Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons talk: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.


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)


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)

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)


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'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)

  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)

  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)

  Info Having just uploaded a 1923 Flight image I think that it is not in the PD in the US until 2018 (see 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 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)

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)

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)

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


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)

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

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)

  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)

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 ( 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   Gyrostat (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Twitter account was suspended this afternoon. We are currently investigating the causes and try to solve this situation. We expect to be back soon!--Dura-Ace (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@commonsaviation is back! Follow us on Twitter! !--Dura-Ace (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2015 (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)

Naming standard for categories for individual civilian aircraft ?Edit

I originally raised this at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2014/12#Naming_standard_for_categories_for_individual_airliners_.3F but IMHO no decision was reached and we need a decision. I realise I raised it on the wrong forum so I've raised it here.

In summary, the current system of placing identified civilian aircraft in a category ABCD (aircraft), where ABCD is the civilian registration at the time of the photograph, is unsustainable, because aircraft often have multiple registrations during their lifetimes, and the same registration may be reused for different aircraft. We hence get idiotic outcomes such as Category:B-2219 (aircraft) and Category:C-GMWJ (aircraft) where different aircraft get dumped in the same category. See We also get multiple categories for the same aircraft if it has multiple registrations during its lifetime : it failes to place all photos of the same aircarft in a single category. Hence IMHO the existing "system" is worthless, akin to categorizing people by their phone numbers. Worse, it presents a false picture to the unwary, who may assume they are looking at all the photos available of a particular aircraft when they select a category. Today's civilian aircraft have very long lives and multiple identities.

Solutions I can think of :

  • 1. My preferred solution is to incorporate the manufacturer's serial number into a unique key e.g. Boeing 747 12345. Others pointed out we don't necessarily have the serial number available, but I have found details for every aircraft I have looked up, at websites such as
  • 2. An alternative is ABCD (Boeing 747 1999) indicating it was registered as such in 1999. This has a similar problem.
  • 3. Third alternative is ABCD (Boeing 737). This has the problem that airlines may reuse the same registrations when they replace old aircraft of similar model : this has actually happened with 737s : Category:C-GMWJ (aircraft)
  • 4. Another alternative is to end this practice of categorizing individual aircraft because (a) we can't do it properly (b) Commons is not a planespotting fansite and (c) folks can find images of a particular aircraft by searching on its registration number, but they must still check visually that it is the particular aircraft registered undered that id that they want. Conclusion : categorisation adds nothing to what a search provides, both have exactly the same limitations.
  • 5. ?

Rcbutcher (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I said in the original discussion that I thought you had a good point, since it seems that for some types of aircraft reregistrations are quite common. Your preferred solution 1 seems best of the options, since it remove references to any registration numbers that change anyway, and multiple categories as an aircraft changes ownership would be excessive. --ghouston (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I attempted to implement this for some prominent warbirds : they start off as an airframe number, do military service with military registrations, have a life as a warbird with civilian registration and finish up in museums. I created a root category using the airframe number, and changed the civilian categories ABCD (aircraft) to redirect to the root category. For photographs showing the aircraft in a museum I added a category e.g. Hawker Hurricane 12345 at XYZ Museum. This got a hostile reception : changes were made to make the civilian registration the root category and redirect airframe category to the civilian rego. Conclusion : we need a consensus because folks appear to be locked into civilian regos. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Aircraft manufacturers serial numbers (msns) are less reliable than registrations/mil-serials, and not at all regulated or even consistent. Although I am an aviation image archivist in real life, I have daily contact with what we might call spotting fans, and they are perpetually in a confused state over the accuracy and use of c/ns, msns or whatever you call them.
  • is just a current crude cross-reference from recent registers such as that of the US FAA, and is often in error.
  • Commons is primarily a collection of images, each taken at an instant in time. Surely, we should rely on describing and categorising according to what is painted on an aircraft in the image, and never what it was or what became of it subsequently. So, re-registration of an individual aircraft is a red herring in an image collection.
  • Regards registrations re-issued to other aircraft, such categories with different aircraft in them should be diffused, into the form ABCD (Boeing 737-300) etc. In this example, even 'undisciplined' operators such as Lufthansa or Qantas can be allowed for when they use the same registration on similar (but distinguishable) aircraft types.
  • Museum aircraft (often with false IDs) and so-called warbirds are a problem, but I believe they should be categorised by the prominent displayed identity/tail number, because that is what the viewer/visitor/photographer sees. We can then often also link the tail number to a registration (on paper or displayed less prominently) and/or an individual name (eg Winnie Mae), that might be 'alternative' search parameters more familiar to a user/searcher.
  • Although it might be comprehensive to include many parameters in a category name, eg manufacturer, full name and model number, operator name, given name, where it is illustrated, year, etc, we must consider the need to abbreviate category names to avoid messy screen displays. This is where we need to be careful, and instead create linked categories that cover the variations of likely searches by users.
  • If a user wants to find all images of an individual airframe, it is their responsibility to find all the likely registrations or search terms outside Commons - we can't be expected to record life histories of aircraft.PeterWD (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Someone has added Category:Rally to a large number of plains pictures. This reasult in near 100 pics of planes in a category of "Automobile racing by type". Is it possible than someone check and fix this? We cannot do it since we know nothing about plains. Thanks a lot. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That was the annual rally of the en:Light Aircraft Association at Sywell Aerodrome. I've moved them to Category:Sywell Aerodrome, which already contained other images from that event – we might want to create a separate category for the event itself. Since I don't have the time to categorize all the planes by type atm, I've also dropped them into Category:Unidentified aircraft for now. Should be easy to do though, since they seem to have their registration in the file names … ---El Grafo (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!! Jorjum (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Aerial PhotosEdit

