" and further up the tree, I should be able to arrive at "Aircraft by registration" as well. De728631 (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
With bottom-up navigation, you can get to Aircraft by registration by some obvious logical route, no matter how its categorised. That is not true for top-down navigation unless it is directly in by registration. Breaking registrations down by type is simply NOT helpful for navigation. Outright deletion of by registration by type is preferable to have it messing up the utility of the by regisration category.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Now you are contradicting yourself. A few paragraphs further up, you suggested that "Category:Aircraft by registration by type should be a subcat of 'by type'" rather than by registration while you are now outright opposed to "Breaking registrations down by type"? De728631 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Uhh.. '"by registration by type" should be a subcat of "by type" rather than "by registration"' is consistent with 'don't break registrations down by type'? The latter statement is stronger, but doesn't contradict the former. If you already know the registration, adding in the type of aircraft doesn't narrow things down further, you already have a unique plane. (As an aside, to me "aircraft type" implies things like "helicopter" or "wide-body airliner" not "Boeing 777"). What benefit is there to any user in removing categories like Category:G-BOAC (aircraft) from Category:Aircraft by registration? IMO the only logical subcats for aircraft by registration are for the countries of registration. That would link all G registered planes together, and would allow G-BOAC to have a sortkey starting with B instead of G - making it slightly easier to find in the still huge list.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
We do have country-specific categories. Category:Aircraft registered in the United Kingdom is a parent for all G- registration categories, and there are lots of other such categories for more or less any registration prefix. And "type" is the official ICAO designation for what may otherwise be called an aircraft model. Using "model" for general aircraft categories is problematic though, because it should only be used for categories of scale models. Hence the "by type" wording of the subcategories that was rightfully introduced by Uli Elch. De728631 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
And those are the only ones that logically belong under by registration. As they are aspects of aircraft registration, not an otherwise unrelated aspect of aircraft.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Are you sure?
Aircraft by registration
`-- Aircraft registered in the United Kingdom
`-- Aircraft registered in France
`---G-BOAC
`---F-IBEX
That way you would empty "Aircraft by registration" of all registration categories, because per COM:OVERCAT they would have to be sorted into the relevant country-specific subcategories, leaving you again with no direct search options. At the moment, "Aircraft by registration" and "Aircraft by registration country" are at the same level in Category:Aircraft registrations and that is a good structure. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
And I agree with that structure. My point there is if we don't want to merge those two related concepts (the registration code and the registration country), why would we want to link two entirely unrelated categories?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand what "specific problem"? Where can user place Category:G-BOAC (aircraft) based on what user do know or how can user find Category:G-BOAC (aircraft)? Who is the taxonomy for, who is the end user? What is the problem: creating a taxonomy or navigate (by navigator!) through it? Also, just for clarification: set theory is not a model. --Fractaler (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Specific as in actually discussing the particular concern raised. Not discussing general points which could equally apply to any category. The application of set theory to Commons categories is the problematic case. Its based on the assumption that subategories must be subsets. That's clearly not true in many cases.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Erm, if a subcategory is not a subset of its parent categories, where is the navigational benefit? Categories in a category tree shall "reflect a hierarchy of concepts, from the most generic one down to the very specific". De728631 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
See this discussion. The navigational benefit is from linking two related concepts, but that relationship is not necessarily that between a set and its subset. The photos of a building in a city are a subset of the photos of the city. The photos of a building built by an architect are not a subset of the photos of the architect.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
"See this discussion." TLDR, and too much set theory. Still, there is a relationship between the architect and his buildings, so the photos of buildings are a subset of images related to the architect. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The short version is that the real issues start to appear at the 2nd order. The building could easily be a subcat of an entirely different city (the birthplace of the architect). That relationship is tenuous, but the two steps to get there are perfectly valid. Its conceivable that someone would place a photo of the building directly in the architect's category; its implausible that they would place it in their birthplace's category. That relationship is clearly not a strict subset-of-subset relationship, in contrast to building-city-country which would be.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
"Its based on the assumption that subategories must be subsets": first, its based on the assertion that must be a definition ("by list" or "by giving a property"). So, still no definition "by list" or "by giving a property". Also here, " The photos of a building in a city" (Category:Buildings by city? Category:Photos of buildings in a city?) - where can we read the definition of this term? When there are no definitions, then there are disputes. Do we need disputes? --Fractaler (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Set theory is nice, but should not trump what works best for a real application on Commons. Josh (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
What does "works best for a real application on Commons" mean? As can be seen from the template with the taxonomy above, for example, in Category:B-6140 (aircraft) -> Category:Aircraft by registration -> Category:Aircraft registrations -> Category:Aviation data -> Category:Data, set theory is simply not used ("B-6140 (aircraft)" is not "Data"). --Fractaler (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Fractaler:: What is your proposal then? Which of the links you listed is invalid and should be broken? Josh (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Category:Aircraft by type must be a subcategory of Category:Aircraft by registration? --Fractaler (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Now that would be ridiculous. De728631 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@De728631:: It is ridiculous. Category:Aircraft by type is NOT a subcategory of Category:Aircraft by registration, nor should it become one, nor is anyone proposing that. As I stated above, we should retain current use of Category:Aircraft by registration. Josh (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Moved discussion text to this page so it will reflect in real time on both Commons talk:Categories and Commons:Categories for discussion. Josh (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no problem with having all single-aircraft registration categories in the main "Aircraft by registration" acting as a super-category. This is not uncommon practice. A standardisation of the "by type" subcategories is always a good thing, of course. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

