Last modified on 10 December 2014, at 10:15

Commons talk:WikiProject Aviation

Return to the project page "WikiProject Aviation".
Filing cabinet icon.svg

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days . For the archive overview, see Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Archive.

TranslationsEdit

As Commons is a multi-lingual project, it will be useful to get some project content translated into various languages (but whilst keeping all discussion centralised here - in any language). Could editors, who are willing to do translations of information into languages other than English place your name below, and what languages you are proficient in, and I will be in touch. One of the main things is getting letters requesting permission from photographers translated into relevant languages to make it easier for them to reply; in addition to some other info I am working on getting up at the moment. Cheers russavia (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am able to do translations into Russian 'cause I am a native speaker. I always include Russian and English descriptions then uploading photos. So, if this is needed I can make such translations - descriptions, mails, everything. James R. Nockson (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Just translated you offer on the French Aviation project. I am willing to continue. I have my account only on the French Wiki, do I need to open a copy in English ? --AnTeaX (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help with translations from English into Italian :-) --M.L.WattsAir Mail ✈ 10:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't have much time for Wikipedia/Commons at the moment, but in the long run I think I should be able to do some translating into German if necessary. --El Grafo (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I neither have much time, but I can traslate to Spanish and Catalan. Aadrover (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

TemplatesEdit

Template:Infobox aircraft imageEdit

We have Template:Infobox aircraft image - let's rework it and use instead of standard description template for photos of aircraft. It has some useful fields but I think it's structure need to be changed to look like that:

  • Aircraft model (with manufacturer). For example: Yakovlev Yak-141
  • Aircraft type. For example: V/STOL carrier-based multirole fighter
  • Operator. For example: Yakovlev OKB
  • Aircraft ID. Options:
    • Bort number. For example: 77 «white»
    • Serial number.
    • Prototype ID. For example: Izdeliye 48-3
    • Tail number.
    • Registration.
    • etc. - depends on aircraft type and origin.
  • Description. For example: Second prototype of Yakovlev Yak-141 fighter during its maiden flight.
  • Location. For example: Gromov Flight Research Institute, Ramenskoye.
  • Geocode (if available).
  • Date (in internationalised form). For example: 1989-04-02
  • Author.
  • Source.
  • Permission.
  • Other versions.
  • Other info.

We should also put links to categories automatically based on that template. If description contains aircaft model set as Yakovlev Yak-141 then this template should automatically put photo into Category:Yakovlev Yak-141. I think it's gonna be a great improvement and will make every photo more informative. Let's discuss this! James R. Nockson (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think expanding the template, and getting it onto aircraft images would be a very useful things. If we create a banner to place on file talk pages (this is where bot with new files could also come in handy), it could categorise such images into a category informing which images need to have this template placed on it. As to various fields, I would broadly support what you have mentioned above as well -- the serial number is something that is better for "tracking" individual aircraft rather than registrations -- although both ways would be useful. russavia (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Serial number is the only way to identify small aircraft such as fighters - they usually don't have registration and their bort number (dunno how this is called in western nations, tail or hull number maybe) can be changed many times during their lifetime. James R. Nockson (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the “Infobox aircraft image” displayed in the Project page, but it seem suitable for the description of a military aircraft, and I’d add the “date of the first flight”. The Template:Infobox aircraft image, it’s ok for an airliner, but I’d add the “construction/serial number”, the “date of the first flight”, the “date of the delivery”, the “former operator/operators” (in case of aircraft of second or third hand) and “remarks” to add some other information. I believe it is of no importance “activity” (final approach, take-off, on flight or parked etc.) it will be evident from the picture. Chesipiero (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I developed a description of the file and aircraft information.

Aircraft information :

  • Aircraft manufacture
  • Aircraft type
  • Construction number
  • Line number
  • Date of manufacture
  • Registration as first flight
  • Airline / Operator
  • Delivered to airline / operator
  • Aircraft name
  • Registration
  • Previous airline / operator
  • Previous registration
  • Airline / operator until
  • Next registration
  • Next Airline / Operator
  • Delivered to next airline / operator (date)
  • Remarks

File / Image information :

  • Description
  • Image date
  • Locality
  • Type
  • Author
  • Source
  • Permission
  • Other version
  • Geocode

Chesipiero (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it’ll be better to see the above description file with real data relating to an airliner File:Alisarda DC-9 I-SARJ 1.jpg.

Aircraft information :

  • Aircraft manufacture McDonnell Douglas
  • Aircraft type DC-9-14
  • Construction number 45702
  • Line number 15
  • Registration as first flight
  • Initial delivery 1966-01-11
  • Airline / Operator Alisarda
  • Delivery to airline / operator 1974-01-11
  • Aircraft name
  • Registration I-SARJ
  • Previous Airline / operator Delta Airlines
  • Delivery to previous Airline 1973-02-28
  • Previous registration N3307L
  • Next Airline / Operator Northwest Pipeline Company
  • Delivery to next airline / operator 1981-05-12
  • Next registration N99YA
  • Remarks

File / Image information :

  • File description Alisarda DC-9 I-SARJ 1.JPG
  • Image date June 1974
  • Locality Galileo Galilei Airport, Pisa, Italy
  • Type Image from slide
  • Source Own work
  • Author Piergiuliano Chesi
  • Permission
  • Other version
  • Geocode

