Category talk:Aircraft by registration

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Naming of subcategories[edit]

See CfD discussion (Sept 2009)

Statistics[edit]

  • creation of category: 02 July 2009
  • 1990 subcategories - 02:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • 2390 subcategories - 18:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • 2600 subcategories - 2009 October 10 (rename of subcategories)
  • 2829 subcategories - 02:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 4608 subcategories - 12:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • 5939 subcategories - 16:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • 6460 subcategories - 19:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 7620 subcategories - 18:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 8318 subcategories - 12:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 8541 subcategories - 05:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 9746 subcategories - 18:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • 38242 subcategories - 19 April 2014
  • 45218 subcategories - 15 August 2014
  • 50407 subcategories - 12 November 2014

Category description[edit]

At Category:Aircraft by registration, I added a short summary about how the subcategories seem to work. This is probably not of much interest for the regular contributors, but can help newer ones like me. Please review it, edit it or suggest improvements here. -- User:Docu at 02:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Military aircraft[edit]

I see subcategories for non-civil aircraft “registrations” are being created; I agree it is a good idea, however, I think the naming poses a small problem. The current naming, e.g. Category:10+21 (aircraft) might work for German aircraft, because of the strange pattern, but it can hardly work for other states. For instance, I guess there might be more airplanes with the “6052” registration number. So, how should its category be named? I was thinking about something like “CZ 6052 (aircraft)”, or something more verbose names like “6052 (Czech aircraft)”, “6052 (Czech military aircraft)”, etc. Comments, ideas? --Mormegil (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

So far I wasn't aware of the problem. There are a number of other countries with different patterns for military aircrafts, such as Category:Y1-111 (aircraft),Category:XH135 (aircraft), Category:T-336 (aircraft).But increasing the numer of categories for military aircrafts is raising the problem you described. I personally have no better idea as you propose as “6052 (Czech military aircraft)”, but I am not really happy with it. Has anyone further ideas? Gomera-b (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest a new subcategory, like "Military aircraft by registration", since civilian aircraft generally have a predefined registry format that sorts well with one another, whereas military aircraft can be pretty much anything (iirc). Better to separate the two than mix together and muddy the proverbial waters. Huntster (t @ c) 20:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Categorising military aircraft by serial number adds no value to commons. 99.9% of users will be looking for a German Air Force A310 not by serial, which in the example above is actually 1021 the cross is not part of the serial. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

confusing category system[edit]

I re-added some of the aircraft type categories which were replaced with the registrations but have removed them from the A-BCDE registration categories. Having all the aircraft types in registration categories is very confusing and is making life very difficult for users trying to find images. I dont have a problem with registration categories but they should not replace the original type cats. It also removed another point of confusion in that the aircraft cats are not unique a registration can be used by many types which could cause for example a Boeing 707 to appear in the Boeing 767 category. By moving the type categories back to the image this is not a problem. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with User:MilborneOne, when looking for images to illustrate aircraft type articles on Wikipedia there is no way to find an image of the aircraft type unless it is categorized by aircraft type. Categories by aircraft registration may help the "plane spotters" but it greatly hinders writing an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the aircraft type categories should not be removed from the image file pages, and should be restored where they have been removed. I have no problem keeping the reg cats if that is desired, though I don't know what the benefits of having categories for the registrations are. However, I can see where having actual pages for each registration number would be beneficial. This would allow photos to be added under headings for airports, incidents, and even separate aircraft types. - BilCat (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
So moving forward, perhaps the instructions on the main page should state that registration categories "must only be used alongside type categories, not in place of them." AKA, change the instructions so it no longer instructs users to place registration categories inside the type and airline parent categories? Huntster (t @ c) 18:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Hunster I think that is all we are asking for in that the images appear directly in the type and airline categories. It would remove the problem of having to go through the reg cats to find images but these would still be available to find images by registration. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be awesome if a note about this (do not remove other plane description categories when registration-categorizing) can be put somewhere for new users like myself. Before I read this, was doing this a lot, removing type categories from images when adding registration categories. I might not be adding those categories to images I upload, but should not remove them from other photographs. Hhm8 (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree I agree with you. Most of the images has only the "registration code" witch means very little to most of the people. I think it would be nice to keep at least the aircraft type (ex: Boeing 737) to avoid to go down one more sub-category to know it. The airline name is easy to see, because it is almost always painted in the aircraft. I know that this could be seen as over categorization, but I still propose this "policy". The categorization "by registration code" is good in terms of organization, but it is useless to anyone who just wants to browse the images to find a good one (note that it has now about 46 000 members and it is growing). NOTE: The CatScan is no more working --JotaCartas (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If the registration is not unique, it should be put into Category:Re-used aircraft registrations. In these cases, either a sub-category for each aircraft should be made or the aircraft type and aircraft operator categories left with the images.