1 - xxxx (aircraft) categories are aircraft registrations, not aircraft. However, they are often treated as aircraft, especially since they say 'aircraft' parenthetically. This is not a problem for most common usage, but is exposed in corner cases and when analyzing the category structure. Keep in mind an aircraft may be assigned several registrations over its life, and some registrations may be assigned to different aircraft over time. Specific sub-categories of an aircraft registration category can be created to show its application to different aircraft (e.g. Category:N305FA (aircraft) into Category:N305FA (Boeing 737) and Category:N305FA (MD-83)). Proper names should be 'Aircraft registration N305FA' with sub-cats 'Aircraft registration N305FA assigned to Boeing 737 c/n 28662' and 'Aircraft registration N305FA assigned to MD-83 c/n 49398'. I am not proposing renaming these categories, unless someone is up for moving 75,000+ categories. The current abbreviated names are fine, but we should have a better description of what exactly those categories cover.
2 - Category:Aircraft by registration is named incorrectly. As noted above, the sub-cats are aircraft registrations, not aircraft, so the correct title should be Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list) or some other such appropriate title to indicate it is an index of all aircraft registrations ordered alpha-numerically. As it is, the current name adds to the confusion referred to in note 1 above. It may be appropriate to make this category a hidden cat while we are at it. Once this is done, sub and meta cats can be moved directly under Category:Aircraft registrations.
3 - Military identification numbers are not consistently treated. These are sometimes treated as aircraft registrations and other times as serial numbers or some other unrelated tree. Category:Aircraft registrations should cover all individual aircraft identifications assigned by authorities, military or civil. Sub-categorization can break down between assigning authorities for those that it is helpful for, but not all users will know what the issuing authority is for a particular identifier. No rename is needed, but a better description is required to make it clear what the category covers.
4 - Category:Aircraft by registration country is named incorrectly. As above, a more clear and concise name should be used, such as Category:Aircraft registrations by country of issue, to make it clear that the items within are aircraft registrations and that they are ordered by the country which issued the registration. It should be listed directly under Category:Aircraft registrations and not under Category:Aircraft by registration/Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list). Category:Aircraft by registration continent should get similar treatment, though 'continents' do not issue registrations, countries do.
5 - Category:Aircraft by registration by manufacturer and type are incorrect. They should be renamed Category:Aircraft registrations by aircraft assigned and sub-cats of that can parallel the categorization of Category:Aircraft to the level appropriate. Category:Aircraft registrations by aircraft assigned should be directly under Category:Aircraft registrations.