Chesipiero (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Infobox aircraft image#Automatically adding images to category Aircraft by Registration, an implementation for auto-categorizing images. Currently that copy of the template requires the nocat=false parameter in order to enable automatic categorization. Would it be OK with people if (1) if this auto-categorizing code is added to the main template, (2) for auto-categorizing to be enabled by default (in other words, the default would be nocat=false instead of nocat=true)? --Hhm8 (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hhm8 no problem here. The only problem would be for when categories don't exist, but that would be an impetus for those categories to be created. russavia (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Done; thank you for the input :-) --Hhm8 (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
But right now it only adds the categorization markup if the category exists. Perhaps this should be changed? --Hhm8 (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

from ChesipieroEdit

Hallo, I think it’s a good idea and a good project. I gave a look to the existing Categories in aviation but there is no uniformity, sometimes no logic and too much categories. Few months ago I loaded some files regarding planes taken at Pisa Airport in the seventies and I loaded in the appropriate aircraft categories, in these days I discovered that it has been created a category “Aircraft at Galileo Galilei Airport” with my files, I think it’s no necessary to create a category like that. People that use Wiki and Commons wish to reach the information or the files as quickly as possible and not to find it with three or four clicks going from a category to another, this is important. I saw category like “Aircraft by airline” and “Aircraft of airline” this is nonsense or categorizing the aircraft by colour as “Red, white and blue aircraft of the United States”. At moment I am working on the municipalities in the Innsbruck-Land District as on Wiki as on Commons, but I’ll be glad to contribute somehow or other, I’ll check this page on the coming events. Chesipiero (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality of photos and diagramsEdit

The basic idea behind editing article in WP is that, given time and effort, it will evolve toward something more or less stable and of good quality.

Should it be the same with diagrams, with photos ? Do we want (or need) to create a library with 100s of pics of the B747 (just an example) or just 1 per airline, etc. In the case of diagrams, if we get a better drawing showing (again, just an example) the inside of a turbojet, should we eliminate the older drawings ? This way it would automatically upgrade the diagrams used in the same article in different languages.--AnTeaX (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, because Commons is not Wikipedia - it is not an encyclopedia, it is a repository of free images, for others to use as they see fit, either on Wikis or elsewhere. A photo or diagram that may seem like a duplicate to you may be useful for someone else, either now or in the future.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree to that. Furthermore, this would be against common practice – see also: Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files (proposed guideline). --El Grafo (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Military/Civil categorization of aircraft type/modelEdit

To my (hopefully neutral/objective) perspective, the notion of categorizing any type (ie model) of aircraft as military or civil is illogical. It's evident that some of the existing commons categorization seeks to assess military or civil status of an overall aircraft type, based on a crude guess at the intent of the designers. Logically, an aircraft can only be categorized as military if it is owned by the military, operated by the military (eg en:Military_aircraft ), operated in a military legal environment, or arguably marked in a military scheme. Surely it's individual aircraft that are military or civil, not the type/model. Discuss. PeterWD (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Italiano: Io suppongo che sia perché si voglia rendere il più possibile popolare l'accesso alle fotografie di aerei, consentendo la ricerca di un aereo militare anche a chi di aerei non capisce nulla, così come ci sia la tendenza a categorizzare un'immagine di aereo per colore (perché a qualcuno può servire una foto di un aereo rosso, indipendentemente dall'anno di costruzione, dal modello, dall'aeronautica militare in cui ha prestato servizio, e via così). Questo però comporta un problema di visione "globale" e di navigazione per categorie e si è costretti a tenere aperte (almeno) due finestre per poter controllare le sottocategorie che eventualmente manchino per un lavoro di caricamento mirato. Inoltre, per chi è più ferrato in materia, alle volte capita che un modello sia stato utilizzato sia in ambito militare che civile e se è vero che alcune aeronautiche militari abbiano una rigida convenzione di nomenclatura che ha, di fatto, fatto conoscere un modello con la sigla F-15 (ad esempio) e non con la sigla di progetto data dall'azienda, in Italia non esiste questa raffinatezza e velivoli storici, uno a caso il Savoia-Marchetti SM.79, fu utilizzato sia in ambito civile che militare. Scusate per la scrittura in italiano, avrei messo una vita a tradurlo.
English: (Google Translate): I suppose it's because you want to make it as popular as possible access to photos of aircraft, allowing the search of a military plane aircraft to those who do not understand anything, so that there is a tendency to categorize an image of color plane (because anyone can serve as a photo of a red plane, regardless of the construction of the model, by the Air Force where he served, and so on). But this involves a problem of "global" and navigational categories and you are forced to keep open (at least) two windows to control the subcategories that may be missing for a job loading targeted. In addition, for those who are more versed on the subject, sometimes it happens that a model has been used in both military and civilian, and if it is true that some air forces have a strict naming convention that has, in fact, made ​​known a model with the symbol F-15 (for example) and not with the code given by the project, in Italy there is no such refinement and historical aircraft, a coincidence that the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79, was used in both civil and military. Sorry for writing in Italian, I would put a life in translation.
--Threecharlie (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC). (english translation)PeterWD (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
True there are ex-military planes that are operated now by civilians, and airliners and general aviation aircraft operated in a military capacity. However in such cases the creation of sub categories should be sufficient to show this.--KTo288 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Military aviationEdit

