User talk:Ardfern

Welcome to my talk page. Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page, use headlines when starting new talk topics and sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end. I will generally reply on this page to keep conversations together; please watch this page for a short time after leaving a comment. Thank you. Start a new talk topic.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

File:Bank of Ireland, Donegal, June 2012.JPG

File:Bank of Ireland, Donegal, June 2012.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

64.150.8.12 20:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This was a nonsense nomination by a random IP. Closed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Centre Jean-Moulin, Bordeaux, July 2014 (02).JPG

File:Centre Jean-Moulin, Bordeaux, July 2014 (02).JPG 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 has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Benoît Prieur (d) 10:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

London Gatwick Airport

Hi, The template "London Gatwick Airport year" used in the Categories "Category:XXXX at London Gatwick Airport" currently puts its categories in "Category:Transport in London in XXXX" or "Category:XXXX in London". Is it possible this could be removed from the template as the airport is not actually 'in' London, it is in West Sussex where the template also adds its categories? This would be in line with how the other airports that serve London are treated in Commons. I ask you to make this change as I believe you are responsible for creating this template, if not can you tell me where to ask to implement this change? Example of categories affected: Category:2015 in London Category:Transport in London in 2014. Oxyman (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Done Ardfern (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the modification, best Oxyman (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Airline Info on Categories

Hello. I liked the idea of you adding the details of each aircraft registration, so I have added this to other aircraft which have not been done, Only change is that the months are included for each year the aircraft moves to a new operator. Do you think we should add anything else? I added a note for a special colour scheme note for G-EZUI if that's a good idea? --MKY661 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:G-EZUI_(aircraft)

Looks good to me. Sufficient level of detail. Glad to see someone else working on thisArdfern (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jetline_International_aircraft_at_Domodedovo_International_Airport

Jetline International aircraft at Domodedovo International Airport has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/04/Category:Jetline_International_aircraft_at_Domodedovo_International_Airport. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

78.186.55.101 21:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Apollo Aviation Group / GECAS

Dear Ardfern, I'm writing regarding your correction of pages Category:B-5080 (aircraft), UR-PSN (aircraft) & TC-SUB (aircraft). I have noted that you added into "Template:Cat see also" 2 categories of aircrafts - N614LS (aircraft) & N310CQ (aircraft). As far as we can see from aircraft story it had this registration numbers during the period of storage in Apollo Aviation Group and GECAS agencies. These periods lasted couple of months only. And I really doubt that the photos of these aircrafts with these registration numbers exist and will appear at Wiki Commons. Was it make sense to add it into "Template:Cat see also"? --Vasyatka1 (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• To leave them out would render the information inaccurate and therefore useless and leave gaps in the timeline. In many cases there are indeed photos of aircraft while in ownership of lessors or in storage.Ardfern (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:A6-EMA_(Boeing_777)

Category:A6-EMA_(Boeing_777) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/07/Category:A6-EMA_(Boeing_777). If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Conifer (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete vs. rename

Concerning your recent edits akin to this, two things:

1. The category names you created are certainly better, being more clear and matching other such names of categories about other types of vehicles (I didn’t do that back when I worked in these categories to avoid too changing both scope and name of each category — but now it’s certainly later enough to do so.)
2. However, why not renaming/moving these misnamed categories instead of deleting them? It would minimize file editing (one edit on each filepage, instead of two) and keep the history of each category.

(Also: this page needs archiving. Badly.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Cessna or other

Hello Ardfern. This edit suggests no Cessna is shown in the picture. If not, can you tell me what we do see there? Regards, Apdency (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed. It would have been more constructive to have rectified the mistake rather than simply exercising sarcasm. Ardfern (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing. But my question was genuine; as a layman, I really didn't know. No sarcasm was intended therefore. Apdency (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Mailboxes_in_England

Mailboxes in England has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:Mailboxes_in_England. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Flickreview train files

Under your name (PK-LMN) a load of train files are being wrongly loaded into Category:Aviation files (check needed). Please cease immediately and revert all the files. Ardfern (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Brendan Fraser

Hi,

Thank you for your work on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Fraser Is it possible that we use a more flattering image such as this? https://i.imgur.com/P2pNGCz.jpg

Or How could we go about doing that.

Regards

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnah Hill (talk • contribs) 23:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:National_Museum_of_Ireland,_Merrion_Street

National Museum of Ireland, Merrion Street has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/03/Category:National_Museum_of_Ireland,_Merrion_Street. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Themightyquill (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• • This cannot be considered in isolation from the two other categories within Category:National Museum of Ireland. It is clearly a branch of that institution which should remain to be clear and allow files of each to be clearly delineated. Propose no change. Ardfern (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Igreja de Santo António, Lisbon, May 2017 (01).JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Igreja de Santo António, Lisbon, May 2017 (01).JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Sorted, licence added. Ardfern (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

New aircraft operators

Hello Ardfern, I have seen your edits to aircraft categories, where you maintain the operator of a specific aircraft. Thanks a lot for your work! From time to time I am taking aircraft images and today I found that Category:D-ABGO (aircraft) has a new livery: Eurowings, operated by Air Berlin (not visible on the aircraft but told by the stewardess during the flight CGN-ZRH). Are you interested in further reports? Raymond 18:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Raymond, thanks for the report, which I confirmed, and have updated Category:D-ABGO (aircraft) accordingly. Many thanks, all info gratefully received. Ardfern (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ardfern, here some more news:

