Open main menu

User talk:Ardfern

Welcome to my talk page. Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page, use headlines when starting new talk topics and sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end. I will generally reply on this page to keep conversations together; please watch this page for a short time after leaving a comment. Thank you.

Start a new talk topic.

Contents

File:Bank of Ireland, Donegal, June 2012.JPGEdit

 
File:Bank of Ireland, Donegal, June 2012.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

64.150.8.12 20:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This was a nonsense nomination by a random IP. Closed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Centre Jean-Moulin, Bordeaux, July 2014 (02).JPGEdit

 
File:Centre Jean-Moulin, Bordeaux, July 2014 (02).JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Benoît Prieur (d) 10:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


London Gatwick AirportEdit

Hi, The template "London Gatwick Airport year" used in the Categories "Category:XXXX at London Gatwick Airport" currently puts its categories in "Category:Transport in London in XXXX" or "Category:XXXX in London". Is it possible this could be removed from the template as the airport is not actually 'in' London, it is in West Sussex where the template also adds its categories? This would be in line with how the other airports that serve London are treated in Commons. I ask you to make this change as I believe you are responsible for creating this template, if not can you tell me where to ask to implement this change? Example of categories affected: Category:2015 in London Category:Transport in London in 2014. Oxyman (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the modification, best Oxyman (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Airline Info on CategoriesEdit

Hello. I liked the idea of you adding the details of each aircraft registration, so I have added this to other aircraft which have not been done, Only change is that the months are included for each year the aircraft moves to a new operator. Do you think we should add anything else? I added a note for a special colour scheme note for G-EZUI if that's a good idea? --MKY661 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:G-EZUI_(aircraft)

Looks good to me. Sufficient level of detail. Glad to see someone else working on thisArdfern (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jetline_International_aircraft_at_Domodedovo_International_AirportEdit

78.186.55.101 21:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Apollo Aviation Group / GECASEdit

Dear Ardfern, I'm writing regarding your correction of pages Category:B-5080 (aircraft), UR-PSN (aircraft) & TC-SUB (aircraft). I have noted that you added into "Template:Cat see also" 2 categories of aircrafts - N614LS (aircraft) & N310CQ (aircraft). As far as we can see from aircraft story it had this registration numbers during the period of storage in Apollo Aviation Group and GECAS agencies. These periods lasted couple of months only. And I really doubt that the photos of these aircrafts with these registration numbers exist and will appear at Wiki Commons. Was it make sense to add it into "Template:Cat see also"? --Vasyatka1 (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  • To leave them out would render the information inaccurate and therefore useless and leave gaps in the timeline. In many cases there are indeed photos of aircraft while in ownership of lessors or in storage.Ardfern (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:A6-EMA_(Boeing_777)Edit

Conifer (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete vs. renameEdit

Concerning your recent edits akin to this, two things:

  1. The category names you created are certainly better, being more clear and matching other such names of categories about other types of vehicles (I didn’t do that back when I worked in these categories to avoid too changing both scope and name of each category — but now it’s certainly later enough to do so.)
  2. However, why not renaming/moving these misnamed categories instead of deleting them? It would minimize file editing (one edit on each filepage, instead of two) and keep the history of each category.

(Also: this page needs archiving. Badly.) -- Tuválkin 10:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Cessna or otherEdit

Hello Ardfern. This edit suggests no Cessna is shown in the picture. If not, can you tell me what we do see there? Regards, Apdency (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Fixed. It would have been more constructive to have rectified the mistake rather than simply exercising sarcasm. Ardfern (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for fixing. But my question was genuine; as a layman, I really didn't know. No sarcasm was intended therefore. Apdency (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Mailboxes_in_EnglandEdit

Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Flickreview train filesEdit

Under your name (PK-LMN) a load of train files are being wrongly loaded into Category:Aviation files (check needed). Please cease immediately and revert all the files. Ardfern (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Brendan FraserEdit

Hi,

Thank you for your work on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Fraser Is it possible that we use a more flattering image such as this? https://i.imgur.com/P2pNGCz.jpg

Or How could we go about doing that.