I gave a look to this category when I loaded some files regarding aircrafts of the Italian Air Force. At first sight there is chaos in similar category of other nations, i.e. United Kingdom and United States too; all the aircraft types are combined in the same category, I think it will be better separate the “active” or “current” aircrafts from the “historical” or “past” aircrafts. A question: Why “Aircraft of the United States Air Force” doesn’t appear at first in the category “United States Air Force” as it would be right, but trough this procedure: “Equipment of the United States Air Force”, then “Vehicles of the United States Air Force” and finally “Aircraft of the United States Air Force”. Chesipiero (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The USAF does a lot more than just fly, they have things like Vehicles of the United States Air Forces so 'Vehicles of the United States Air Force' is a reasonable category to create and snce aircraft are air vehicles, it is logical that 'Aircraft of the United States Air Force' be a category of this, and since vehicles are equipment it does make sense to tier the categories this way.--KTo288 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Equipment, at least in Italy, is more reported to personal equipment (rifle, gun, armor jacket etc.) so I agree with Chesipiero --Zerosei (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Advise for imagsEdit

Hi, I'm working here at a voice about strategic bombing over Germany in World War II. I'd like to know if you have some photos to propose for the voice; if yes, please directly add them in this paragraph: "img collage" for the image that are good for a collage for the infobox at start page ([1], [2]), and "Altro" for others images. If you need the translation of the title's paragraph or something else ask and I will translate (I know we've Category:Bombing of Germany in World War II, but the opinion of others users is very important for me). Thank you! --Zerosei (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured photo candidatesEdit

Hey all, as we have featured photos here on Commons, it is my intention to "work" with photographers who have granted us permission to use their photos as needed, to put select photos thru featured photo processes. We should probably have a section on the project pages where we can put current candidates, so that others are aware that aviation photos are being nominated. For example, at the moment we have Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Colombian Air Force Sikorsky AH-60L Arpia III (S-70A-41) Ramirez-1.jpg being put up for FP. Obviously "aviation" editors would be well-placed to critique aviation photos, so how would we be best to go to "advertise" such nominations to project members? Ideas anyone? russavia (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

On the german aviation project the MerlBot does this for pictures nominated locally and on Commons: Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Luftfahrt/Überarbeiten/MB-BWWORKLIST. The bot seems to be inactive on Commons, but I guess it wouldn't hurt asking it's maintainer … --El Grafo (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

ImagesEdit

Was wondering if there is anyone with a scanner willing to go the College Park branch of NARA and help out with this request (originally here). I can narrow the list down if someone is willing to help out here. Thanks so much in advance, – Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft type by airline categoriesEdit

At the moment there are (at least) two naming schemes for "aircraft type by airline" categories: "Aircraft type (Airline)" (e.g. Category:Airbus A319 (Finnair)) and "Airline Aircraft type" (e.g. Category:British Airways Airbus A319). I think we should choose just one naming sceheme and harmonize category naming. ––Apalsola tc 10:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC) –– (edit) Apalsola tc 10:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. For me it's better the second option, "Airline Aircraft type", in order to avoid the disambiguation. --Zerosei (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually "Aircraft type (Airline)" seems to be more common. For example, the British Airways A319 category I used as an example has been moved to Category:Airbus A319 (British Airways) in the meanwhile. So, I think that would be better (or at least easier) option. ––Apalsola tc 10:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
On second thought I think "Airline Aircraft type" could be better option after all because it is more consistent with general naming principles on Commons. I know that means a lot of category renames, but that's what bots are for. (See also: Category talk:Airbus A321 (Cabin views)#Category rename request.) ––Apalsola tc 09:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I've no problem to send at bots a request concerning the categories rename --Zerosei (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft enginesEdit

Sorry that I've not dropped in earlier, I saw the post at the aircraft engine task force on wiki en. I've been adding and sorting aircraft engine images on here for a few years, most are identified. If you come across one or two unidentified ones then give me a shout on wiki en (don't watch my Commons page much). I know there are few in the main category but it would only be a guess from the uploaders' titles as to what they are exactly!! Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Pictures from the FLIGHT magazine archive at flightglobalEdit