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

"What is your proposal then?": set theory requires a definition, and therefore here, in the disputed case, it makes sense to give definitions to the term. What definition should the term "B-6140 (aircraft)" have for a more general term to be the term data"? The same for "aircraft by registration", "aircraft registrations", etc. --Fractaler (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Fractaler: As stated in the list above, definition of Category:B-6140 (aircraft) is an 'aircraft registration'. Not sure what definition you are looking for beyond that. Josh (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we need to differentiate between xxxx (aircraft) and xxxx (aircraft registration) and all subsequent namings. Apart from Category:Temporary aircraft registrations that are used for test and transfer flights, registrations are seldom changed over the life of an aircraft frame and the registration is therefore often synonymous with the single airframe it got assigned to. We already have Category:Re-used aircraft registrations and its appropriate sub-categories as you showed above.
@De728631: You are incorrect that registrations are seldom changed; it is common practice to change a commercial aircraft registration several times during its life, especially when it changes ownership. I would not advise eliminating the existing sub-categorization of xxxx (aircraft) into xxxx (specific aircraft) categories. Assuming synonymy between an aircraft and its registration is a mistake. As stated, I am not proposing that these categories be renamed, but merely that we have better definition of them as being specifically related to that aircraft registration. Josh (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, you wrote "Category:Aircraft by registration is named incorrectly. ... the correct title should be Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list) or some other such appropriate title", or "Category:Aircraft by registration by manufacturer and type are incorrect. They should be renamed Category:Aircraft registrations by aircraft assigned". Isn't that renaming? Apart from Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list), I think this is unnecessary, and imho Category:Aircraft registrations by aircraft assigned would be outright confusing. Btw, you created the two latter categories (by registration by manufacturer / by registration by type [model]) last year, so how come you changed your mind now? As I see it, the focus is already on the registration numbers now – even with names like "xxxx (aircraft)". If it's really that common for commercial registrations to be changed, Category:Re-used aircraft registrations with xxxx (specific aircraft) subcategories should become more populated though. Different aircraft should not be lumped into a single registration category. De728631 (talk)
My apologies for not being clear. I don't propose changing the xxxx (aircraft) naming scheme. I do however, think that the meta cats they are in should be renamed per my suggestions above. You are right that some of them are ones I created myself under flawed names. I named them as I did in order to keep with the naming of Category:Aircraft by registration, but I wasn't thrilled by it at the time, and I am even less so now. I'm not sure what you are concerned about with lumping. As it stands now, if a registration is applied to multiple aircraft (which is less common than one aircraft having multiple registrations), then it should be broken down (see Category:N305FA (aircraft)). The main registration category should be also categorized in Category:Re-used aircraft registrations. That is current practice, and I don't think anyone is suggesting changing it. Josh (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Military ID numbers are a problem though. Apparently there are in fact two major approaches among the armed forces of how to apply such registrations, namely using an aircraft's generic serial number (e.g. US Air Force, Italy) or issuing an unrelated ID (Germany, UK, Netherlands, etc.) Sometimes like in Italy or Spain, there are even two parallel schemes of markings on a single aircraft, such as an internal squadron ID (e.g. 41-12) and a permanent serial number. This has already led to inconsistent category schemes as in Category:Military aircraft registered in Spain or Category:Military aircraft registered in Italy (see the MM##### serials). So these need some consistency. De728631 (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The US is no different than Germany or the UK: none use a 'generic' serial number, but instead assign their own numbers per whatever system they have established at the time. Some of these systems adopt the serials already assigned by other agencies or the manufacturer, but again, the sytems are set by each individual issuing authority. What is fundamentally different are identifiers that are assigned for the service life of an aircraft (such as the US Navy's BuNo) vs. those that are assigned to indicate organizational assignment and may be changed throughout its service life (such as the US Navy's tactical codes). However, in all cases, just as with civil registrations, the categories are for the identifier, not the airframe, and thus they should all be handled within the same consistent structure regardless of local differences in how such numbers are devised. Josh (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the service-life ID vs tactical code schemes. It is essentially what I tried to write above but maybe it didn't come through. I agree that in the future we should not use any tactical codes for "registration" categories but stick to BuNos, serials and other such official "top-level" IDs. Where applicable, we should redirect existing "tactical" categories to categories with the official registration number, e.g. Category:43-28 (aircraft) → Category:UD.13-28 (aircraft). De728631 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I totally agree with you that the 'tactical codes' and the like should not be necessarily considered aircraft registrations, while 'serial numbers' like BuNos, etc. should be under aircraft registrations. I also agree that it is curently not consistent and has been hard to know exactly how to proceed with those kinds of categories. We can have 'tactical code' categories, but they should be kept in their own category. The difficulty will be that many users may not be aware of the differences. Josh (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
For 'tactical codes' I assume you mean Squadron Codes and yes users may not be aware of the differences. Even aircraft enthusiasts get it wrong. A Chilean aircraft at the Farnborough Airshow was widely quoted in reports as having a serial which later turned out to be a squadron code. Seperate categories for these could be useful? eg Aircraft of 32 Squatron for example. SkymasterUK (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
definition of Category:B-6140 (aircraft) is an 'aircraft registration' : now Category:B-6140 (aircraft) does not have any definition. But, for example, Category:Civil aircraft by country, Category:Airliners of Spain, Category:Four-engine airliners, Category:China Southern Airlines have (even human readable, not to mention the machine-readable, as, for example, in Wikidata or Commons' Category:Airbus A380). --Fractaler (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean that the definition should be reflected in the name of the category? De728631 (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Now on the page Category:B-6140 (aircraft) we can see such static information: Airbus A380-841, cn/serial number: 120, *China Southern Airlines 2013 to date as B-6140. No "is an 'aircraft registration'" on the page. And the pages from the examples have definitions on their pages ("China Southern Airlines is an airline based in Guangzhou in the Guangdong province of the People's Republic of China (PRC)", etc.). --Fractaler (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Or, for example, Wikidata's definitions:

