Category talk:Beechcraft aircraft by type of operator

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Beechcraft aircraft by operator

[edit]

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

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

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

Options for implementation of "by airline/operator" indices
Option 1:
Use: "Aircraft by operator" is the index for aircraft in general. "Aircraft by airline" is the index for airliners sorted by operator. Other functions can have indices for the related operator type as makes sense per function. All operators are found in "by operator" while "by airline" is limited to airlines. Template:Cat see also should be used to facilitate cross-navigation.


Criteria:
Avoids COM:OVERCAT:  Yes
Complies with Universality principle:  Yes (can be applied consistently throughout aircraft tree)
Maintains both operator and airline indices:  Yes
Allows users to see all operators in one index:  Yes
Can browse and categorize without parsing operator type:  Yes
Can refine browsing to a specific operator type:  Yes (by navbox or Template:Cat see also)
Allows sorting in indices without special characters:  Yes
Related index available from within aircraft functional class:  Yes
"Aircraft of Operator" categories only need to be in one index:  No (for most)
Allows all "Aircraft of Operator" categories to be indexed:  Yes
Work required to implement:  Moderate (needs some additional structure, but can be implemented over time, bots can do some)

Option 2:
Use: "Aircraft by operator" and "Aircraft by airline" (or other user types) categories sit at the parent category level. All operators are located in "by operator" while "by airline" is limited to airlines. Template:Cat see also should be used to facilitate cross-navigation.


Criteria:
Avoids COM:OVERCAT:  Yes
Complies with Universality principle:  Mostly (can be applied throughout most of the aircraft tree)
Maintains both operator and airline indices:  Yes
Allows users to see all operators in one index:  Yes
Can browse and categorize without parsing operator type:  Yes
Can refine browsing to a specific operator type:  Yes (by navbox or Template:Cat see also)
Allows sorting in indices without special characters:  Yes
Related index available from within Category:Airlines:  No
"Aircraft of Operator" categories only need to be in one index:  No (for most)
Allows all "Aircraft of Operator" categories to be indexed:  Yes
Work required to implement:  Minimal (missing indices can be added over time and as needed)

Option 3:
Use: "Aircraft by operator" would be the parent index with "Aircraft by airline" as a sub-index. "Aircraft of Operator" categories for airline operators would go exclusively in "by airline" and other operators remain at the "by operator" level (or go in their own operator type index if it exists).


Criteria:
Avoids COM:OVERCAT:  No (Inherently will invite overcat violations, but can be overcome with regular maintenance)
Maintains both operator and airline indices:  Yes
Complies with Universality principle:  Yes (can be applied consistently throughout aircraft tree)
Allows users to see all operators in one index:  No
Can browse and categorize without parsing operator type:  No (must parse at a minimum if operator is an airline)
Can refine browsing to a specific operator type:  Yes (by the category tree)
Allows sorting in indices without special characters:  No (would need special groupings to sort sub-types)
Related index available from within Category:Airlines:  No
"Aircraft of Operator" categories only need to be in one index:  Yes (for most)
Allows all "Aircraft of Operator" categories to be indexed:  Yes
Work required to implement:  Minimal (missing indices can be added over time and as needed)

Option 3B: (provisional improvement of Option 3 to improve meeting criteria)
Use: "Aircraft by operator" would be the parent index with "Aircraft by airline" as a sub-index. "Aircraft of Operator" categories for airline operators would go exclusively in "by airline" and other operators remain at the "by operator" level (or go in their own operator type index if it exists).


Criteria:
Avoids COM:OVERCAT:  No (Inherently will invite overcat violations, but can be overcome with regular maintenance)
Maintains both operator and airline indices:  Yes
Complies with Universality principle:  Yes (can be applied consistently throughout aircraft tree)
Allows users to see all operators in one index:  Yes (using flat list)
Can browse and categorize without parsing operator type:  Yes (browse for sure, categorize maybe)
Can refine browsing to a specific operator type:  Yes (by the category tree)
Allows sorting in indices without special characters:  Yes (no need if sort criteria is by type of operator)
Related index available from within Category:Airlines:  No
"Aircraft of Operator" categories only need to be in one index:  Yes (for most)
Allows all "Aircraft of Operator" categories to be indexed:  Yes
Work required to implement:  Minimal (missing indices can be added over time and as needed)

Option 4: ("Aircraft by Operator" only - started a while back but aborted)
Use: Only 'by operator' categories would be maintained. All operators would be indexed there


Criteria:
Avoids COM:OVERCAT:  no (With a tree of indices, either you get no substance to higher-level indices, or you get overcat)
Maintains both operator and airline indices:  No
Complies with Universality principle:  Yes (can be applied consistently throughout aircraft tree)
Allows users to see all operators in one index:  Yes
Can browse and categorize without parsing operator type:  Yes
Can refine browsing to a specific operator type:  No
Allows sorting in indices without special characters:  Yes
Related index available from within Category:Airlines:  Yes
"Aircraft of Operator" categories only need to be in one index:  No
Allows all "Aircraft of Operator" categories to be indexed:  Yes
Work required to implement:  Major (conversion/merging of a large number of categories, bots could do most though)

Option 5: ("Aircraft by Airline" only for airliners, "Aircraft by Operator" for others - i.e. the old way)
Use: Only 'by airline' categories would be maintained. Airline operators would be indexed there. Non-airline operators would not be indexed.


