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)

File:RFC Nieuport 23 in 1917.jpg[edit]

You did not provide a url for this image from Flickr. Fortunately I was able to find the source page https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/8572146777 but in future please provide the actual url of the image page as well as the correct copyright information, otherwise they may be deleted. Please check you other uploads and fix them if they too are missing the necessary information. Have a look at what i did and you will see what is necessary. It just causes unnecessary work for us volunteers and you were already on the page so could easily have copied it into the upload page. Thanks for uploading some great images. Ww2censor (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - wasn't sure what the protocol was.NiD.29 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I see you are now doing that thanks. You could also write the full name "San Diego Air & Space Museum Archives" in the author field if you have the time. Again thanks for the great aviation images. Ww2censor (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:B-17G (237994) at Fantasy of Flight[edit]

Your movement was not consistent with the upper Category:B-17 museum aircraft.
If you would like to move the category, you should put a {{move}} template inside and wait at least 14 days for discussion. Only if there will be no opposition, you can move it. For examples look at the Category:Requested moves (all). Wieralee (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It is however consistent with the general wikipedia aviation project naming convention which includes the manufacturers name, and is consistent with other names in Category:Aircraft at Fantasy of Flight. The other B-17 museum aircraft names also need to be changed, not least those with just the name or a name and a serial.NiD.29 (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Four seat biplane in Venice Aero Police markings.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'd like to ask you to consider re-categorising this image as a Standard J-1. I suggest that it is a Standard J-1 (or SJ-1) that has been hacked about, as with Lincoln Standard LS.5, Ryan Standard and others. You can find a number of refs and other shots of this one by Googling Otto Meyerhoffer (no quotes), or Venice Aero Police, that mostly state that it is a Standard J-1. Extra u/c struts, amateurish cowling, re-located radiator and variations to exhaust manifold all point towards mods for joy-riding. Also, there's a photo now at eBay (search 221841766010), with a wider view of three aircraft showing kingposts and tailplane. PeterWD (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed Standard J-1 from the name and category as it is quite clearly NOT a standard J-1, regardless of the information SDASM archives has, and which has been duplicated erroneously by the press in a dozen locations - which shows how little the press knows on such matters. For starters, the wing cellule is completely different, lacking the stagger, the overhang, the kingposts. The rudder and horizontal tail are different, (I found an image on eBay that shows it) the fuselage is extra wide and is a four seater, with side by side controls in the rear cockpit and the undercarriage has 6 legs, aside from the amatuerish cowling and radiator installation. Any one of these could have been a mod from one of the aircraft you state, but not all of them, and yes, I already did extensive searching on the aircraft, including "Swede", Ince and the Venice Police.NiD.29 (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Dayton-Wright Sedan.jpg[edit]

I have you ask you to reconsider your deletions of the categories relating to the book from which it is derived. I am fully aware that this image, and many others, not just of aviation subjects, have been copied from books whose categories give the false impression that the true source edition is dated as defined in the description by the University of Toronto. If you follow the links back there, you will see that these uploads are given the first date of creation of the yearbook, and in this case further editions go up to 1938 with various changes of name. I believe that we should retain the categorisation with 1890 in title until a definitive year can be found for individual images. Now, in our categories, this image has lost its connection to the other 740+ images. PeterWD (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe use the title of the series instead of a meaningless date for the categorization? That is not information that should be included in the title in any case.NiD.29 (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Albatros Flugzeugwerke[edit]

Thanks for your note. Our convention in categorising at Commons and at en:wp is that we have a top category for the manufacturing company, and a sub-cat for the aircraft produced by that company - they are two entirely different entities. Recently I have been making corrections at Commons to align with Wikipedia categories - see Category:Albatros aircraft at en:wp.PeterWD (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Charles Nungesser-inauguration école d'Orly.jpg[edit]

I am sorry but I must empasize that the aircraft most prominently displayed (left background) IS an MoS-30, which, by the way, was a single-seater. --Petebutt (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Check out [1]--Petebutt (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The MoS 27, 29 and 30 were the government's numerical designations for three nearly identical variants which all carried Morane-Saulnier's designation of AI - of which there was already a subdirectory. The difference? mostly the number of guns - 1, 2 or none, which are often impossible to discern in photographs, especially when removed - hence it making more sense to put them together in a single directory.NiD.29 (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)