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

Those infoboxes are well suited to gallery pages, but not so much for categories. Wikidata doesn't have items for individual aircraft registrations as far as I am aware. I just looked it up and there are no items with instance of: Q838849 (aircraft registration) Josh (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean these items? About definition: in order to be able to display the definition (by version of WD, if there is no version of Commons) on a category page, I'm now trying to make a template {{DescriptionWD}} (using Module:Wikidata description). For example, "aircraft registration": registration and identification assigned to an individual aircraft by national aviation authorities --Fractaler (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Try Template:Individual aircraft and Template:Wdd. Josh (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Fractaler: Yes, none of those items you linked are instances of aircraft registrations. Josh (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

I've previously expressed my opinion that keeping this a super-category for all registrations is not an issue and is a reasonable exception (as with Category:Ships by name and others). There is the very real potential for a flat-list to be useful to end users. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think this should be a flat category containing all registrations. I understand the concerns about overcategorization, but I think categories containing all individual entries are useful. Maybe this cat should be renamed to indicate that it's a flat category. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sortkeys - again[edit]

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

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

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

Yes, I'm aware that the situation is far from perfect in these categories, and when I'm in them I try and take them another step forward. Step one has been getting the names consistently formatted, which you have noticed. Mixing all of the different sorting criteria together makes it kind of a mash, but I have not yet been inclined to break things out into seperate indexes yet due to the quantities involved. Say with Category:Military aircraft with 4 jet engines, if you use a sort key of "Military", it ends up sorted under "M" alongside types that start with "M" so not exactly ideal. But if you sort it at the top with a special character, you are essentially admitting that this belongs in a seperate and distinct list, so the real answer is to create that category, say Category:Aircraft with 4 jet engines by function or some such to put it in and then sort it by "Military". If we are going to use a special character, just avoid the space key, reserving that space for the real metacats. Using "!" or somesuch as a temporary grouping pending creation of an appropriate index is fine, but long term, the categories should either be able to be sorted normally amongst the content of the category, or they belong in their own category. Josh (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, you have sorted Category:Airliners with 4 jet engines with a space as sortkey even though it's not marked as a metacat. Concerning importance it is on exactly the same level as Category:Military aircraft with 4 jet engines, i.e. much higher in priority and sorting function than all those individual types. So it cannot remain there in the middle; either it gets a space as well (why not?) or both are sorted under the same label like "#" etc. --Uli Elch (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Incorrect, you added the space key to Category:Airliners with 4 jet engines with this edit a while ago. I recently did a hotcat move and didn't remove the space, which I should have done but didn't notice it was there. I'll fix this now. Josh (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Looking at it, what needs to happen is for the specific types to be diffused correctly, then there will be no need for elevating categories. Josh (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Lufthansa to other operator cat[edit]

