User talk:Joshbaumgartner

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

Ship Categories[edit]

It looks like you duplicated an existing category. Any reason why we can't collapse Category:Naval ships of the United States into Category:United States Navy ships? Mak 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not create category trees on your own - please use the existing categories, they are well suited for this job, see above. --Denniss 02:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Work in progress, but trying to bring over some of the work done to the parallel categories in WP. The problem is that the pre-existing ones aren't as well suited as they might seem at first. We've worked though a lot of this on the WP side, and having the images also better categorized is a good thing. Josh 02:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
All I wanted to say was do not duplicate existing category trees, feel free to subcat existing cats if they fit better. It is not needed to divide cruisers into Hevay, light, armored, what else cruisers, just cruiser should be enough. And please do not remove cats by timeline like 1910s ships. --Denniss 02:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Category:Naval ships of the United States and Category:United States Navy ships are NOT duplicates. Naval ships include all military vessels, and the United States Navy is not the only operator of military ships in the United States. Both the Army and Coast Guard have them, as well as there being historical operators such as the Confederate Navy, all of which are naval ships of the United States which would not fit into United States Navy ships. Josh 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That seems like a workable solution to the problem of political entities that did not last long, but shared a common geographical location and culture. There are some odd problems though. Does Soviet Union Navy go under Russian Navy then? Also- You are ok with multiple parent categories, right? EG- For the Australian Army, shouldn't the Ozzie divisions from world war I be also listed under Australian army even though at the time they were soldiers of the British Imperial army? -Mak 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you are right, multiple links should be used. It's a judgement call to some degree, but for example yes, 'Soviet Navy ships' should be under both 'Russian Navy ships' and 'Ships of the Soviet Union'. Josh 01:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
What was the resolution on the Naval ships of [country] discussion? WP's en:Category:Ships by country is pretty tidy- I understand Denniss's point about not needlessly propagating extra catalog structure and I actually strongly agree with him on that. However Naval ships of France was flagged for emptying and some chap dutifully did that. I'm not sure such actions should be taken if there is a dispute in the matter. Under your scheme would there be a separate French Navy subtree, or would it all be under Naval ships of France and there be a subcat for the rare case of naval ships not in the French navy? -Mak 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh absolutely, WP's cats are the result of some wrangling that was done over the last year, but I think looking at them now it seems worth the hassle. It is hard to debate individual cats if we haven't agreed on an overall scheme, so that's why I proposed following WP's scheme. It's not that WP's is perfect, but at least it has had pretty good results. About the 'naval ships of' issue, personally for France I probably don't see the need for a 'French Navy ships' cat under 'Naval ships of France', but at the same ime if someone made the case for it, I wouldn't necessarily challenge it. Primarily, I see the proper names of navies used both in cases such as Russia and Japan where historical deliniations exist between say the Soviet Navy and the Russian Navy, or in the case of the UK, where the RN is so historically prolific that noone can stomach not having a 'Royal Navy ships' category. And yes, all of these would be sub-cats of the appropriate 'naval ships of X' categories, as you can see with the en:Category:Ships by country on WP. Josh 13:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Zug[edit]

Hello, concerning Category:Passenger ships of Germany: Zug is a city in Switzerland not in Germany. Best regards --Baikonur 10:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, guess those 3 photos should be recategorized... Josh

Ok.[edit]

I'll take a look at the updated ship scheme. By the way, thanks for your work on rationalizing the structure.


Although my style is confrontational, if an good enough argument is made to at least balance mine, then I am willing to acquiece to a proposal that has the bulk of opinion favoring it. I will only make noise if I think that the bulk of opinion is based on not understanding the issues. But after I've said my peace, I'm ok with whatever decision.

-Mak 16:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Maritime command (Navy of Canada)[edit]

You might like to weigh in on this discussion- Category talk:Maritime Command -Mak 17:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving along[edit]

I'd like to move along on some part of the ships scheme you proposed- normalization of the Naval ships of Foo categories seems like a good place to start. Someone redirected naval ships of japan to ships of japan and I noted you didn't revert it. Any reason for that? I left a message about destroyers of japan but no answer so I just reverted back to your version.

Is DennisS on board with this/ will he go along? I haven't heard a peep out of him on the category Talk Ships. I don't want this to be a war, but it will be a lot harder to change this as lots of stuff gets dependent on the current set of cats.