Regards

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnah Hill (talk • contribs) 23:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:National_Museum_of_Ireland,_Merrion_StreetEdit

Themightyquill (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

    • This cannot be considered in isolation from the two other categories within Category:National Museum of Ireland. It is clearly a branch of that institution which should remain to be clear and allow files of each to be clearly delineated. Propose no change. Ardfern (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Igreja de Santo António, Lisbon, May 2017 (01).JPGEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Igreja de Santo António, Lisbon, May 2017 (01).JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Sorted, licence added. Ardfern (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

New aircraft operatorsEdit

Hello Ardfern, I have seen your edits to aircraft categories, where you maintain the operator of a specific aircraft. Thanks a lot for your work! From time to time I am taking aircraft images and today I found that Category:D-ABGO (aircraft) has a new livery: Eurowings, operated by Air Berlin (not visible on the aircraft but told by the stewardess during the flight CGN-ZRH). Are you interested in further reports? Raymond 18:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi Raymond, thanks for the report, which I confirmed, and have updated Category:D-ABGO (aircraft) accordingly. Many thanks, all info gratefully received. Ardfern (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ardfern, here some more news:
Raymond 16:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Raymond, all confirmed and updated. Ardfern (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

EasyJet Airbus CategoriesEdit

It is not laid out in any procedure to create separate categories for current & former aircraft operated by an airline. The whole "Category: Airbus aircraft of EasyJet" and "Category:Former Airbus aircraft of EasyJet" is a complete mess, it is better to note that an aircraft was transferred to another airline (and when) than it is to create such categories. Plus, doing so makes adding another registration category a total nightmare, please stop and remove the category. Information is redundant, as it can be conveyed through ː "CategoryːAircraft registrations (several operators)" and by noting, example "Airbus A319-111
cn/serial number: 4837
*EasyJet 2011-2012 as G-EZGR
*EasyJet Switzerland 2012 to date as HB-JYB"


--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  • On the contrary it is not a mess, for the first time it is possible to clearly see the aircraft currently operated by EasyJet and the aircraft formerly operated by EasyJet, rather than a big mass of registrations for an EasyJet aircraft type where it is impossible to see what is operated and what is no longer current. The information certainly is not redundant and actually improves the user and researchers experience in my view. Ardfern (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
It is not standard. Why not just include the information in the category itself? It is not proper; you chose to make that change out of the blue instead of inquiring among other editors.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons Conference projectEdit

Hello Ardfern,

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around, but since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--MB-one (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

New Lufthansa AirbusEdit

Hi Ardfern, it looks like I have taken a picture of a brandnew Lufthansa plane today: Category:D-AIXE (aircraft). Raymond 15:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

:Thanks Raymond, further info added Ardfern (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft variant categoriesEdit

Hi, Ardfern. Categories like Category:Airbus A319-115 do not take a {{catcat}} template. If you want them to be only for categories, they need names that indicate that, like maybe "Airbus A319-115 by registration" (which would use {{catcat}} and not {{metacat}}). Thanks, and feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Ardfern (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Belfast (303), October 2009.JPGEdit

 
File:Belfast (303), October 2009.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Geography_of_Dublin_(city)Edit

feminist (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Two proposalsEdit

Good afternoon. Since it was you who has installed most (if not all) individual aircraft histories in the respective photo files, I'd like to suggest two ideas in order to discuss them with you, hopefully in a less aggressive atmosphere.

1) I'm wondering whether it might be helpful to readers to display the last line in case of a write-off like "crashed in Malta in October 2016 and written off" in a more prominent way. It could be "written off", "written off" or with some kind of colour. What do you think about it?