Hello All. I have contributed a large amount of professional aerial photos and am placing the "WikiProject Aviation" tag, on the talk pages so as to include it in this section of the project. If anyone has a comment regarding this please LMK. --WPPilot (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


Why is Category:XA-ILG_(aircraft) in Bell 204 and SSJ-100 cats? --Ysangkok (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

For "historical" reasons, it seems: File:Sukhoi Superjet 100-95 (XA-ILG).jpg (originally wrong info in file page). — Julian H. 10:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed it and fixed the file page. — Julian H. 10:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Airliner take offs by location rename ?Edit

Many airports operate light aircraft, military aircraft and airliners. We need a single take-off category by location. Should we simplify all take off-by location references to Category:Starts in aviation by location ? Rcbutcher (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Excluding galleries from Commons:WikiProject Aviation/recent uploadsEdit

Just for the record: Configuration for this is done through User:OgreBot/gallery. You'll need an admin to add | [[:Category:the-cat-you-want-to-exclude]] to the end of the aviation list (first bullet point). --El Grafo (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

How should we categorize aircraft whose product line has been renamed?Edit

Airbus Helicopters, a recent re-branding of Eurocopter, has updated the names of its product lines. As a result, most of its helicopters have changed name another time time, e.g. the Eurocopter EC 225 Super Puma 2Eurocopter EC225 Super PumaAirbus Helicopters EC225 Super PumaAirbus Helicopters H225 Super Puma 2 (if I understand correctly, because Eurocopter marketing is not that good).

I have re-named the categories in cat:Airbus Helicopters accordingly and left the old ones as redirects. I believe it is clearer this way, avoiding confusion/uncertainty about where a specific helicopter should fit in the tree, and helping those users categorizing through helpful auto-completions. (This re-naming/re-direction work is not entirely complete but already functional).

User:Dankarl, however, argues that this removes useful information and would prefer a system of sub-categories. I will let him/her explain his/her point, to avoid mis-representing it.

