User talk:NiD.29

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


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, NiD.29!

-- 19:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft identification[edit]

Hello NiD.29!

Thanks for your efforts in identifying aircraft! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or post your question here, on our village pump. Happy editing! Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename request undone for now[edit]

Hi. I have not undertaken your rename request at this point. The source specifically states it as an SNJ-6, and file renaming is specific about the terms for renaming. You should look to use a template like {{Fact disputed}} and to make a comment on the image's talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Like many archive sources, this one is incorrect as to the version of the aircraft (many archive sources are not even that close - at least they identified it as a SNJ rather than as a BT-13 or something else). Not sure what your point is - I am pretty sure I sent the request as "3. Correct misleading names into accurate ones" - which it is - or should I have used "5. Correct obvious errors in file names"? Anyone with a sufficient knowledge of AT-6 variants will back me up on it, and there isn't any reason for this to be controversial in any way. As per your request, I have tagged the page, and added a reference to support the renaming. Is this sufficient or do I need to resubmit the renaming request? NiD.29 (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Resubmitted with 2 references to the error in the name. Old image name was "SNJ-6 landing on USS Monterey (CVL-26) 1953.jpeg"NiD.29 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: TBD Devastator[edit]

Hi. There are 19 languages that link title (Čeština, Deutsch, English, Español, Suomi, Français, Hrvatski, Magyar, Bahasa Indonesia, Ido, Italiano, 日本語, Nederlands, Polski, Português, Русский, Slovenčina, Српски / srpski, Tiếng Việt) Speedy template is inappropriate. Allforrous (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok then these these to be changed to link to the correct page, that is all. I will update these shortly.NiD.29 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove Gloster Meteor warbirds categories ?[edit]

e.g. G-BWMF - the Classic Air Force website says its two Meteors are still flyable. Obviously these aircraft don't fly very often, and are normally museum aircraft, but the very fact they are maintained in flyable condition, which is expensive, to me makes them warbirds. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a while ago when I did anything with the Meteors, though my primary goal there was to clean up the mess and break the listing up into individual versions. There should be subdirectories under each type for museum aircraft if there were sufficient photos to justify such a directory. I see no real need to split museum and warbird aircraft unless there are a lot of them, and often the distinction is fuzzy as aircraft often switch from flying status to static display and it makes more sense to put all of the photos in one place. I have just created a consolidated warbirds/museum directory that should clear up any arguments, Cheers.NiD.29 (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Zeppelin[edit]

Which category on File:Thinktank Birmingham - object 1954S00142(1).jpg do you think is a "a sub category of military aircraft"? Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Zeppelin was a cat of military aircraft of world war one (since replaced by the individual Zeppelins), however this Zeppelin is a post-war machine - it is definitely not a wartime Zeppelin as it is too fat. I can't help with narrowing it down further though.NiD.29 (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
So, no such category, then. And I don't believe that Germany dropped any bombs on England from Zeppelins after WWI. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It is still a postwar Zeppelin, regardless of the caption - and yes, there were Zeppelins flying over the UK after world war one - they carried passengers. Captions have been known to be incorrect before, as this one quite obviously is - especially for post cards, where any image is often considered sufficient, or for images from archives, which quite often were labelled by someone with minimal knowledge of the subject. My experience is that the majority of archive images are misidentified, as this one is. NiD.29 (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)