2) You are using the term "to date" for the last entries. I'm afraid that more and more of those numerous files may become outdated as time goes by. Therefore, I suggest to use something like "since 20xx" or "from 20xx" instead.

Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. With regard to proposal 1, I really don't see any need for further emphasis of written off. I think the words themselves say it all. On proposal 2, my reading of since or from would be since or from until now, ie to date, so I don't see any need for change. I don't think it increases accuracy or makes the file any more up to date. The key is keeping the files updated, which I already try to do as much as possible. I wish everyone would do the same, as well as ensuring proper categorisation of outstanding files needing checked. Then we could consider these kind of cosmetic tweaks. Ardfern (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"Aircraft built in 2009" vs. "Boeing 777 built in 2009"Edit

Hello! I have noticed your edit. Could you please explain the advantages of changing that category on D-AALI? Isn't the more general category a better option? I'm rather new at this subject, so I don't know. Thanks! --GeXeS (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh wait, I have just found out that the "Boeing" category is a sub-cat of the general "Aircraft" category. Guess that answers my question, huh...--GeXeS (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, sorry for spamming here, but there is another thing concerning this topic. Say there is a plane, built in 2000, given tail A-AAA, then moved to another operator and renamed to B-BBB. If we tag both of them as "built in 2000", the plane will appear twice in that category. Is there a solution for this? Tagging "built in ..." category only to the first instance of the airplane, maybe?--GeXeS (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
In the example above the aircraft were both still built in 2000 and should be recorded as such. The problem you cite is only a problem if you think that only the instance of an aircraft that should be in the 'built in' category is the first instance. I don't. Ardfern (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion - my reasoning is that if someone would want to count airplanes built in some year judging by the list in Wikipedia, he/she would get an erratic result due to this.--GeXeS (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I understood your reasoning. I don't have a solution for those people who want to count airplanes in any year (that's not what the category is designed for). If you feel strongly about this feel free to raise your issue for discussion at Commons:WikiProject Aviation. Ardfern (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much!--GeXeS (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

AX-2343Edit

Hi! Can you please check Category:AX-2343 (aircraft)? I'm not sure how it should be categorized. Many thanks! -- Meisam (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

To be exact, I’m not sure how subcategories of the [‌[Category:Aircraft registered in XXX]] should be organized. Specifically:
  • Military aircraft registered in XXX
  • Police aircraft of XXX
  • Air ambulances of XXX by registration
  • Government aircraft by country
  • XXX Air Force aircraft serials
-- Meisam (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)::
Your approach seems reasonable to me. Ardfern (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to cleanup the categories. Should they be organized like this for each country (XXX):?

  • Aircraft registered in XXX
  • Government aircraft of XXX by registration
  • Military aircraft registered in XXX
  • XXX Air Force aircraft serials
  • Police aircraft of XXX
  • Air ambulances of XXX by registration

--Meisam (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

New Planes seen in CologneEdit

Hi Ardfern,

I have spotted two new planes, previously unknown to Wikimedia Commons:

And for File:Air Alliance - Bombardier CL604 Challenger -D-AONE - Cologne Bonn Airport-7279.jpg I am unsure if it is the same plane as the other 3 images already in Category:D-AONE (aircraft).

If you have time I would be happy if you could add the usual information to the plane categories. Raymond 19:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Raymond

  • Sorted. D-AONE is indeed a re-used registration. Ardfern (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ardfern, thanks a lot. Raymond 05:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

New Planes seen in Cologne, part 2Edit

Hi Ardfern,

here a new small batch of new aircrafts/changed registrations spotted in Cologne:

Raymond 19:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Red Bull Formula One Night, Belfast, March 2010 (03).JPGEdit

Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:Red Bull Formula One Night, Belfast, March 2010 (03).JPG. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Hrvatski | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Former Airbus A320 of NouvelairEdit

--Josh (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Current Airbus A320 of NouvelairEdit

Josh (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Former Airbus aircraft of NouvelairEdit