Hey there,

I would like to point you to this deletion request, which might have impact on some other pictures that were uploaded from flightglobal.com's archive section. Any idea, how we could solve this problem and get rid of those uncertainties? (Please post your comments at the DR, not here) Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly needs revisiting, I was involved in the discussions on WP. We were very close to getting an agreement. I have seen images uploaded to Commons from the Flight, archive, they can't be correctly licensed. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The DR has ended with deletion. IMO all image uploads from Flight International need to be deleted, UNLESS they can be demonstrated to be {{PD-old}}. Does anyone have a list of the images from flightglobal which are on Commons available (perhaps all in a single category) so that the entire lot can be dealt with at once. The alternative is for Reed Business Information to release under a free licence; unfortunately the likelihood of that seems to be slim given that they have basically said they would allow usage under a non-commercial basis. russavia (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Images from FlightGlobal Archive should have most of them. Even if they decided to release them under CC-BY-SA (or something similar) we would have to make sure that they have the right to do so, probably for every single picture: What if the photographer only gave them permission to print the picture once in Flight etc.? However, concerning {{PD-old}} it might be a good idea to cooperate with Commons:WikiProject Public Domain. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Another thing: Some of the images from the image archive (such as [[:File:56 Sqn score.jpg] when almost every single pixel contains copyrighted stuff.]) are tagged {{PD-UKGov}}. As far as I understand it, this applies worldwide and we do not have to care about copyright status in the US, but we should try to make sure that those tags are applied correctly. --El Grafo (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info I left a note at Village pump/copyright, hoping to get some additional input. --El Grafo (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't see why more than a handful of these would ever need deletion, and certainly not the Shorts Crusader. A move from Commons to WP would have been much more appropriate. These are almost entirely historical images meeking WP's criteria for hosting them, that's why the Flight archive is so valuable.
Also note that most aren't Flight's copyright anyway - they're company or agency pictures, often UK Gov, not from Flight's own photographers. Almost all of the pre-war images will be PD by now. Any sort of blanket deletion would be a very short-sighted response. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I hope that we can keep most of them as PD-Old or PD-$Government. But we need to review them and get rid of that dubious statement that The Editor of Flight Global, Michael Targett, wrote the following […]. If people take that for granted, they will sooner or later start uploading images from the 2002 magazines – which are clearly not out of copyright yet and for which we don't have a clear permission. --El Grafo (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Concerning the Crusader: During the DR, noone mentioned the possibility that the Image might PD – maybe because they were all focusing on the fishy license. As far as I unerstand en:Short Crusader, the picture must have been taken in 1927, so it probably does not qualify for {{PD-1923}} – but there are other possibilities why it may be PD. I have not enough experience to deal with that – that's why I proposed a new subpage of Commons:WikiProject Public Domain. --El Grafo (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Another file from FLIGHT has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ju 52 D-2201 1932-07-29.jpg. --El Grafo (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Having just uploaded a 1923 Flight image I think that it is not in the PD in the US until 2018 (see http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm). Accordingly I have nominated it for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:King George V and Queen Mary visit Hendon.png Greenshed (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent upload pagesEdit

This is a great feature but the enormous number of large thumbnails is locking my computer up (or the server isn't coping). Tried to find out who is creating and looking after these pages but the history just says 'OgreBot'. Looking for a big reduction in the thumbnail sizes which should help (I reduced the thumbnail size in 'my preferences' but it had no effect). Hoping someone can help, cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It is to do with <gallery widths="300px" heights="300px"></nowiki>, example of a thumbnail size at 100px. Bidgee (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes! Great! I tried 100px on the latest uploads but the thumbnails are a little too small, I changed it to 150px, the page upload still takes a while but I think it's a good compromise size (you would have to click on an image anyway to add categories etc). Good stuff. Nimbus227 (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the bot that creates the pages is being run by User:Magog the Ogre. If you/we would like those images to always have a size of 150px, it would probably be a good idea to contact him instead of changeing it manually every time a new gallery is created. --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Another thing that came to my mind recently: Wouldn't it be a good idea to link Commons:WikiProject_Aviation/recent_uploads somewhere on our front page? At the moment you have virtually no chance to find it if you don't already know it exists (or did I miss something?) --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point about linking. I did contact Magog and he is going to fix it, marvellous. Nimbus227 (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I added a link at the Assessment section of the main page. I'm not entirely sure that that's the best place for it, so please feel free to move it somewhere else if you have a better idea. --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Perfect. As with anything wiki, be bold. Any my bad for not letting the project know when I organised this with Magog the Ogre way back. I hope that people are finding it useful; even if it is clogged with my uploads for the last months ;) russavia (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
It's definately useful. I have at least a brief look on it nearly every day. And it's not clogged, it's flourishing ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Well, to be honest right at the moment I tend to wish that I could filter out all those uploads from the defense.gov batch upload – that's a little bit too much Donald Rumsfeld and way too few radial engines for my taste :P

Category:Aerial topdressingEdit

Hi there,

I just wanted to let you know that I started a discussion about that category at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/07/Category:Aerial topdressing. You are welcome to share your thoughts about that. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Accidental vandalism or new rules on categories?Edit

Category Fighter AircraftEdit

Since some time User:PeterWD removes categories from pictures (e.g. File:Junkers J 2 E-252-16.jpg), where I think, the changes are not correct. I asked him on his discussion page User_talk:PeterWD#Category Fighter Aircraft for the reason, but did not yet get an answer. Also other users seem to have problems with this.

Before I start reverting a bunch of edits I like to ask here, if there are any new rules, that I did not recognize.

For example, are there any plans to remove the category fighter aircraft?