-Mak 00:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been a little in and out lately with other life issues so I've missed some beats in this discussion. My experience has been that most people don't look at discussions or guidelines but just base their efforts on whatever exists as cetegories at the moment. So until we get them sorted out to the point where it is nearly universal in the actual application, there are going to be things like the naval ships of Japan redirect happening. I don't know where DennisS stands on things and I don't like wars either, so I guess I'll wait and see how it goes. I agree that the 'ships of Foo' standardization is a good starting point for work. Josh 02:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I transfered Japanese destroyers -> "Destroyers of Japan" and got no reverts in the last few days so I guess I will do the rest of the Japanese navy and see how it goes. -Mak 05:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I lost this weekend to work, but as soon as I can make time, I will help with the other cats. Josh 18:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No sweat. I don't see a lot of additions in this area, so there is no rush. I am finished with Japan and all cats are redirected. If you have some time, take a look at how Category:Naval ships of Japan now looks. If I am off base on how I did some of these I need to know right away. I also renamed Japanese Imperial Navy to Imperial Japanese Navy, since that's what WP did. -Mak 23:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I don t see anything wrong with it, good work. Josh 07:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hiryu[edit]

I have deleted this gallery page as it's been empty since January 13. If you plan on populating it or something, let me know and I'll restore it. Thanks, Yonatan talk 20:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

category[edit]

Category:Huey (UH-1) - what you want to that category ? you erease all text - ok but you shuld or add Template:speedy or Template:Category redirect. Not delete all text. --Pmgpmg 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, missed that one, thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed it. Josh 22:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

World operators of the C-130 Hercules.PNG[edit]

Would be nice to paint Tierra del Fuego too.


Image Tagging Image:Badge_of_the_Argentine_Defense_Minister.gif[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Badge_of_the_Argentine_Defense_Minister.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Siebrand 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Badge_of_CITEFA.gif[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Badge_of_CITEFA.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Siebrand 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Infoboxes and tagging[edit]

Dear Joshbaumgartner! I saw that you put in a lot of effort to elaborate the Info summaries on Commons pictures, like the A-6 Intruder. However, I am not sure if this is really necessary. The Infos given are not different from the ones in the picture description. Especially the USN/USMC tags take up a lot of room. I think commons users will be intelligent enough to look at the respective wikipedia for infos on the plane, and the users. Also, what do you do with an F-16 that is used by many countries, put all flags, emblems etc. there? I think all this information should be elaborated on wikipedia, commons is to provide the pictures. Thanks for any remarks! -- cobatfor 19:49, 22 Jan 2008 (UTC).

Thank you for the interest. For operator tags, only operators of the aircraft in the image are included. Indeed, most aircraft are used by many operators, but if the aircraft in the image is a Pakistani F-16 for example, it would get the Pakistani tag, and if it were a US Air Force F-16, it would get the USAF tag. One wouldn't apply the USAF tag to a photograph of a Pakistani F-16 or vice versa. That would, I agree, not be very useful and would take prohibitive amounts of space. The idea is that the tags do not carry much in the way of information, merely the name of the item and links to the various wiki articles by language. The images are eye candy, admittedly, and perhaps two per tag is excessive and it should be one or none.Josh 08:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:MEX 2008 RB 02 wheel.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 18:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Naval ships of the United States[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Naval ships of the United States and Category:United States Navy ships have been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

- Jmabel ! talk 06:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


Image:Roundel_of_Canada_1946.svg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Roundel_of_Canada_1946.svg 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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

B Crawford (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of category templates?[edit]

Hi, I've seen you've created some templates e.g. in Category:Aircraft image templates. At the moment I don't see this templates do something usufull, it seems to me they are only an eye-candy. For categorising images we have catagories. But maybe there is a deeper purpose which I don't understand. --Avron (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just happened upon your templates (such as Template:Aircraft of the Austrian Air Force), and wanted to ask the same question as Avron. Do these serve a critical purpose, and are they a reliable solution to the problem of identifying objects depicted within an image? (There doesn't seem to be a good reason to identify objects in general in this manner—what's special about aircraft and air forces?) TheFeds 04:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Armoiries du Congo.gif[edit]

Hi. You may have an interest in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Armoiries du Congo.gif.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Fin_flash_of_the_United_Kingdom_Low_Visibility_Pale.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Fin_flash_of_the_United_Kingdom_Low_Visibility_Pale.svg 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fry1989 eh? 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Fin_flash_of_the_United_Kingdom_Low_Visibility_Pale.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Fin_flash_of_the_United_Kingdom_Low_Visibility_Pale.svg 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fry1989 eh? 20:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Roundel_of_Manchuria_1931.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Roundel_of_Manchuria_1931.svg 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fry1989 eh? 01:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