--Josh (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Current Airbus aircraft of NouvelairEdit

--Josh (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


Category:Nouvelair Current FleetEdit

--Josh (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Nouvelair Former FleetEdit

--Josh (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Current Airbus aircraft of TunisairEdit

--Josh (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

 
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, B dash (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

New Planes seen in Cologne, part 3Edit

Hi Ardfern, I spotted some new aircrafts, again in Cologne during a press event Category:Generalsanierung große Start- und Landebahn Airport Köln Bonn:

Raymond 07:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Raymond. All done. Great photos as usual and all new to Commons - brilliant. Ardfern (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for updating the images and categories. Raymond 12:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Aircraft by country of service by manufacturerEdit

I noticed you've done some sorting into categories such as Category:Aircraft in United Kingdom service by manufacturer. I've thanked you for some of these moves and I've done some of the same myself. However, it strikes me that the 'by manufacturer' categories might not be really all that necessary, and that it could be sufficient to put something like Category:Boeing aircraft in United Kingdom service just directly under Category:Aircraft in United Kingdom service. I'm not convinced either way, any thoughts? Josh (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Like yourself I don't mind either way, but if you do remove by manufacturer, Category:Aircraft in United Kingdom service by operator should still be retained as a subcat of Category:Aircraft in United Kingdom service. Ardfern (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Wrong sort keyEdit

Please stop using a space in the sort key to elevate your preferred items in aircraft categories. Use a space only for meta-categories (named: topic by sorting criteria). Josh (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a new one on me. Never heard of using a space only for meta-cats and nothing else and it doesn't seem sensible to me. Does it only apply re aircraft or to Commons as a whole. Very restrictive on organisation and presentation. Ardfern (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Take a look at something like Category:Aircraft, and you will see what I'm talking about, the items using the space key are all in the Category:Aircraft by sorting criteria format. The point of a sort key is not to put a category in your personal favorite order. I might think Category:Aircraft registrations is really important and looks cool at the top of Category:Aircraft, but to use a space key to put it there would be wrong. This is not restricted to aircraft, that is just the topic I have witnessed your overuse of space keys on. This is particularly true within metacats where the sort key is specified in the name of the category, where everything should be sorted by the specified key. This ensures consistent presentation and users are not bound by what a particular editor might think they may be looking for. Josh (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect use of 'by country of service' metacatsEdit

A category such as Category:Boeing aircraft by country of service is an index of Boeing aircraft items with the country of service specified, ordered by the name of said country of service. Categories which do not specify the country of service do not belong in this category, as they cannot be reasonably sorted by the name of the country. Without explanation, you have been reverting efforts to maintain this and instead have re-populating these categories with items that do not belong there. I get why you might think it makes sense to put something like Category:Boeing 737 by country of service there, but you can't sort it by country name (as none is specified) and just putting all of the Boeing aircraft types at the top with a space key is not appropriate either. This also can cause several COM:OVERCAT violations. The first problem can be fixed by placing these into their own index (e.g. Category:Douglas aircraft by country of service by aircraft), but that is kludgey and doesn't solve the COM:OVERCAT problem. I recommend you not place them there at all, but if you just absoltely must, at least use an appropriate metacategory to group them. Josh (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You are continuing the incorrect categorization for no discernible reason, and without explanation. Please stop this nonsense or at least use the kludge I mentioned above. Josh (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what a kludge is and the discernible reason may be that I am not sure what you are talking about, but will have look and try to correct my mistakes. Ardfern (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Is Category:Boeing aircraft by country of service by aircraft what you mean by a kludge, will use in this format in future. Ardfern (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Use template on metacatsEdit

You have been creating a lot of metacategories without adding Template:Metacat to them. This template correctly categorizes them in maintenance categories and places a label on the page that makes it clear to users what kind of category it is. Any new category in the foo by bar format is probably a metacategory and needs this template on it. Let me know if you need further help in its use. Thanks!! Josh (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You are breaking things again, now with metacat usageEdit