I understand, that it is better style to put pictures to a type cat, which again is a subcat to fighter aircraft. But just removing the cat from the picture looses information. --JuergenKlueser (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not replying to JurgenKlueser; I replied to another editor's query that came in at the same time, and must have overlooked the first of the two. My answer is to refer to over-categorization. If we applied Fighter aircraft to every applicable image that doesn't have its own type cat, we would have hundreds of images there, and spotting otherwise uncategorized types would be more difficult. There are many similar examples that could be added unnecessarily, such as single seat aircraft.PeterWD (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Peter, thank you for your answer. Anyhow I do not really see overcategorization in some of the examples. E.g. at the Ju J2 mentioned above you removed fighter aircraft. Since there is no fighter aircraft of WWI, there is no common root. It's a general problem, that the cats are not set-uo mathematically orthogonal. How would you solve this? What do you think about gathering the pics in asiigned aircraft types and then assign this type to categories? --JuergenKlueser (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The Junkers J 2 perhaps illustrates one problem I have - the en:wp article claims that it was intended as the first purpose-built fighter aircraft, but it never achieved that purpose and was not introduced into service. In other words, it was an experimental type only. Its categorization now as a fighter aircraft or any other function (eg reconnaissance, bomber, attack, etc) is surely subjective and personal. My own subjective approach would be to consider only functions that were clearly carried out by the majority of any candidate type or sub-type. Perhaps the types categorized as Fighter aircraft could indeed be diffused into Fighter aircraft by period, but I believe that many more types would first need to be gathered into this section of hierarchy to make it worthwhile and fully representative.PeterWD (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, a reorganization would be helpful. But till that happens (in this life?) just removing cats is not a solution. The J2 indeed is a good example. It was designed as a fighter, so it is a fighter - if used in combat or not. I write this just to show that there are different opinions on such a topic - as usual :-) Therefore removing for many pics - but not all - is critical without agreement of the project here and leaves an inconsistent status.--JuergenKlueser (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Another example is File:Koolhaven FK.58.jpg. It was a bad fighter and had no combat, but was used on patrol flights. So, shouldn't it be categorized as a fighter? --JuergenKlueser (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Any other opinions on that? --JuergenKlueser (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So, no further opinions on the question When is a fighter a fighter. The argument for overcategorization does not really fit where the categories are not orthogonal. So I propose a solution where the pictures of a type are gathered in a category of this type and then to add only this type cat to the cat in questions. Work on that did already start some time ago and should be consequently continued. Till this happens for the pics with the deleted categoeries, I will correct them. --JuergenKlueser (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

New permissionsEdit

Hey all, just though I would let you know that we now have an additional 1,000 photos available to us, with {{Airwim}} (Category:Photos by Airwim) - a Belgian photographer, who has a lot of photos from Zaventem, and also from the US. I will add future permissions to this section as well, so that others are aware of them. russavia (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi! Maybe we should make a special section on the main page of this wiki-project? Because I think such news will be lost on a talk page (it's very big already) but on a main page they will be easier to find. --James R. Nockson (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure, if people think it would work better that way, I'll leave it for people to come up with the best way to display it, etc. And as I get permissions, I can simply continue to update them; as there will be many more to come in the near future as well. russavia (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition -- {{RaimundStehmann}} (Category:Photos by Raimund Stehmann) - I am going thru uploading many of the photos from Ethiopia at present. russavia (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition -- {{RobertReid}} (Category:Photos by Robert Reid) - a photographer from Ireland. russavia (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition -- {{AndreasHoppe}} (Category:Photos by Andreas Hoppe) - a photographer from Sweden with 500 available photos. russavia (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition -- {{RogerOldfield}} (Category:Photos by Roger Oldfield) a photo from Leeds/Bradford in the UK. 350 photos available. russavia (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition -- {{RichardSilagi}} (Category:Photos by Richard Silagi) a photographer from the Western US. 148 photos available. russavia (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition -- {{AkinwaleMakinde}} (Category:Photos by Akinwale Makinde) a photographer from Nigeria. Approximately 100 photos available. russavia (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition -- {{BrianRobbins}} (Category:Photos by Brian Robbins) a photographer with approximately 150 photos from 1959/1960 Africa and elsewhere. russavia (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition -- {{UR-SDV}} (Category:Photos by UR-SDV) a photographer from Eastern Africa, with over 600 photos from Eastern and Western Africa, with emphasis on Eritrea, Sudan, South Sudan, etc. russavia (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition -- {{GuidoAllieri}} (Category:Photos by Guido Allieri) a photographer from Italy. 200 photos available. russavia (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition -- {{KlaasReinderSluijs}} (Category:Photos by Klaas Reinder Sluijs) a photographer from the Netherlands. 800 photos available. russavia (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition - {{ManfredGroihs}} (Category:Photos by Manfred Groihs) a photographer from Austria. 200 photos available. russavia (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition - {{DavideOlivati}} (Category:Photos by Davide Olivati) a photographer from Italy. 3000+ photos available. russavia (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition - {{AleksandrMedvedev}} (Category:Photos by Aleksandr Medvedev), a photographer from Russia. russavia (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition - {{EduardOnyshchenko}}) (Category:Photos by Eduard Onyshchenko), a photographer from Ukraine, with emphasis on Afghanistan and Africa. russavia (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition - {{ArtemBatuzak}} (Category:Photos by Artem Batuzak), a photographer from Ukraine, brand new spotter, who will be supplying a lot of higher resolution photos for uploading. russavia (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Another addition - {{AlessandroLukas}} (Category:Photos by Alessandro Lukas), a photographer from Salzburg, 500 photos. russavia (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Another addition -- {{MeltingTarmacImages}} (Category:Photos by Melting Tarmac Images), a photographer from Central Africa, 70 photos available. russavia (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Another addition -- {{GuidoPotters}} (Category:Photos by Guido Potters), a photographer from Central Africa, 350 photos available. russavia (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Another addition - {{Angara}} (Category:Photos by Angara), a photographer from Russia. russavia (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing Category:Media contributed by the Belgrade Aviation MuseumEdit