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

and Category:Aircraft of Lufthansa, no longer in fleet

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

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep
1) It should not be a problem to move Category:Aircraft of Lufthansa, no longer in fleet back (!) into Category:Lufthansa Passage.
It is already in that category, which has its own issues, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. Josh (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
2) The Category:Aircraft of Lufthansa, to other operator is very well maintained. Wikipedia has ~ 50 million users in the German-speaking countries. According to independent polls, more than 70% are "interested in aviation". Thus, it can correctly be deducted that there is an interest in what happens to the planes of Europe's largest airline.
The same can certainly not be stated of Category:Letters on aircraft and Category:Numbers on aircraft, most of them having been created by just the person who complains about this category in discussion here. "Numbers on aircraft" has 2600 members; almost all of them hold 1 or 2 files only. Just how many Wikipedia users might be interested in Category:Number 12342 on aircraft? These are categories without the slightest chance of ever being completed and maintained properly. It is entirely unclear what the purpose of cats like that could be, possibly except for the creator by just creating a cat for every random number or letter that comes up.
So there are many thousands of almost empty cats with no apparent or proven interest to more than <5 people which could be put up for discussion rather than the one disputed here. --Uli Elch (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Pointing out that other categories might be worse (that would be for another discussion to determine) is not a valid defense. These two categories do not belong and should be deleted. You might be right that the Lufthansa categories could be maintained by your personal effort for the time being. But your comment essentially admits that it could not be used across the airline category scheme, and that is a red flag. You are absolutely right that knowing the aircraft history of aircraft that served with Lufthansa is interesting and valuable, but that isn't the point. We have Wikidata and Wikipedia to maintain that data and narrative. That is where this kind of information should be maintained, not here in the Commons category scheme. Josh (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. @Uli Elch: You'd be welcome to make a gallery page linking to these categories if you want. Former Lufthansa aircraft for instance. But it's not useful as a categorization tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Indeed, changing Commons from a media repository (it's founding and current purpose) into a replacement or duplication of Wikipedia and Wikidata would indeed require very broad consensus, and not just among the aviation community. This would change not only aviation media, but it would change the entire scope of Commons' role among the WMF projects. Josh (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
That's not the change I am suggesting at all. I want it to actually be useful, not just a massively over-categorised dumping ground. Ardfern (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Very well, but you are the one talking about changing the very philosophy of Commons. You can have relevant information on the media contained all you want. Make a gallery or even add a bit of text to the category if you want. Better yet, go put this info on Wikipedia or Wikidata, which is where most users looking to find data will go. Perverting the media repository scheme is not the best way to do it. Josh (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Boeing 707 by operator[edit]

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

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

Category:Beechcraft aircraft by airline[edit]

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

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

Category:Beechcraft aircraft by operator[edit]