Criteria:
Avoids COM:OVERCAT:  No (With a tree of indices, either you get no substance to higher-level indices, or you get overcat)
Maintains both operator and airline indices:  No
Complies with Universality principle:  No (different names and structure for each type, determined case-by-case)
Allows users to see all operators in one index:  No
Can browse and categorize without parsing operator type:  No (must know what counts as which type of operator)
Can refine browsing to a specific operator type:  No (for any type only one index will exist)
Allows sorting in indices without special characters:  Yes
Related index available from within Category:Airlines:  Maybe (could put there or at parent level or both (overcat))
"Aircraft of Operator" categories only need to be in one index:  Yes
Allows all "Aircraft of Operator" categories to be indexed:  No (for those done by airline, but yes for others)
Work required to implement:  Minimal (matches many existing cats, those with both need work to combine but could be bot work)

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

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

  • I would support Option 3 even on the risk of introducing overcat. The reason is that "by operator" is a neutral parent container for "by airline" and "by military". Also "by airline" should not just be a subcategory of "Airliners" because many airliners have military derivatives, and small airlines may not use airliners at all but just large executive aircraft (Beech, Cessna, Dassault Falcon, etc.). So the sorting criteria should be on the kind of operator. De728631 (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @De728631: Interesting input, thank you. I would agree that overcat is a minor consideration and can be waived for indices. A few questions:
      • 1) I do agree with you 100% that not all airliners are used by airlines and airlines do not only use airliners. The same is true of military or any other kind of aircraft, the aircraft function and operator type are not 100% analogous. In all honesty, I have thought on that more than a bit. To be really correct about that, we should have Category:Aircraft by operator with children Category:Airliners by operator and Category:Aircraft by airline and the intersection sub-cat of these called Category:Airliners by airline...but I can hear the screaming already about the name of that one, not to mention it would take a bot task to implement. Without opening that can of worms, and just sticking with Category:Aircraft by airline to encompass that, would you not list it under Category:Airliners? Or do we go ahead and name it correctly so that the distinctions can be made for these cases? Or do we just leave it in the parent index and not list an index under Category:Airliners for now? Open to ideas!
      • 2) As you state, in this case the sort criteria is the kind of operator, so maybe it makes sense to call the parent Category:Aircraft by type of operator. That way it would be clear that it is not a list of operators itself, but instead is diffused by type. What do you think?
      • 3) Where would one go to find a listing of all operators, regardless of type of operator? Would you be okay with a Category:Aircraft by operator (flat list) for users who want to see all operators listed?
    • Thanks again for the excellent input. I've added an Option 3B with some minor tweaks to build in your comments and meet the most criteria possible. Do you think that would satisfy your concerns, or do you have some more tweaks you would make? Josh (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3B looks like a runner (I think). Grateful if someone could confirm that it means retention of the 'by airline' approach and an end to arbitrary deletion of 'by airline' cats and replacement with 'by operator'. I hope this can be confirmed so that I can get on with the real work - still over 100k files to be classified folks. Ardfern (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ardfern: it doesn't look like option 3B retains the "by airline", I do think Josh as added far too much detail and options that it takes time to digest. I'm going to be refraining from making a view until I have the time to study each in greater detail. Bidgee (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ardfern: I can confirm that Option 3B does retain "by airline". All "Aircraft of Airline" categories would be under "Aircraft by Airline" which would be under the parent index "Aircraft by type of operator". They would not be listed separately under that parent, so they would only go one place for most levels. There might be a flat list but this would stand separate and would only be for the main Category:Aircraft and maybe some of the larger manufacturers or classes. I have tried to be detailed so that when we implement we don't immediately find ourselves back again with different directions. I know you have been wanting me to reinstate some more airline cats and I am looking forward to doing so just as soon as we wrap this discussion. Josh (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bidgee: Good thinking, I knew I probably hadn't got the right hang of this. I find all this category speak very confusing. If 'by airline' is not retained, then the proposal is useless. Ardfern (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bidgee and Ardfern: To be clear, Option 3B DOES retain the 'by airline' categories! I think in the interest of keeping the listing from getting too long, I wrote "Categories:Aircraft by operator type", so operator type would include "airline", so these categories would be Category:Aircraft by airline, etc. whatever is appropriate, but obviously, 'by Airline' would be the most often present! Sorry if it was not clear, but if there are any other questions, I'll be happy to clarify! I've added them more explicitly so everyone can see they are there for sure! Frankly, I would assume any scheme that did not include something 'by airline' would be a non-starter. Josh (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added Category:Beechcraft aircraft by airline into the new Category:Beechcraft aircraft by type of operator. If this is the proposed way forward across the board then I am all for it. Presumably it applies equally to cats like 'Aircraft by operator', 'Boeing aircraft by operator' etc. It is great that it negates the need for big catch-all by operator cats like these, thus reducing duplication and work (no double entries for 'by airline' and 'by operator'). Let me know if this interpretation is wrong. I have to say that it is rather like what I was originally proposing (that 'by airline' be a subcat of 'by operator'), but tweaked in a more generally acceptable way apparently. Good job. Ardfern (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried the approach in Category:Aircraft in Netherlands service by type of operator. Obviously you need to decide what to call the cat re aircraft in military service, otherwise perhaps you could have a look and see if I have implemented the right approach (when you get time. Ardfern (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ardfern: It looks fine to me. I second the motion that it is great to have an agreeable way forward and appreciate everyone bringing it to a conclusion. Military, government, and other operator cats can be fleshed out as we go forward. I have been creating those groups even if they have one cat at the moment (these numbers will rise as members are identified and categorized). At any rate, 'by type of operator' can hold them all. There are some cases where I have moved the 'by operator' category to 'by type of operator' in accordance with this CfD, but do not have every individual operator yet diffused into the appropriate cats, this will take a bit to do. Josh (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making moved such as this, the discussion has not yet concluded. I work and don't have 24/7 week to play with and not only that we yet to have a finalised consensus. Bidgee (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Beechcraft_aircraft_by_type_of_operator&oldid=347168337"