User talk:Joshbaumgartner

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

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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | 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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | 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)

Category:Six-piston-engine_push-pull_triplanes[edit]

Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft by year of photographing[edit]

Thanks for your message. I created Category:Aircraft by year of photographing and its associated categories as equivalents to Category:Watercraft by year of photographing and Category:Land vehicles by year of photographing and their equivalents.

Until I received your message, I was not aware of Category:Aircraft in 2017 and its equivalent categories for other years. The naming of those categories appears to be non-standard; to conform with the naming scheme of the substantial number of equivalent categories in Category:2017 photographs by subject, those categories should be named in the format Category:Aircraft photographed in [year].

Also, categories named in that format should be in a different parent category, namely Category:Aircraft by year of photographing, because the parent category Category:Aircraft by year should really be populated by sub-categories named in the format Category:2017 aircraft and containing pictures of aircraft introduced in the year of the name of the category. However, I acknowledge that aircraft, unlike road vehicles, are generally not referred to in that way, eg the Boeing 747-100 is generally not referred to as a "1970 aircraft".

What I think should now be done is that the sub-categories in Category:Aircraft by year should be renamed and moved to Category:Aircraft by year of photographing, and Category:Aircraft by year should perhaps be deleted. But I haven't quite made up my mind yet. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Bahnfrend (talk · contribs), thanks for the additional info. Category:Aircraft by year subcats have more than just photos, so they cannot be simply renamed Category:Aircraft by year of photographing. Category:Aircraft photographed in 2017 rightfully should be a sub-category of Category:Aircraft in 2017, as would be Category:Videos of aircraft recorded in 2017 or Category:Audio of aircraft recorded in 2017 (or however such categories should be named) along with any other types of media with their own categories. Category:Aircraft by year does need better definition, I agree, but ultimately should be a super category for various temporal concepts. Individual media should be under the year that media depicts (for photos, this is easy as it is the year the photo is taken). For some types of media, additionally they should be under the year the media was created. Categories for individual aircraft should be categorized under the year that particular aircraft was built (i.e. Category:Aircraft built in 2000). Finally, categories for aircraft models and families should be under the year of development (typically determined by date of first flight). Thus, if one has a drawing made in 2017 of Concorde c/n 201 as it appeared in 1999, it would be under Category:Aircraft in 1999 (or more specifically Category:Concorde in 1999), and should probably additionally be under Category:Drawings of aircraft created in 2017 (though this branch has yet to be built). It's individual aircraft category, Category:F-BTSC (aircraft), is under Category:Aircraft built in 1975, and the higher category, Category:Concorde, is under Category:1960s aircraft. Josh (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Boeing 737 by registration[edit]

Hi Josh. I have added the comments here to the discussion page for Boeing 737 by registration - This does not seem to be a useful or sensible category. If a by registration category is felt to be needed for Boeing 737, it should at least by separated out into Boeing 737 types eg Boeing 737-200, Boeing 737-800 etc. I think this category should not be used further pending discussion. Ardfern (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft "models"[edit]

Good evening. I just happened to see that you created a new template "Aircraft model by facing".

You have certainly not misses that I changed some items back from "model" to "type", always approved by different administrators. The given reason was "Type" is the correct ICAO (and Wikipedia) term, not "model". Here is our official definition and this is a fine illustration concerning "Models of aircraft" Face-smile.svg.