• Category:D-ABZK (aircraft) - now Eurowings
• Category:D-ABNT (aircraft) - now Eurowings
• Category:OH-LZP (aircraft)‎‎ - new aircraft

Raymond 16:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Raymond, all confirmed and updated. Ardfern (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

EasyJet Airbus Categories

It is not laid out in any procedure to create separate categories for current & former aircraft operated by an airline. The whole "Category: Airbus aircraft of EasyJet" and "Category:Former Airbus aircraft of EasyJet" is a complete mess, it is better to note that an aircraft was transferred to another airline (and when) than it is to create such categories. Plus, doing so makes adding another registration category a total nightmare, please stop and remove the category. Information is redundant, as it can be conveyed through ː "CategoryːAircraft registrations (several operators)" and by noting, example "Airbus A319-111
cn/serial number: 4837
*EasyJet 2011-2012 as G-EZGR
*EasyJet Switzerland 2012 to date as HB-JYB"

--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• On the contrary it is not a mess, for the first time it is possible to clearly see the aircraft currently operated by EasyJet and the aircraft formerly operated by EasyJet, rather than a big mass of registrations for an EasyJet aircraft type where it is impossible to see what is operated and what is no longer current. The information certainly is not redundant and actually improves the user and researchers experience in my view. Ardfern (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not standard. Why not just include the information in the category itself? It is not proper; you chose to make that change out of the blue instead of inquiring among other editors.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons Conference project

Hello Ardfern,

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around, but since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--MB-one (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

New Lufthansa Airbus

Hi Ardfern, it looks like I have taken a picture of a brandnew Lufthansa plane today: Category:D-AIXE (aircraft). Raymond 15:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

:Thanks Raymond, further info added Ardfern (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft variant categories

Hi, Ardfern. Categories like Category:Airbus A319-115 do not take a {{catcat}} template. If you want them to be only for categories, they need names that indicate that, like maybe "Airbus A319-115 by registration" (which would use {{catcat}} and not {{metacat}}). Thanks, and feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Ardfern (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Belfast (303), October 2009.JPG

File:Belfast (303), October 2009.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Geography_of_Dublin_(city)

Geography of Dublin (city) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:Geography_of_Dublin_(city). If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

feminist (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Two proposals

Good afternoon. Since it was you who has installed most (if not all) individual aircraft histories in the respective photo files, I'd like to suggest two ideas in order to discuss them with you, hopefully in a less aggressive atmosphere.

1) I'm wondering whether it might be helpful to readers to display the last line in case of a write-off like "crashed in Malta in October 2016 and written off" in a more prominent way. It could be "written off", "written off" or with some kind of colour. What do you think about it?

2) You are using the term "to date" for the last entries. I'm afraid that more and more of those numerous files may become outdated as time goes by. Therefore, I suggest to use something like "since 20xx" or "from 20xx" instead.

Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. With regard to proposal 1, I really don't see any need for further emphasis of written off. I think the words themselves say it all. On proposal 2, my reading of since or from would be since or from until now, ie to date, so I don't see any need for change. I don't think it increases accuracy or makes the file any more up to date. The key is keeping the files updated, which I already try to do as much as possible. I wish everyone would do the same, as well as ensuring proper categorisation of outstanding files needing checked. Then we could consider these kind of cosmetic tweaks. Ardfern (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"Aircraft built in 2009" vs. "Boeing 777 built in 2009"

Hello! I have noticed your edit. Could you please explain the advantages of changing that category on D-AALI? Isn't the more general category a better option? I'm rather new at this subject, so I don't know. Thanks! --GeXeS (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh wait, I have just found out that the "Boeing" category is a sub-cat of the general "Aircraft" category. Guess that answers my question, huh...--GeXeS (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, sorry for spamming here, but there is another thing concerning this topic. Say there is a plane, built in 2000, given tail A-AAA, then moved to another operator and renamed to B-BBB. If we tag both of them as "built in 2000", the plane will appear twice in that category. Is there a solution for this? Tagging "built in ..." category only to the first instance of the airplane, maybe?--GeXeS (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

In the example above the aircraft were both still built in 2000 and should be recorded as such. The problem you cite is only a problem if you think that only the instance of an aircraft that should be in the 'built in' category is the first instance. I don't. Ardfern (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion - my reasoning is that if someone would want to count airplanes built in some year judging by the list in Wikipedia, he/she would get an erratic result due to this.--GeXeS (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I understood your reasoning. I don't have a solution for those people who want to count airplanes in any year (that's not what the category is designed for). If you feel strongly about this feel free to raise your issue for discussion at Commons:WikiProject Aviation. Ardfern (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--GeXeS (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

AX-2343

Hi! Can you please check Category:AX-2343 (aircraft)? I'm not sure how it should be categorized. Many thanks! -- Meisam (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

To be exact, I’m not sure how subcategories of the [‌[Category:Aircraft registered in XXX]] should be organized. Specifically:

• Military aircraft registered in XXX
• Police aircraft of XXX
• Air ambulances of XXX by registration
• Government aircraft by country
• XXX Air Force aircraft serials

-- Meisam (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)