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

What is the difference between airline and operator in this use? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Auntof6: "by operator" includes all types of operators, such as military and other non-airline operators. Several of the operators of the ~25 listed in the nominated category are military or government operators, so do not fit in a "by airline" category. Note the higher-level Category:Aircraft by operator. Category:Aircraft by airline iswas (Ardfern (talk · contribs) has apparently noted that Category:Aircraft by airline was a redirect and has since populated it) a redirect to this category. Josh (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Too right, and would never have felt the need to do so but for your arbitrary and unnecessary deletion of 'by airline' cats. Ardfern (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and add a "by airline" category if you really feel the need. A "by operator" category should exist capable of handling all operator-specific categories. In those cases where there are sufficient airlines to warrant a separate index exclusive to airlines (not to mention enough other types of operators to make it worth separating them out), then that separate index can be created and stand on its own (e.g. a "by airline" index). This separate category can be a subset of what is in "by operator", but "by operator" should remain as an index of ALL operators regardless of the type of operator. This way users are not forced to parse exactly what type of operator they are dealing with to find media or categorize images quickly and accurately. Josh (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
My objection here (and with regard to multiple other cats) is that the wholesale changes were being made on an arbitrary basis by an individual without any discussion or consensus. Personally I don't really mind either way as long as it is consensus driven, given the amount of work that a move to 'by operator' would mean. Clearly it is all being metacat and indices driven rather than anything else. Having two very largely duplicate cats would be a nonsense. Happy to go with consensus approach one way or the other. Ardfern (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
As you suggest above I would propose separate 'by airline' indices are created as a subset of 'by operator' indices. This seems a reasonable solution allowing both approaches to be in place. As a result I would ask that the Beechcraft aircraft by airline cat that you 'gutted' is restored as a subset of Beechcraft aircraft by operator. Action on other cats you have similarly treated would now be necessary. Ardfern (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ardfern, by airline should be reinstated and be placed as a subcategory of by operator. Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • I would support Option 3 even on the risk of introducing overcat. The reason is that "by operator" is a neutral parent container for "by airline" and "by military". Also "by airline" should not just be a subcategory of "Airliners" because many airliners have military derivatives, and small airlines may not use airliners at all but just large executive aircraft (Beech, Cessna, Dassault Falcon, etc.). So the sorting criteria should be on the kind of operator. De728631 (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @De728631: Interesting input, thank you. I would agree that overcat is a minor consideration and can be waived for indices. A few questions:
      • 1) I do agree with you 100% that not all airliners are used by airlines and airlines do not only use airliners. The same is true of military or any other kind of aircraft, the aircraft function and operator type are not 100% analogous. In all honesty, I have thought on that more than a bit. To be really correct about that, we should have Category:Aircraft by operator with children Category:Airliners by operator and Category:Aircraft by airline and the intersection sub-cat of these called Category:Airliners by airline...but I can hear the screaming already about the name of that one, not to mention it would take a bot task to implement. Without opening that can of worms, and just sticking with Category:Aircraft by airline to encompass that, would you not list it under Category:Airliners? Or do we go ahead and name it correctly so that the distinctions can be made for these cases? Or do we just leave it in the parent index and not list an index under Category:Airliners for now? Open to ideas!
      • 2) As you state, in this case the sort criteria is the kind of operator, so maybe it makes sense to call the parent Category:Aircraft by type of operator. That way it would be clear that it is not a list of operators itself, but instead is diffused by type. What do you think?
      • 3) Where would one go to find a listing of all operators, regardless of type of operator? Would you be okay with a Category:Aircraft by operator (flat list) for users who want to see all operators listed?
    • Thanks again for the excellent input. I've added an Option 3B with some minor tweaks to build in your comments and meet the most criteria possible. Do you think that would satisfy your concerns, or do you have some more tweaks you would make? Josh (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Option 3B looks like a runner (I think). Grateful if someone could confirm that it means retention of the 'by airline' approach and an end to arbitrary deletion of 'by airline' cats and replacement with 'by operator'. I hope this can be confirmed so that I can get on with the real work - still over 100k files to be classified folks. Ardfern (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ardfern: it doesn't look like option 3B retains the "by airline", I do think Josh as added far too much detail and options that it takes time to digest. I'm going to be refraining from making a view until I have the time to study each in greater detail. Bidgee (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ardfern: I can confirm that Option 3B does retain "by airline". All "Aircraft of Airline" categories would be under "Aircraft by Airline" which would be under the parent index "Aircraft by type of operator". They would not be listed separately under that parent, so they would only go one place for most levels. There might be a flat list but this would stand separate and would only be for the main Category:Aircraft and maybe some of the larger manufacturers or classes. I have tried to be detailed so that when we implement we don't immediately find ourselves back again with different directions. I know you have been wanting me to reinstate some more airline cats and I am looking forward to doing so just as soon as we wrap this discussion. Josh (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bidgee: Good thinking, I knew I probably hadn't got the right hang of this. I find all this category speak very confusing. If 'by airline' is not retained, then the proposal is useless. Ardfern (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bidgee, Ardfern: To be clear, Option 3B DOES retain the 'by airline' categories! I think in the interest of keeping the listing from getting too long, I wrote "Categories:Aircraft by operator type", so operator type would include "airline", so these categories would be Category:Aircraft by airline, etc. whatever is appropriate, but obviously, 'by Airline' would be the most often present! Sorry if it was not clear, but if there are any other questions, I'll be happy to clarify! I've added them more explicitly so everyone can see they are there for sure! Frankly, I would assume any scheme that did not include something 'by airline' would be a non-starter. Josh (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I have just added Category:Beechcraft aircraft by airline into the new Category:Beechcraft aircraft by type of operator. If this is the proposed way forward across the board then I am all for it. Presumably it applies equally to cats like 'Aircraft by operator', 'Boeing aircraft by operator' etc. It is great that it negates the need for big catch-all by operator cats like these, thus reducing duplication and work (no double entries for 'by airline' and 'by operator'). Let me know if this interpretation is wrong. I have to say that it is rather like what I was originally proposing (that 'by airline' be a subcat of 'by operator'), but tweaked in a more generally acceptable way apparently. Good job. Ardfern (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I have tried the approach in Category:Aircraft in Netherlands service by type of operator. Obviously you need to decide what to call the cat re aircraft in military service, otherwise perhaps you could have a look and see if I have implemented the right approach (when you get time. Ardfern (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ardfern: It looks fine to me. I second the motion that it is great to have an agreeable way forward and appreciate everyone bringing it to a conclusion. Military, government, and other operator cats can be fleshed out as we go forward. I have been creating those groups even if they have one cat at the moment (these numbers will rise as members are identified and categorized). At any rate, 'by type of operator' can hold them all. There are some cases where I have moved the 'by operator' category to 'by type of operator' in accordance with this CfD, but do not have every individual operator yet diffused into the appropriate cats, this will take a bit to do. Josh (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Category:Space missions by number[edit]