What should be done? How should we categorize specific machines that were called something when they were sold, but are now being called something else by the manufactuer? I seek your input, particularly in the sight of Airbus Helicopters’ complex product line. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer using the new names for the simple reason that information about which exact name a single helicopter should have is often hard to find or inconsistent. A good categorization by subcategories would therefore be very difficult to do, as far as I can tell. If I'm wrong and there is a reliable way to tell the product name, that would be fine with me. — Julian H. 17:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
You just Google the registration number. there's 3 or 4 sites that either have it of pull it up in 1 click. Or if you are a purist the FAA has the data online. Outside the US? I can't say but would be surprised if there weren't comparable info available for most first-world nations.Dankarl (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Rationale: The aircraft remain what they were; the new name is at best a synonym. Other sources, such as the registration databases, do not change the designation. In my view this could better be handled with subcategories or cross-references. It is a question of verifiability and convenience for users. Dankarl (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Models of aircraftEdit

Hi to all. I don't understand why coexist the IMO similar Category:Models of military aircraft and Category:Scale models of military aircraft. If I must categorize a scale static model (1/72, 1/48) don't know when to use the first and when to use the other. Opinions?--Threecharlie (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I created the subcat because at the time there appeared to be an increasing number of images of models that were crude or inaccurate representations of the full-size aircraft subject. Since then, the proportion of such 'approximate' models has declined, and many more subcats created. Perhaps the Scale models subcat can now be made a category redirect to Models of military aircraft if the difference is not so clearly evident.PeterWD (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Daily gallery updater has failed on Commons:WikiProject Aviation/recent uploadsEdit

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, Commons:WikiProject Aviation/recent uploads, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of 2000 files per gallery, while your gallery had 4014 images.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC))

I think this is due to an upload spree by User:Josve05a and not due to a configuration problem (this is a statement of fact, not an accusation towards him). Shouldn't be a problem once he has finished his uploads. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Daily gallery updater has failed on Commons:WikiProject Aviation/recent uploadsEdit

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, Commons:WikiProject Aviation/recent uploads, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of 2000 files per gallery, while your gallery had 3425 images.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC))

Most likely due to the current influx of Apollo program images from the NASA Flickr-Stream (example). Maybe temporarily exclude Category:Apollo missions? --El Grafo (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

CFD Images_of_aircraft_without_type_categoryEdit

I have initiated Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2015/11/Category:Images_of_aircraft_without_type_category for this new category. Inputs welcome.PeterWD (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Flightglobal images - proposed mass deletionEdit

CFD Destroyed aircraftEdit

I have initiated Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/04/Category:Destroyed aircraft for this category. Inputs welcome.PeterWD (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Category helpEdit

Hi, Are the requests by XR728 on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves okay? --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, long overdue, IMHO. Hundreds of other categories further up the hierarchy are also in need of renaming to get rid of inappropriate "by airline", so I hope this is just a small start.PeterWD (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Then i do the mass move. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Possibly free images of the rare Douglas and NASA TSTO aircraft/spacecraft conceptsEdit

Moved from Village pump#Request for PD-NASA upload —20:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello there! I would appreciate a lot if someone could find a few minutes to upload three images from NASA Official Web-site under {{PD-USGov-NASA}} license, for I am not a Commons-registered user. Here's the document: 1990 High Speed Civil Transport Studies : Summary Report (October 1990) (pp.3-4). And here's the files (cropped from the original document for uploader's convenience) :

Thanks in advance! -- 18:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  • McAfee gives me warnings when I try to go to that site. - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You mean the NASA site? And who is McAfee? -- 06:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I can see the images fine. However, I'm not sure that this is actually {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. The document was actually prepared by McDonnell-Douglas, contracting for NASA. BMacZero (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Does the contract mean that they are employed by the government (with all the legal consequences,) or it doesn't matter in this particular case? -- 07:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Evidence that a work created under contract for NASA was actually placed in the public domain under the terms of that contract is needed. See {{PD-Hubble}} for an example. Reventtalk 09:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification! -- 09:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

And here's the work from the pure NASA employees (February 2001):

It is available for check-out here (P.11, requires authorization), and here at the Official NASA Web-site (without authorization, same page, though in lower resolutuion). -- 09:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  • In case if one may need those rare pieces of aerospacecraft design, I store them here. -- 20:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Daily gallery updater has failed on Commons:WikiProject Aviation/recent uploadsEdit

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, Commons:WikiProject Aviation/recent uploads, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of 1000 files per gallery, while your gallery had 2356 files.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC))

CFD Category:Re-used aircraft registrationsEdit

I have initiated Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Re-used aircraft registrations for this category. Inputs welcome.PeterWD (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