Just in case someone is bored and needs something to do: The category mentioned above holds some (atm 88) donated files that need further categorizing. Information about aircraft type can usually be found in the file name and/or description text. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole group looks to me like a 'dog's breakfast'. Images have been uploaded by different people from different sources under different types of licences. Anyway, surely we don't need this category to be visible, nor duplicated in Category:Images from the Belgrade Aviation Museum. I suggest all the images be transferred to Category:Belgrade Aviation Museum, and any without a manufacturer/type category be copied to Category:Unidentified aircraft, then we can more easily see what needs to be done. PeterWD (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
As far as I understand it, those are files that have been donated by the Belgrade Aviation Museum, so there should be a category that that enables us to distinguish them from pictures that were taken at the museum by regular visitors. I just had a quick glance at some pictures and they all were licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 unported. Since there is an OTRS-ticket filed for the permission, I guess they would probably all be released under that license – do you have an example where that's not the case? I think it might be wise to direct any concerns to Commons:Belgrade Aviation Museum before making bigger changes.
However, putting the uncategorised ones into Category:Unidentified aircraft seems to be a good idea. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Which licensing ?Edit

I have to upload about fifty black and white pictures I had from Canadair during my visits at Downsview plant in 1975. The pictures regard: DHC-5, CL-4, CL-44, CL-84, CL-89, CL-212, CL-21, CC-115, CL-2, CL-28, CL-30, CL-41, CL-66, CL-90, CL-13, CL-52. Which appropriate licensing I have to use to avoid the deletion of the files? Thanks.Chesipiero (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chesipiero, are these photos which you have taken yourself? If so, you may choose any licence you like. {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} is probably the best option. If they are photos not taken by yourself, we would need permission from the copyright holder. Awaiting your response if additional assistance is required. russavia (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Files by Wikivoyage user AfricaspotterEdit

Wikitravel is joining the WMF banner as Wikivoyage, and there is a massive amount of files being migrated across to Commons -- all of which require review, etc. One such collection can be found at Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Africaspotter. If anyone wants to help review these files and cleanup, etc that would be great. Cheers, russavia (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me?Edit

I cannot identify the planes photographed by me at the Airport of Venice, can you give me an opinion? Thanks :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

English-speaking (glider) pilots: Need your help with a translationEdit

If you have a look at the files in Category:Lepos you will probably know what I'm talking about: Those vehicles are called Lepo(s) in Germany, but Categories should be in english, so I'd like to move the category to the appropriate english term – any ideas? Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Uploading files with a BotEdit

I agree that uploading files fron Flickr using a Bot is very quickly, but not always the files reach the appropriate Category. On February 4, 2013 has been uploaded in Commons:WikiProject Aviation recent uploads a great amount of files from Flickr but none of them went into the right place. One example for all is File:B-HUI (8148398132).jpg that has been directed to Category:Boeing (that reaches 841 files), Category:San (that is a river in Poland) and Category:Pacific Ocean (?). Evidently something don’t worked in the right manner. I think it will be better to solve the problem somehow or other or the categories will be full of incorrect files. Chesipiero (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry: It may take one or two days, but russavia does a good job in cleaning up his bot uploads afterwards. --El Grafo (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Chesipiero and El Grafo; any uploads which are still like this will eventually be gotten to. I'm just about to start a massive upload from Flickr, which I will post details about below which I would appreciate any assistance with categorising, etc. russavia (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Please look at these contributionsEdit

In Special:Contributions/Flightpilot you can find some images of an unidentified aerobatic air show, some yet to be categorized. I cannot do more...--Threecharlie (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Curtiss Model N - photo or drawing or paintingEdit

Just stumbled across an old (2011) image File:Marine Corps Base, Aerial perspective of group as projected - NARA - 295432.tif, and I have provisionally tagged it as a Curtiss Model N. From the title and appearance, I am guessing that it is not a photograph but a good drawing or painting. Hence the slight differences in the aircraft from a Curtiss Model N, eg rudder and wing floats, perhaps an artist's interpretation of those features. WDYT? PeterWD (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If by rudder you mean the "fin" in front of the actual rudder being a straight triangle instead of the more convex form it has on the images at Commons: Here is a picture of one with a straight fin. Here is one with a straight fin identified as an N-8 (looks like a JN-something to me though, but I'm not an expert). While the wing floats look more or less cylindrical on our pictures, here is a drawing of an N-9 with more rectangular ones. This one, identified as a JN-4D seems to have both the straight fin and the more rectangular floats but the wingspan of the JN-4 was shorter. Difficult … --El Grafo (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Files from bomberpilots Flickr streamEdit

Hello!