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

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

Category:Let L-410 by airline[edit]

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

Indeed, and that discussion is underway, as you already know. When it is resolved we will worry about implementing the consensus. As for this category in particular, it was wrongly named 'by airline' because it contains many non-airline operators (and did at the time the name was changed to 'by operator'), so it would be wrong to rename it 'by airline'. If you want however, you are welcome to create a seperate 'by airline' cat with only airline operators listed. We have already discussed this and there is a COM:CFD underway already to have wider input. Josh (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I have restored the 'by airline' category. You say it was wrongly named as it contains many non-airline operators. I don't believe that having 10 out of 70 non 'by airline' operators justifies the deletion of the entire 'by airline' category. Same goes for Boeing aircraft which I have restored. Ardfern (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, but not sure why you are bothering to mention it. It's a moot point since it is under CFD at the moment. What would be more constructive is to help bring the CfD to a conclusion so we can all move forward with consensus. Just a thought ;) Josh (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, you may replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

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

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

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

Warning[edit]

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

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

Aircraft of NASA[edit]

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

I'm working on the template, I was experimenting with doing the categories with the template but I had to disable that part of the template earlier today and was in the process of restoring the manual categories. No intention to actually remove those category links permanently. Thanks for adding the three missing ones back, I've been working on some others and will be through the list of affected cats (~20 only) pretty shortly. 06:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Should be all repaired at this point, let me know if you find any more glitches. Josh (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

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

@Huntster: Correct. The categories need to be added manually for now. Categories by template may be instantiated again at a later date, but it will take some design work to have them work correctly. Category:Aircraft of NASA is under Category:Aircraft in United States government service which is under Category:Aircraft in United States service by operator, so I removed Category:Aircraft of NASA from Category:Aircraft in United States service by operator to eliminate COM:OVERCAT -- it should only be at one (most specific) level of the branch. Hopefully that is all cleared up for now. Thanks! Josh (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I misunderstood what exactly was happening with the template. Thanks! Will be pretty cool if/when it can semi-automate some of that category work. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js[edit]

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

Wow, that's interesting. I'm surprised that it does this from the code, but okay. I'm relatively green at JS...would 'includeonly' work?(it doesn't) I use that to control category links in templates, but not sure how to shield from JS. I'll look into it, but help would be appreciated. Josh (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Try to add some js comments into the middle of the category names like: [[Cat//Comment//egory:Aircraft by registration]]. I hope this will disable the categorization of you JS-script. --JuTa 11:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps [//<!-- -->//[Category:Aircraft by registration]//<!-- -->//] could do the job. --JuTa 11:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
and look too into the '{{category redirect|', line please. --JuTa 11:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Yay! I think that worked. Thanks for the help! Josh (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Well it got rid of the categorization, but the //// come through in the snippets. Well I will leave it for now, but still looking to improve it. Josh (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


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

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

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

  1. You edited User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new jshint issue — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ISSUE: line 1 character 10: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: __NOCAT__

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


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

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

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

  1. You edited User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 5 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ISSUE: line 14 character 1: Expected an identifier and instead saw '<'. - Evidence: <nowiki>;
  2. ISSUE: line 14 character 2: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: <nowiki>;
  3. ISSUE: line 14 character 9: Expected an identifier and instead saw ';'. - Evidence: <nowiki>;
  4. ISSUE: line 14 character 1: Unrecoverable syntax error. (7% scanned). - Evidence: undefined

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


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

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

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

  1. You edited User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new esprima issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ERROR: Cannot parse line 14 column 1: Unexpected token <

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joshbaumgartner&oldid=319134670"