CFD Category:Aircraft by country of locationEdit

I have initiated Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/03/Category:Aircraft by country of location for this category. Inputs welcome.PeterWD (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Categorization helpEdit

Hi, I just categorized File:RwandAir flight at Kamembe Airport.jpg this photo I took according to how other aircraft images are categorized (which meant creating a lot of categories!), but I'm not sure I actually used the right name for the aircraft type. I categorized it as a De Havilland Canada DHC-8-400, but according to the en:Bombardier Dash 8#Series 400 article that may be something else, since this airplane is actually a Bombardier Q-400 Next Gen, but I couldn't find any categories for Q-400 in Commons at all. So I guess my question is: Did I do it correctly, or should some categories be moved? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata items for individual registrationsEdit

There's a discussion at the moment at d:Wikidata:Project Chat as to whether Wikidata's notability criterion should be revised, to in general encourage Wikidata items to be created if they relate to a particular entity or concept (rather than an intersection of entities or concepts), that has a Commons category devoted to it.

Such a wikidata item would give a place to store information about the entity, which could then be retrieved and displayed on Commons by templates, and could be used as a "topic tag" (as the object of a "depicts" statement) in the proposed CommonsData structured database for files on Commons, that would underpin the new Structured Data search and description system that is going to be developed.

In the discussion, User:C933103 raised the question of all the subcategories of c:Category:Aircraft by registration -- currently 74,487 of them.

To what extent would it be useful for each of these to have their own entry on Wikidata?

Or, would that be overkill? If instead, one could add the registration number as local piece of information in the Structured Data system -- so that eg for an image like File:B-5063_Boeing_B.737_Air_China_(7183076477).jpg it might include statements like:

"depicts": "aircraft"

with qualifiers about the aircraft:

"type": "Boeing 737-7BX"
"operator": "Air China"
"registration": "B-5063" (this one held locally as a string, rather than as a reference to an item on Wikidata)

as well as additional statements for date, location, etc.

-- would this be sufficient, if it allowed a user to be able to sequentially narrow down a search, via prompts and drop-down choices, to go eg:

"Boeing 737" + "Air China" + "Boeing 737-700" + "B-5063"

in order to ultimately retrieve pictures of just this aeroplane ?

Or is there advantage in having a whole Wikidata item for registration "B-5063" ?

If such Wikidata items are not in general necessary (apart from e.g. airframes of particular historical or preservation interest), would the Aviation project be happy to have that listed in Wikidata's Notability policy as an example of a thing which didn't need a separate item, where the identification could be held just as a string related to the file ?

All input very welcome, at d:Wikidata:Project_chat#Proposed_change_to_WD:N_regarding_Commons_categories Jheald (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

As I understand, the category by registration is useful in a way that users can view all the photo of a single aircraft in same category. (So that, for instance, if an aircraft have been involved with some accidents, users can easily locate past photo taken for the same aircraft.
And then, for wikidata, I believe as it have been mentioned on wikidata's communal chat, an wikidata item would not be created just because of existence of a category in wikimedia commons, and there need to be at least some other entry in other wikimedia wiki, thus it shouldn't be a problem for now. (Although, if further wiki creation proposal, ;ole the NonFreeCommonsWiki proposal get passed, then it might have some further implication on this system, but I don't think it's needed to worry about it for now.C933103 (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: Wikidata's current Notability guideline is already a bit broader than that. It already permits an item if "it refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references" -- regardless of whether or not there is an entry in any other wikimedia wiki. That would probably be enough, for example, to cover most preserved aircraft.
The proposal at hand would go further than that, and allow Wikidata items to be created for any distinct identifiable conceptual or material entity if it had a Commons category that was not a so-called intersection category.
But the question is whether that would go too far; and whether it is possible to make a workable list of types of category that could be excluded -- & if so, whether it would make sense to exclude categories for aircraft registrations in that way. Jheald (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Daily gallery updater has failed on Commons:WikiProject Aviation/recent uploadsEdit

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, Commons:WikiProject Aviation/recent uploads, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of about 6000 files per day (including overflow galleries), while your gallery had 16997 files.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC))

Return to the project page "WikiProject Aviation".