To view all images in a subcategory for an aircraft type, CatScan displays a complete gallery. -- User:Docu at 10:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the aircraft type category should go only in the registration category, and not the image, to avoid overcategorisation. It's straightforward to add a link to CatScan to the top of each aircraft type and airline category, the {{Catscan gallery}} template does this. Benchill (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

categorize by registration[edit]

i think, this categorization is a product of brainless unwordly bureaucrats and complete unsuitable for commons or wikipedia (nobody, all over the world, search or respectively found - in commons or wikipedia - an image with such a category - its a nonsense and total unnecessary!). dontworry (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, tell us how you really feel. :/ If you don't like it, then don't use it. Obviously there are others who do find it useful. It's whole point is to collect pictures of the same aircraft into a single category. Huntster (t @ c) 07:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
i'll give you some example of search, resp. found problems with that categories, if i wish to know, what type of airplane it is or in which article i can found (more) information about the airplane: [1], [2], [3], [4], etc., etc. in all that cases, i'll get only bull-shit and nothing information! dontworry (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
If you feel that the images are not being properly categorised, then that's one thing, and you can suggest ways to improve the system. It'll never be perfect, but like any wiki project, we're constantly improving. These aircraft registration categories are for one specific thing: to collect images of the same individual aircraft. They should be independent of all other "flexible" descriptive categories (such as colour, type of view, etc.), and should only be subcategories of elements that never change (typically just model). Of course, that doesn't always happen, and some folks have a bad habit of stripping all descriptors from the images and using just the registration number as the sole category, but that isn't the norm. I'm sorry that you've had a bad experience with this, but don't condemn it just because you don't like it. Huntster (t @ c) 10:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
it could't be work, otherwise you doesn't categorize any person with its National identification number or blood type, fingerprints etc. that also doesn't work (for searching in commons or wikipedia)! that's maybe useful for flight-engineers and other professionel stuff around airplanes, but not here. dontworry (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't really understand your statement; we organise people by their names, and for aircraft and vessels, their registration numbers are their "official" names. Like I said before, these categories are strictly used for grouping images of the same aircraft. Huntster (t @ c) 12:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think navigation say from File:C-17_conducting_maneuver_Wings_Over_Wine_Country_2007.JPG to Category:C-17 Globemaster III (United States Air Force) through Category:5N-MJO_(aircraft) is really easy. Template:Infobox aircraft image (sample) somehow makes it easier, but requires significant edits to the file description. --  Docu  at 12:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I can see that, and personally speaking, I would prefer if these categories had *no* parent categories other than this one. I think they should be standalone holders, strictly for sorting by individual aircraft, but that's not how it's evolved. I'd certainly support any proposals that were to bring current usage into line with that ideal, though. Huntster (t @ c) 12:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning (and I agree somewhat), but… what is the difference between an aircraft registration category and any other category on Commons? As a completely random example… “if i wish to know, what stadium it is or in which article i can found (more) information about the place”, what should I do with File:Rsca4.JPG? We know the categorization system on Commons is far from perfect. If you want to make a complete revolution in the system, go ahead, try to invent something better. But I don’t think doing one tiny part of the category tree differently from the rest is the best idea. --Mormegil (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing against a Cat Airplanes by Registration, but it is totally senceless to create so much one-file cats. So find an alternative way in the next 4 weeks, otherwise this one file cats will be deleted. Everyone can search by Airline more comfortable.Sandmann4u (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You can not search by airline if the aircraft is not owned by an airline – which is the case for most single-engine aircraft, since they are usually privately owned … --El Grafo (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