What possible purpose did this edit serve? What you did was break how Template:MetaCat is supposed to work. If you read the documentation for the template, you will see that parameter 1 should be lower case. I notice you have done this to several categories, breaking the functionality of MetaCat on them. Please go back and revert these edits. If you don't know how a template works, read the documentation and if it still isn't clear, ask someone how to use it, especially if you are going to make a change to a template that is already correctly implemented on the page. Josh (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the other part of your edit, capitalizing the sort key, doesn't matter any more. Case is ignored now when the category is sorted. It does matter for the MetaCat template, so you still need to revert those changes. Josh (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you being intentionally disruptive?Edit

Ever since I raised a category for discussion that happened to be yours, you have suddenly appeared to be doing a lot of disruptive stalking of my work. Some of what you have done is constructive, and I've thanked you for it. However, several of your edits have been destructive, or at least just incorrect. You have been muddying up categories by adding categories that do not belong there (example), bumping these categories to the top of the list by incorrect use of the space as a sort key (see above talk topic), and just being randomly disruptive with some edits (example). I've brought some of these up to you but you do not address them and continue the negative behavior (the one you did at least comment on did not modify your behavior at all). I have included comments on why your edit has been reverted but insist on going the edit war route without explanation. Please halt this behavior immediately. I welcome your constructive edits, and am happy to talk over any item if you do not see why an edit is a problem, or if you have any problem with an edit of mine (at least on that you are more vocal). Josh (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

None of my edits have been intentionally disruptive or negative behaviour but were mistakes which I have largely corrected. I admit to having little prior knowledge of the whole metacat scene, but I have done my best since to edit correctly thereafter (largely by copying your metacat entries). Ardfern (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop deleting categories from within "by operator" indicesEdit

As we discussed, if you really want a separate "by airline" category, that is okay, but do not delete those categories from "by operator". "by airline" is its own distinct index and belongs alongside "by operator" in the main category. Especially since the matter is currently in CfD, it is not a good idea to go around gutting the "by operator" categories just because you have a preference for "by airline" ones. Josh (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I certainly have not been gutting 'by operator' categories and in fact have done my best to ensure they are retained alongside the 'by airline' cats (see 'Boeing aircraft by operator/airline'). In fact it is you who has been doing the gutting. You removed the entire contents of 'Boeing aircraft by airline' to 'Boeing aircraft by operator' and I have been doing my best to repair the damage ever since. You did the same to 'Beechcraft aircraft by airline'. At least with 'Boeing 707 by airline' you did not remove the contents but added the lot to 'Boeing 707 by operator'. And these are only the ones I have come across. It is not a question of my personal preference (although 'by operator' clearly seems to be yours), but one of trying to take a reasonable and sensible approach and without 'gutting' categories. Ardfern (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Cyprus AirwaysEdit

Hi, can you check this cat? I'm stuck with this, I don't know whether to put it in Category:Cyprus Airways or create a new cat (Category:Charlie Airlines or Category:Cyprus Airways (2017)...). I have changed the name of the defunct airline but I'm not sure about this change. Regards --Helmy oved 20:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, your change was correct in my view, but it means that every file and cat will need to be changed to the new 1947-2015 title. I don't know how to use bots to make this easy, you may do. If not it will have to be done file by file. Some of the cats eg Aircraft of Cyprus Airways could then be re-used for the new airline cat. If you are not up for it, I could tackle it, but it may take some time. In the meantime I have made a few additions to try to make it clearer. You could just put the pic in the 1947-2015 cat for now and we can fix it later. Hope this is helpful. Ardfern (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I leave the job to you then, they are more than 70 categories and my connection is bad in this moment. --Helmy oved 23:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Boeing 737, not Boeing B737Edit