If someone has a bit time left: In this category are many aircraft not identified. Help is highly appreciated. Thank you! Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

200 drawingsEdit

Hi, I have just finished uploading the 200-th 3-view drawing of airplane. Now I'll relax a bit, but if somebody ask me for a new one, please let me know it. Kaboldy (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hidden categoriesEdit

Category:Aircraft has recently been made a hidden category. It is already effectively (but not officially) a meta category. I'm inclined to revert the action, but otherwise can anyone explain how this or any similar category benefits from being hidden? PeterWD (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it doesn't make any sense to make that a hidden Cat: Hidden categories are for non-topical categories (such as user categories or categories for templates, see Commons:Categories#Categories marked with "HIDDENCAT"), not for meta-categories. I'd guess that this was a mistake: With the same edit, the user added {{Category-alphabet}} and from what they mentioned in the edit comment, that was the sole purpose of the edit. I'd assume that the {{Category-alphabet}} was copied and pasted from another (hidden) category and the __HIDDENCAT__ was being copied along with it by accident. Personally, I'd just remove the __HIDDENCAT__ or even revert right away, since the {{Category-alphabet}} doesn't serve much purpose there anyway (all the subcats fit on one page). Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Forget the last part: The category will inevitably become crowded with images put directly into it again, and then the {{Category-alphabet}} might indeed turn out to be useful … --El Grafo (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Populating Category:Airports in snowEdit

I recently decided to create Category:Airports in snow, because I was curious how many photographs of airports during snowy conditions. If anyone wants to help me populate it, that would be gratefully appreciated. JesseW (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

CFD Aircraft engineeringEdit

I have initiated Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/12/Category:Aircraft engineering for this new category. Inputs welcome.PeterWD (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Warren S. EatonEdit

I recently gathered together 242 images connected with this aircraft builder into Category:Warren S. Eaton. He was associated with Glenn Curtiss and Lincoln Beachy in the 1910s and 1920s. Many aircraft images are evidently Curtiss types, and I hope someone with detailed info about early Curtiss stuff can help categorise those further. I don't have a comprehensive source, perhaps Peter Bowers Curtiss Aircraft 1907-1947 book would suit the task.PeterWD (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the YearEdit

It's that time of year that POTY is running again. At Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/R1/Gallery/Vehicles_and_crafts you will see the various aviation photos which are in the running for POTY. Avail yourself of this opportunity to see some fantastic aviation photos and consider voting if you so desire. russavia (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the Aviation category treeEdit

Why does File:VSAN TT 2014 So153.jpg (and indeed all other files from the Category:Bodenseekreis district) always turn up on Commons:WikiProject Aviation/recent uploads/2014 February 16? There must be some serious miscategorization somewhere, but I cannot see where. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Another Flightglobal image nominated for deletionEdit

I have nominated File:Aerfer Ariete from Flightglobal Archive 1958-0492.jpg for deletion. See the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aerfer Ariete from Flightglobal Archive 1958-0492.jpg.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Wanted 3-viewsEdit

Hey everybody :)

Here I drafted a proposal for a Project subpage aimed to gather requests for wanted 3-views of aircraft. I often find myself wondering "what 3-view will I draw next?", so I thought other users may want to ask for 3-views for their Wikipedia articles etc.

Do you think the page could be moved to Commons:WikiProject Aviation/Wanted 3-views? Do you have any suggestions or objections? --M.L.WattsAir Mail ✈ 10:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support (of course)--Threecharlie (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

OK ! I agree. Chesipiero (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No objections here either, in fact just do it :) russavia (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your support! User:Kaboldy also let me know that he likes the idea, so I'm glad to inform you that I created the page Commons:WikiProject Aviation/Wanted 3-views and that you can add your requests starting from... now! Also, feel free to inform your colleagues on your home wikis about this news. --M.L.WattsAir Mail ✈ 17:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Could someone who knows how to handle translatable pages (Russavia, maybe?) add a link to the new page in Commons:WikiProject Aviation? --M.L.WattsAir Mail ✈ 18:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Re-used aircraft registrationsEdit

Hi everybody, I understand that the above category is only for different aircraft with the same registration. The majority of the categories I put there (abut 2 500) concern the same aircraft used by several airlines (my mistake), and I intend to remove them, but? — This is useful for me, when using CatScan V2, selecting the aircraft of a given airline and a given airport to put them in "Category:XXXXXX aircraft at YYYYY airport", knowing for sure that I m not selecting aircraft of others airlines. Here is an exemple: [3] and [4]. As you can see, not using "Re-used aircraft registrations" as a negative category, selects about 200 aircraft, most of them not belonging to "Swisair" but to "Swiss International Air Lines". Using "Re-used aircraft registrations" selects only 30 images of aircraft belonging for sure to "Swissair". So, I intend to move these categories to a new category. Maybe the title should be Category:Aircraft registrations (several operators), but i ask for your opinion about the title. Also, if it is interesting in the aircraft scope, I will create it within the Aircraft category tree, if not, I will create it (as hiden category) in my "User Categories" or if it is interesting for the project perhaps in the "Category:WikiProject Aviation" tree. Thanks for any help. --JotaCartas (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