But wouldnt it be better to change the meta-cat to ordinary cat? so the problem wo too much one-file cats is solved and your reason is still included.Sandmann4u (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, so let's set an example:
I don't see any problem with one-file cats, as long as they are only a subcat of the "by registration" tree. But when you are looking for a good picture of an aircraft type or an airline and the whole type-/airline-cat does only consist of one-file registration-subcats, it's kind of annoying (see Category:Cessna 172)). So, what about some kind of guideline that says "only use registration-cats in type-/airline-cats if it contains at least n files"? (As a value for n I would propose 5). Because in my opinion it does make sense to use Category:D-AQUI (aircraft) as a subcat of Category:Junkers Ju 52.
Another thing we could try is to create a new subcat like Cessna 172 by registration for every type/airline, but I'm not really sure if I would like that → could create even more trouble --El Grafo (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Until we have a "images of category depth = n" switch on category displays, Catscan might help. --Foroa (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The rule of the type "if it contains at least n files" could work if we decided to stop accepting new files, but if we try to establish a basic system that can grow further, it's not that easy. Personally, I think it's a pleasant surprise if I notice that we got further images of the same aircraft by a different uploader.
Following Foroa's suggestion, we could add {{catscan gallery}} to Category:G 103 Twin Astir. This should solve the issue. --  Docu  at 10:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, good point. Within smaller type-cats it shouldn't be a problem to wait until there are at least n pics of plane XY and then switch over to using the registration-cat as a subcat, but I admit that you might easily loose overview in the bigger type-cats. Regarding {{catscan gallery}} please see my comment below. --El Grafo (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Gern auch auf Deutsch... My opinion is to take this pictures of this one-file cats directly into cat aircraft by registration. If there are more pics of an airplane. nothing against subcats.Sandmann4u (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, this parent category should never have individual images in it. It's a meta category. Rather than limiting inclusion in subcats to n files, as I've said above, I would like to see these subcats not included in any other category than this one (and similar categories like Category:Gliders by registration), so that the issue of Category:Cessna 172 doesn't occur. Huntster (t @ c) 11:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
As stated above, I think there are some cases where registration-cats as a subcats of type-cats do make sense (eg. Category:D-AQUI (aircraft)). Nevertheless, I could live with the decision not to use registration-cats in type-/airline-cats or Foroa's suggestion to use {{catscan gallery}} – but I think we should a) decide for one of these alternatives, b) promote that at Category:Aircraft by registration and c) stick to it. --El Grafo (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

categorize by registration: Type → Type by registration → A-BCDE (aircraft)[edit]

Another idea (let's take the Cessna 172 as an Example):

Symbol support vote.svg  you don't have to browse the registration-cats when you are looking for a pic of the type
Symbol support vote.svg  the type-cats won't become crowded/confusing because of the many registration-cats
Symbol support vote.svg  you still can get from the registration to the type easily
Symbol oppose vote.svg  this would mean we'd have some kind of "double-categorization"
Symbol oppose vote.svg  awful lot of work to restructure existing cats