Boeing does not apply the "B" to their model numbers like Airbus with the "A". Thus do not sort Boeing 737 as B737, but simply as 737. Airbus A320 would be "A320" because that is the actual designation. The same applies for the whole Boeing line and any other manufacturers with similar practices. Thanks! Josh (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Well the ICAO uses the B737 (or B738 for the 737-800) and A320 and so on. Bidgee (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Bidgee. You would think I had't been doing this for a while. The sole purpose of putting B737 is so that it is listed on the page under B rather than under 7 (which looks really stupid). Of course, maybe putting Boeing 737 would be better. Yes, I'll do that. Josh, you would do better fixing the unholy mess of inconsistency that is around Aircraft in Cambodian service, than this nonsense. Ardfern (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
It was perfectly consistent before you changed it. If you think 7 looks stupid, take it up with Boeing, but that's what they go with. The parent category is "Boeing aircraft..." so sorting by "Boeing" just would put everything in one group, eliminating there being any point to using a sort key at all. If the category was called "Boeing B737" it would be fine to use "B737" but it is not, so it doesn't matter that one of ICAO's codes for it is "B737" or that USAF calls it "C-40", those are not appropriate because why would someone looking for "737" look under "B" or "C"? I'm not trying to make your head explode, but I wouldn't think a concept like sorting "Boeing 737" in a "Boeing" category by "737" would be so difficult. Using an artificial sort key that is not based on the actual category or removing the value of the key altogether is a lot more complicated and misleading. Josh (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure you are not deliberately misunderstanding and I certainly will take it up with Boeing. Fixing up Aircraft in Cambodian service are we? Ardfern (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Now you are just being ridiculous. Going and changing a bunch of sort keys just because you didn't like me commenting on this, thereby destroying the whole point of a sort key at all is destructive and unacceptable. Stop placing the manufacturer in front of the name of the type within categories where the manufacturer name is already present. The majority of your edits are fine, but this kind of pedantry is destructive and makes it hard to assume good faith on your part. Josh (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Nope it is you that is being ridiculous! Now your moving Bombardier Global Express with Bombardier Global (rather than the other way round, Global Express is far more in use), no wonder myself and Ardfern have no good faith left! Bidgee (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
What a nice mess you've created Josh! Bidgee (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Never heard of Bombardier Global being used anywhere, it is Bombardier Global Express. This is nonsense, unnecessary and incorrect re-categorisation and I would request it is reverted forthwith. I really find it offensive to have my intentions questioned by someone who appears to be a slave to (incorrect) categorisation rather than common sense and a knowledge of the aviation world. Bombardier Global Express please, now. This type of arbitrary re-classification without discussion is being perpetrated on a continual basis by Josh and is tantamount to vandalism. It must stop.Ardfern (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Templates for 'by airline' catsEdit

It appears that the CfD for by operator/airline cats is coming to a conclusion. Thank you for your help in the matter. In order to help ease the work of implementing the consensus and to ensure consistency going forward, I'm going to be updating some related templates and perhaps developing a new one. What I would like to know is if you have much experience in developing templates, and if so, I would like to work with you on them. I want to make sure that the consensus is implemented with consistency and that future users have clear guidance on how to use the scheme we agree on. You are pretty industrious and knowledgeable so I hope you are interested in collaborating on this. Thanks ahead of time! Josh (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft in Netherlands service by type of operatorEdit

At the moment, most of the entries in this category are individual operators, not types of operators. Are you planning to group the military ones together? If not, they should be removed. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes the military ones will be grouped together when an agreed cat name is sorted out. Ardfern (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Is there a discussion going on about it? I would suggest "by military operator". --Auntof6 (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
See discussion at Category:Beechcraft aircraft by type of operator and chuck in your suggestion there. Ardfern (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

File:A. Rotundo Street, Vilnius, April 2015 (01).JPGEdit

 
File:A. Rotundo Street, Vilnius, April 2015 (01).JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Photo of a promotional poster with no evidence that it free of copyright
Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Renata3 (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Ardfern".