File:World operators of the Su-24.png + Sudan[edit]

Hello, it would add the Sudan on the map - http://theaviationist.com/2013/08/19/sudan-su-24/#.Uh2nIPoazTo

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:L%27amateur_d%27a%C3%A9roplanes

File:Roundel of Congo 1970.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Roundel of Congo 1970.png 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Antemister (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary cat[edit]

Please don't create categories that have no possibility of being used except by one specific photograph. That's not what the category system is for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Formation_flight_by_A-10_Thunderbolt_II_with_F-15_Eagle,_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_and_P-51_Mustang[edit]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Destroyed_aircraft[edit]

PeterWD (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Confusion on the labeling of the Dassault Mirage aircraft categories.[edit]

Hello, I have some questions in how you are sorting the photos of these aircraft. The two main thing I can cite is the creation of the "Mirage 5B" and the "Mirage 5MA in service with the Chilean Air Force".

On the first category, I cannot find anything that states that there was a 5B version using the list found here woutout a addational letter. If there is a source for it can you share it with me?

Second, I disagree with saying "Mirage 5MA in service with the Chilean Air Force" since this version Chilean Air Force received was given the MA identifier. If this version was only intended for Chile then it would seem redundant to say that it was made for Chile.

Lastly, Why are you not including the Dassault Mirage 50DV with the Mirage 5 in service with the Venezuelan Air Force category? Since the Dassault Mirage 50s are upgraded Dassault Mirage 5s, the should be included.

I wanted to talk to you before I did any further editing so that there is no misunderstanding on each others editing. Thank you for your time.

Articseahorse (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. There are a number of questions there, and some good points. I think you are probably right about the two categories in question. The 'B' is really a customer designation more than a specific version, per se. Thus, I would agree that it probably can go away and the three Belgian actual variants (BA, BD, and BR) can be directly listed under the Belgian service cat and individually under the 5 sans suffixe, 5D, and 5R categories. I was originally thinking of it along the same lines as the blocks used by some aircraft families, but it isn't really needed. The MA situation is a bit more involved. I agree with your point that the MA only served with Chile, so no real need for two categories. On an aircraft like the Mirage 5, versions were customer-specific, but later used aircraft transfers meant that a version could serve with more than one user, so sub-cats by operator are warranted. For cases where we only have images of the version in one customer's colors, then we should absolutely merge the 'version' category and 'version in service with foo' category. The Mirage 50DV category is really the same deal and should be catted under both 50D version and Venezuelan Mirage 5 categories. There is no intention to create unneeded duplication, but sometimes it only becomes clear after some progress on the project, and means as they become clear, they just need to be merged, no biggie. Josh (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
An additional note, when merging the categories, make sure to add a Template:Category redirect to ease navigation and categorization, this way speedy cats will automatically point to the correct target. Josh (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:F-16 Fighting Falcon by United Arab Emirates Air Force serial number[edit]

Hi :-)
You have moved this category, but you haven't moved the subcategories... This category depends on templates, so it can't be made by bot => it must be done manually. Fix it, please. Thanks in advance, Wieralee (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed it up. Josh (talk)

File:USS Alabama (BB-8) 1921.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:USS Alabama (BB-8) 1921.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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Reventtalk 00:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

Please explain why you moved De Havilland DH 82 Tiger Moth by location and its subs without any reason? You should've created a Cfd. Bidgee (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on any particular problem with the edit? I'd be more than happy to revert or address any undesired impact. Thanks! Josh (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay reply. I'm just concerned that is was done without any reasoning, no discussion and is also inconsistent with other categories (e.g. Category:Supermarine Spitfire, Category:Bristol Beaufighter, ect) Bidgee (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:CRO[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Template:CRO 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 template, 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.
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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Russian Rocky (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Albania[edit]

Just created the new cat Category:Albanian Air Force aircraft FA-631 – hope everything's correct. Was the first time I've used this template. --Albinfo (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Josh (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:SPA[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Template:SPA 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 template, 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.
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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Russian Rocky (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Your changes to categories "Category:Aircraft of the (country)"[edit]

Good afternoon. You have recently (20 February 2017) changed the introduction to hundreds of "Aircraft of (country)" categories, for example Category:Aircraft of the United Kingdom.