Comments? --El Grafo (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely support, as it would clean up these parent categories that are, in some cases, wildly overcrowded with registrations. I wouldn't worry about the semi-double-categorisation, as this provides a net benefit. Huntster (t @ c) 11:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you imagine some other possible "by-"categories like those we already have in Category:Aircraft (such as type by color or type by operator), that double-categorisation becomes even less daunting to me. But let's hear some other opinions first … --El Grafo (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I would support the change, as you can see from previous comments it is difficult at the moment to find images of a particular aircraft without browsing the reg cats which is a bit of a drudge. Also the registration cats would still be a sub cat of aircraft registered in foo cats if you really want to go down the cat tree by registration. MilborneOne (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What I hadn't thought of when proposing this: The amount of work/time needed to restructure/recategorize the existing cats will be HUGE. Just have a look at Category:Airbus A320: There would be >500 R-EGIS (aircraft)-cats to be moved to Category:Airbus A320 by registration. And each of them would have to checked for images that are not yet directly in Category:Airbus A320. Maybe this could be partly done by a bot, but I have no experience concerning bots. Any ideas? --El Grafo (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this should easily be done with a bot. When/if the proposal is accepted, you could seek out one of the main members of the bot group for advise, laying out exactly what needs to be accomplished. For that matter, you might invite them here while the discussion is on-going to state what is possible and what isn't. Huntster (t @ c) 05:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Everything is better then the current system. Sandmann4u (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg YES: there have been many occasions when I was loking for certain type of airbraft from a certain airline in order zo illustrate an article. The current system makes it very difficult (or you have to use CatScan) to find the required pic. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 14:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Personally I don't mind if they are listed both in Category:Cessna 172 and the more technical registration-cats (e.g. Category:C-FCWD (aircraft)), but I'd avoid creating an intermediary step "Category:Cessna 172 by registration". --  Docu  at 18:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am aware of the problems of the current system but there are also some problems with the proposed system:
  • It is against the general practice to avoid placing images both in a parent and a child category. Of course, these policies are not carved in stone, and we could make a well-founded exception in this policy. This could, however, lead to unnecessary edits when users unaware of that exception would remove files from parent categories, and the others reverting their edits.
  • It can lead to over-population of aircraft type or airline categories. (There would probably be hundreds or even thousands of files in a category of some common aircraft type.) Maybe this could be avoided with "aircraft type by airline" categories (e.g. Category:Boeing 737-800 (Air Berlin)).
Galleries could be one way to make it easier to find files even in the present categorizing system. E.g. we could pick the best images of each aircraft type and each airline to aircraft type (e.g. Airbus A320) and airline galleries (e.g. Finnair). ––Apalsola tc 19:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Galleries could certainly be made better to find images but it would be better to try and sort the categorisation. Another annoying factor is when you have a Category:A-BCDE (aircraft) it is placed both in an airline and type parent category, this gets confusing because more than one airline may have used the aircraft and aircraft registrations are not unique and can be used on a number of different aircraft. The original scheme before the reg cats were added was to have a cat on each image for the type and operator, this was far better so as a default perhaps we should just go back to the original system. MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello - anybody care that the system doesnt work? MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice that because it is hard to find any aircraft with the registration system users are now creating for example Air France Airbus A380, Airbus A380 by location as well as Airbus A380 by registration. In the old simple days an image was categorised by type/user/location, simple. The new system will create thousands of categories like Category:Foo aircraft at Foo Airport operated by Foo airlines and at a simple guess of 10,000 aircraft types multiplied by tens of thousand of users and then possibly every landing field, airport, airbase in the world is a big mess. But as nobody appears to care about the confusion caused perhaps it is time to give up and move aircraft images to the country wikis. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Still no suggestions to sort out this mess? MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, at the moment my time for wikipedia/commons is nearly down to zero due to "real life" work → no suggestions from me atm :-( --El Grafo (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI: I left a note at the recently created WikiProject Aviation – maybe this brings us some new ideas. --El Grafo (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
In the section "confusing category system" above, four editors argued for placing aircraft type/model cats against each image file, and one editor argued against. Some editors are currently deliberately removing type/model cats from image files (eg here) - surely admins should be chasing those down, until we get some better resolution here. PeterWD (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:C5-FBS (aircraft)[edit]

is the Category:C5-FBS (aircraft) correct? But the aircraft has change the registration in the past. --Atamari (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

and Category:HR-AMW (aircraft)? --Atamari (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing aircraft which are no longer registered the same as when image was taken[edit]