Maybe you might be able to agree that common use of terms for the future? Not only I myself would be grateful for that. Thank you in advance. --Uli Elch (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, and in fact the way my templates are written, they can easily be converted to different naming conventions. The problem I'm running into is that while 'type' is indeed how 'ICAO' (and many national aviation authorities) call models, this is not specified in the descriptions of most categories. If we want to restrict 'by type' categories as really being 'by ICAO type designation', then great, but I think there is some real work to be done to make that reality.
1) In most topics, 'type' refers to groupings or classifications, so we have to be very clear what 'type' means in aviation, and how to limit its use to that definition.
2) Currently there a lot of things users think qualify as 'type' that have nothing to do with 'ICAO type', including manufacturer, functional, and even configuration types.
3) Few categories are actually by ICAO type (we have 'Boeing 737-400 of Southwest Airlines', not 'B734 of Southwest Airlines'), so again we have to better communicate why we are restricting on the basis of something that isn't even in the category name, and explain how those not steeped in ICAO nuance can have a hope of complying.
4) Not all aircraft fit into an official ICAO type category (many early aircraft, prototypes, military models, etc.), so we have to provide folks a better clue on how to handle these aircraft.
I don't think 'model' is any better a word than 'type'...as you observed the potential confusion with 'models of...' categories among other reasons. I'd be happy to use templates to help with this and let's do a better job communicating with users who may not be so up on esoteric details like ICAO type designations. Josh (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, Template:Aircraft model by facing doesn't exist. Josh (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
1) & 2): To avoid confusion, the more specific term "type of aircraft" could be used.
3) & 4): I have probably been misunderstood concerning ICAO. Quite certainly I don't want to introduce the individual ICAO type designators like B744 for a Boeing 747-400, which indeed would be "esoteric details" in our context (even though I've been flying that one for several years). What I meant is that ICAO does not even know the term "model" in their regulatory framework, they always use "type" for that purpose. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
You are completely correct as far as I know about the use of the word 'type' in aviation. I'm not a pilot, but I'm well steeped in such terminology, so it does not present a problem for me, I'm just concerned that for a lot of users, we'll have to explain that no, 'biplane' is not a 'type of aircraft', which seems at odds with general English usage of those words. I don't think expanding it from 'type' to 'type of aircraft' does much to solve this. Of course, we use 'type of aircraft' or 'aircraft type' to clarify against other items in the name of a cat (e.g. 'Landings by aircraft type', since we aren't catting by landing type). Again, my concern is not really which word we use, it is how do we better communicate to users, both those categorizing media as well as those seeking media, how to most effectively use the system. Josh (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

File:World operators of the MiG-21.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:World operators of the MiG-21.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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Extrapolaris (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

File:World operators of the MiG-29.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:World operators of the MiG-29.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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Extrapolaris (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Le Bourget Airport[edit]

Hi, I have amended cats at Le Bourget Airport to put them back in line with every other airport, ie removed aircraft cats by model, manufacturer and function. These are unnecessary sub classifications and completely out of sync with all other entries. Ardfern (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Category V5-MAG[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Joshbaumgartner:

V5-KCC / Beechcraft A 36

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

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

@Joshbaumgartner:

Cessna 182, V5-TCD (2017)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Numbers by media categories[edit]

Hello, Joshbaumgartner. I just wanted to point out that it's better English to name these categories "by medium" (instead of "by media"), because medium is singular. If you look at Category:Categories by medium (flat list), you'll see that the other categories are named this way. I'd be glad to help rename the numbers categories if you want to do that. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point, oversight on my part. I'll try and go back and fix up the ones I've touched recently, and if you notice any, feel free to update them as well. Thanks! Josh (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Aircraft cat?[edit]

Could you look at a couple of pages this template is used on?

These are just a couple that I spot-checked. I don't see a meaningful difference in the way these two are set up, so I don't know what's going on. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yikes! I'll look into it and fix the problem. Thanks for the report! Josh (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Two different issues. For Aero Boero, the Wikidata was wrong, so I fixed that and it fixed the categorization. For the Boeing category, I added 'ifexist' to avoid the redlink being added. In all cases, you can add nocat=y to rely on manual links if the template doesn't work for the specifics of the category in question. Josh (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for resolving these. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:044 (number) and Category:00 (number)[edit]

Hi,

You corrected these categories. But now we have 105 number categories in Category:Numbers with trailing zeroes. Do you plan to correct them all? --Michgrig (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

As time allows. They were in Category:Numbers with trailing zeroes originally, and I'm not sure why. Regardless, they need to be moved to Category:Natural numbers with leading zeroes. Josh (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Number cat is not multilingual[edit]

The Template:Number cat you created works only in English. For other languages, the template generates error messages, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:64_(number)?uselang=de. --Labant (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually it is multilingual, using WD labels and langswitch. The error you found had to do with how the numerals were being pulled. This is fixed now. Josh (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Aircraft views[edit]

Hi! Can you please modify the Template:Aircraft views to not add the {{aircraft mfr}} to the aircraft view categories? The included {{aircraft mfr}} automatically adds Category:Aircraft manufacturers category to aircraft view categories which they shouldn't have. Many thanks! -- Meisam (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)