Previously they were defined as "Aircraft built or designed in the United Kingdom", which contained the respective manufacturers. Now you re-defined that into "Aircraft designed, built, registered, operated, or located in the United Kingdom".

By opening up the definition virtually any manufacturer can be categorized here, since most of their products have been "registered, operated, or located" in the UK at some point. This makes the whole category meaningless.

Maybe I have missed something here, but has there been any consensus for doing such a drastic change? If yes, I would be grateful if you could provide a link.

If not (even if it was you who had created some of them a long time ago) this topic has to be put up for discussion or the changes be reverted. Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you are perhaps overstating things here. The only manufacturers that would belong in Aircraft of the UK are those who build aircraft in the UK. Why would you put Fiat aircraft under the UK? On the other hand, if a particular Fiat aircraft is registered in the UK, then it would be under Aircraft registered in the UK, right? And that would be under Aircraft of the UK. Likewise, Sikorsky helicopters aren't under Aircraft of the UK, but those operated by the RAF are under Aircraft of the RAF, which are Aircraft of the UK. Josh (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
"Aircraft of the RAF" is not under "Aircraft of the UK".
And even more important: "operated, or located in the UK" means a particular aircraft has been present in the UK at some point of time, maybe once only. --Uli Elch (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure it is: Category:Aircraft of the United Kingdom > Category:Government aircraft of the United Kingdom > Category:Military aircraft of the United Kingdom > Category:Aircraft of the air force of the United Kingdom. Josh (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course. If a Russian Air Force MiG-29 is photographed while visiting Farnborough for the show, then that image is under Category:Aircraft in the United Kingdom under Aircraft of the UK. A photo of the same aircraft at Frankfurt would not be. Not sure what the issue is here. Josh (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
If so you have to put the Mig-29 into "Aircraft of the UK" and not "Aircraft in the UK" according to your very special definition on top of the page, or change the definition again. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you aren't making any sense. Category:Aircraft in the United Kingdom is a subcat of Category:Aircraft of the United Kingdom, in case you were not aware. Thus whatever definition the 'in' category has is a subset of the 'of' category. 'Located in' is a subset of 'designed, built, registered, operated, or located in'. The MiG-29 image in question may be placed in Category:Aircraft of the United Kingdom and that would be fine for starters, though likely someone else would then subcat it in Category:Aircraft in the United Kingdom. This is all well and good a normal process in the Commons, and doesn't require any changes to descriptions. Josh (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Aircraft in country[edit]

I came here to specifically query your fundamental change that put Category:Aircraft in Germany as a child of Category:Aircraft of Germany. I have read the discussion above about the child categories in the template for Aircraft of (country). In modern English language, "of" implies the meaning "belonging to", while "in" in this context means "located in", so Aircraft in (country) cannot logically be a child of Aircraft by (country), because its constituents cannot all "belong to" the subject country, but they can all be included in Aviation in (country). I look forward to you amending Template:Aircraft in Country to reflect the logical category hierarchy.PeterWD (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@PeterWD: I understand your point, and sympathize. The semantics of participles are complex, especially considering that they do not translate directly between languages. The question is, should the content be dictated by the description, or is the description to be dictated by the content? Add to this that the name of a category is one piece of the description. It is perfectly logical that there be a category that captures the sum of the relationship between aircraft and a particular country. 'Of' may be generally insufficient to convey that concept as a participle in English, but I don't think the right answer is to malform our category content because we haven't found the right English words to describe it yet. Perhaps the better answer is to rename such a category replacing 'of' with 'and' or something to cover a more complete relationship, but this is a more substantial project to cleanly do, and frankly Commons is loaded with categories that simply live with imperfect names for what they actually contain, and rely on descriptions to be added to give a more clear picture of what is actually captured. I wish it were easier to change these but there are broader implications involved. In short, 'of' can be taken a lot of ways, and while I agree it is probably not the best word to capture the concept, given the nature of Commons category names, I find it very hard to accept that it either does now or should in the future automatically imply any hard and fast rule upon content. I am very open to ideas. Josh (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Poorly worded[edit]

"by location airport" makes no sense, what discussion have you had to change from "by location" to "by location airport"? I wouldn't have an issue with "by airport" but can see issues where an aircraft isn't located at an airport (museum, helipad [if a helicopter], airfield ect). Bidgee (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Same issue with "by location country", which should be following other standard naming conventions ("by country"). Bidgee (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@Bidgee: Which change are you referring to? A category name, or categorization of a file, or something else? Josh (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)