There is the category "Re-used aircraft registrations". This is used when there are multiple aircraft which had a registration. However, this gives no information as to which aircraft, if any, do not have this registration anymore. It would be nice to have a way to find out this information. A category to put the photos of aircraft which no longer have that registration in would be neat. For now, I will be use Category:Unregistered aircraft, (which hopefully does imply that the aircraft which had that registration was subsequently reregistered or deregistered); a better name would be welcome, and if one is decided upon then Unregistered aircraft can be redirected, and all its subitems moved, to that newly-named category. Hhm8 (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
  1. In an aircraft context, the term "unregistered" means an aircraft that is simply not registered, so applying it to an image of an aircraft with a valid or visible registration is illogical and misleading.
  2. The Federal Aviation Administration uses the term "deregistered" in the way that this "Unregistered aircraft" category is defined, but that is very country specific.
  3. In descriptions and categories at Wikimedia Commons, there should be no sense of 'now', 'currently', 'today', or 'this year'. Images from photography represent instant (or near) snapshots in time, so descriptions and categories should not need to be updated to reflect later events. We have already had POV partisans and nationalists attempting to rewrite history here, by deleting or modifying stuff relating to countries that no longer exist as such (eg Yugoslavia).
  4. The primary purpose of categorising here is to facilitate the finding of files via a hierarchical schema - see COM:CAT and COM:SCOPE. I can't see how current categories "Unregistered aircraft" or "Re-used aircraft registrations" serve that purpose. Surely the latter category should be wholly redundant, if all such registration categories have sub-cats for different aircraft (some do, some don't), in the strict application of the hierarchy schema used here - see also COM:OVERCAT.
  5. If we rigorously apply such a concept as deregistered aircraft, then every single registration category (currently over 50,000) would need to be constantly monitored against all international aircraft registers, and all of them would need to be amended eventually, after today's aircraft end their active lives. Personally, I regularly analyse the FAA current and deregistered files for changes for one specific aircraft type, via database software and programming techniques. I doubt that many other people have similar means or the initiative/dedication, but volunteers, step forward in your thousands.PeterWD (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Don't have time now for a detailed reply, but in short: (1) i agree with some of what you said, (2) wikidata combined with categories may be the best way of keeping this information --Hhm8 (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Categorisation by manufacturer serial number[edit]

I'd like to categorise aircraft by the manufacturer's serial number. I was looking at a photo from the @commonsaviation account, of an RAF TriStar tanker, and had to take some time to find out who it was delivered to and what its registration was (ZD-951, formerly G-BFCD for those interested). Its serial number was 1165, and it would be nice to have a category like Category:Lockheed TriStar MSN 1165 or similar, under which Category:G-BFCD (aircraft) and Category:ZD951 (aircraft) would appear, providing a clear, coherent method with which to follow an aircraft throughout its life.

TLDR - can we use manufacturer's serial numbers for planes in the same way we use the IMO number for ships. Thanks. Nick (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In a way your proposal sounds interesting. But of course MSN is not comparable to IMO. IMO is unique and MSM is not. MSN is more compareable to yard-# with ships.
Using MSN needs to know manufacturer and aircraft type in addition (as you showed here:Category:Lockheed TriStar MSN 1165. I face some problems doing like this. I.e. manufacturers name has changed over the production period. How will we handle this. Or mixing up types (which will happen) will create totally wrong Caregories.
What about just usung a new Category:MSN 1165? In case this is assigned to more than one aircrafts, it is rather easy to find what you want.
So my proposal, in case MSN is meant to be a usefull data in Cat-System, let us start simple with just MSN as additional Cat. (see above). --Gomera-b (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, there is already Category:Aircraft by serial number that appears to serve the 'wish'. However, it has not seen any use since soon after its creation, and personally I have expressed my doubts about its usefulness. For example, surely the MSN (or c/n or cn) cannot be directly related to an image, but only via a registration (or military serial) category, otherwise how can we know that they are related. In the example case of the Tristar, my practice would be to put the military serial cat under the civil registration cat, or vice versa.PeterWD (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)