PS:in the meantime, temporarily put these categories in Category:Files by User:JotaCartas to review --JotaCartas (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The work is done; only missing about 50 registrations to check better --JotaCartas (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think that you've jumped the gun? You only had the discussion up for a few day, not even a week. Use of "(several operators)" is incorrect, some have only had two or three operators (in Australia at least and an example is Category:VH-KDK (aircraft)). Wouldn't Category:Aircraft registrations (multiple operators) be better suited? Even so you've now created a mess that you need to fix. Bidgee (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll be out for two weeks, and my intention was to leave everything fixed. The matter remains open, the category I created (Category:Aircraft registrations (several operators)) as "user category" can be moved to a better place with a proper name. Be free to do it if you think this is useful to the project. Thanks --JotaCartas (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Isnt this just another example how the whole aircraft registration by operator categorisation scheme just doesnt work, registrations are not unique to an aircraft or operator. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Tail vs TailfinEdit

I searched on the wiktionnary and on google, but I didn't get an answer (or didn't understand ?) : is there a difference between tails and tailfins ? Could someone explain it to me ? Gyrostat (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I think "tail" refers to the whole assembly back there, with horizontal and vertical stabilizers and any other equipment that may or may not be back there depending on configuration (APU, engine nozzle, ...). The tailfin, to my knowledge, refers only to the vertical stabilizer. Of course, in a side view, this is usually the dominant part of a tail and it's hard to take a photo of it without also showing most of the rest of the tail. But it's possible. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 11:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Allright, thanks for the explanation Smile Gyrostat (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft tailfinsEdit

I have been populating this category, and at this point it seems to be a collection of "airline tail logos". So I propose to rename (or move most of the files) to a new Category:Aicraft tail logos or Category:Airline tail logos, renaming also the sub-categories to: e.g. Category:Aeroflot tail logos. --JotaCartas (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)‎

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please don't do this, because whilst tailfins are clearly in scope, as they are an essential part of the aircraft, by centreing the category name on the logos, we would then have to seriously start looking at deleting images due to the logos being copyrighted. russavia (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Flickr streamEdit

Hi, I just wanted to let you know about the "flightlog" Flickr stream (46687906@N08) I found, it has many free photos related to aviation and I thought maybe one of you would be interested in uploading some or all of them. I'm not an aviation enthusiast myself so I wouldn't know how to categorize most of them, that's why I'm not doing it myself. If they don't seem interesting to you, just ignore me. :) Hope this helps. darkweasel94 22:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Military aircraft registrations/serialsEdit

There has been some recent activity in transferring images of 'military' aircraft from Category:Aircraft by registration to sub-cats under Category:Military aircraft by serial. At present, there are 25 such sub-cats. The problem is that they are all organised and ordered 'by country', not 'by serial'. There is another category Category:Aircraft by serial number that also appears to be mis-applied. It looks to me like a wholesale rethink might be required for the whole category schema relating to registrations/serials.PeterWD (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a little strange. Also, I'm not sure if it's accurate to describe these numbers as serial numbers. They are a registration number that is different from the construction serial number. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 18:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Military aircraft dont have registrations so fit into the "Military aircraft by serial" (should be "serial number") scheme, the "aircraft by serial" is something different and an attempt to categorise by manufacturers serial number which is probably a daft idea. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
"Category:Military aircraft by serial" includes some 'warbirds', viz P-51 Mustangs. Those are no longer military aircraft, but are owned and operated by civilians, and fly with civil registrations under civilian regulations administered by civilian authorities such as the Federal Aviation Administration. They have no connection with military air arms or air forces. I propose that the category should be renamed to "Aircraft by military serial number" for disambiguity and to logically reflect the content. Surely only the serial is 'military', not the aircraft or its function.PeterWD (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Odd catsEdit

With so many aircraft images in desperate need of categorising, editors might be interested to see Category:Unpainted Aircraft with many images of aircraft with plenty of paint on them, or others such as Category:V8-RBN (aircraft) that provides a mass of (IMHO) inappropriate info and lots of useless red links.PeterWD (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to the info on the individual airframe categories, as it provides useful information on the aircraft. I know that ships have IMO numbers which give further information on individual ships. Such a thing for aircraft isn't such a bad idea I think. russavia (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation on TwitterEdit

Hey all, I have gotten the WikiProject onto twitter (https://twitter.com/commonsaviation) and will be using it to post aviation photos from Commons, and will also engage in outreach with companies, organisations and individual photographers. If anyone has any ideas on how we could use this resource to the betterment of the WikiProject and Commons, please feel free to get in touch. Cheers, russavia (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Great idea! I'd recommend not beginning non-reply tweets with @... (e.g. @QantasAirways) though, since this makes them disappear from the general stream and most followers won't see these tweets. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 13:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Great idea indeed! If I can help in any way, just let me know Clin Gyrostat (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Which category ?Edit

Hey, I discovered that numerous “aircraft (category)” are not all placed in the appropriate categories, some were half empty, so I started checking them from military to civil aircraft . I took as reference the categories set out on Wikipedia, but having to check Category:Sport aircraft I have no idea where to categorize those “aircraft”, I think no Category:Aerobatic aircraft, nor Category:Racing aircraft. Some suggestions ? Chesipiero (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Unregistered aircraftEdit

FYI, see Category_talk:Aircraft_by_registration for discussion on this subject.PeterWD (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)