User talk:Ardfern/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Category:Geography_of_Dublin_(city)

Geography of Dublin (city) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Two proposals

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 I'm afraid that more and more of those numerous files may become outdated as time goes by.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"

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-2343

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 Cologne

Hi Ardfern,

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

• Category:D-ABQT (aircraft)
• Category:N897FD (aircraft)

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 2

Hi Ardfern,

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

• Category:LY-VEF (aircraft) - new aircraft
• Category:EI-DYZ (aircraft) - new aircraft
• Category:EI-FZI (aircraft) - new aircraft
• Category:D-ABQI (aircraft) - now Eurowings, see File:Eurowings - Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 - D-ABQI - Cologne Bonn Airport-0252.jpg
• Category:D-AGWL (aircraft) - now Germanwings again (?), see File:Germanwings - Airbus A319-132 - D-AGWL - Cologne Bonn Airport-0251.jpg
• Category:VP-BPU (aircraft) - now Pobeda, see File:Pobeda - Boeing 737-8AL - VP-BPU - Cologne Bonn Airport-9900.jpg
• Category:YL-LCU (aircraft) - now SmartLynx again (?), see File:SmartLynx - Airbus A320-214 - YL-LCU - Cologne Bonn Airport-9895.jpg. No livery,

Raymond 19:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• • Job done. Great set of pics Raymond, many thanks. Great to get up-to-date pics to add. Ardfern (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you for both :-) Even that I am living in Cologne I am not very often at the airport :-( This time for a press event: Category:NRW-Umweltministerin Ursula Heinen-Esser - tierische Helfer am Airport Köln-Bonn. The airport managment invited the minister for environment to show her the animal staff of the airport :-) Raymond 08:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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.

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

Category:Former Airbus A320 of Nouvelair

Former Airbus A320 of Nouvelair has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Category:Current Airbus A320 of Nouvelair

Current Airbus A320 of Nouvelair has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Category:Former Airbus aircraft of Nouvelair

Former Airbus aircraft of Nouvelair has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Category:Current Airbus aircraft of Nouvelair

Current Airbus aircraft of Nouvelair has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Category:Nouvelair Current Fleet

Category:Nouvelair Current Fleet has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Category:Nouvelair Former Fleet

Category:Nouvelair Former Fleet has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Category:Current Airbus aircraft of Tunisair

Current Airbus aircraft of Tunisair has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Notification about possible deletion

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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Affected:

• File:Sticker, Deansgate, Manchester, October 2017 (01).jpg

And also:

• File:Sticker, Deansgate, Manchester, October 2017 (02).jpg
• File:Sticker, Deansgate, Manchester, October 2017 (03).jpg

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

New Planes seen in Cologne, part 3

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

• Category:LY-ONL (aircraft): new
• Category:TC-NBM (aircraft): new
• Category:OE-IZO (aircraft): new
• Category:EI-SOA (aircraft): new
• Category:C-GUAJ (aircraft): new
• Category:TC-LSA (aircraft): new

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 manufacturer

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 key

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' metacats

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 metacats

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 usage

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?

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" indices

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 Airways

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 B737

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' cats

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 operator

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).JPG

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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Photo of a promotional poster with no evidence that it free of copyright Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

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

issue with some aircraft-related categories (not necessarily your changes)

Something is making a lot of aircraft categories show up in Category:Self-parent category due to template problem. I suspect it's an issue wuth the template used to define the categories. Since you're probably more familiar with that than I am, could you take a look and see if you can figure out what's going on? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I had noticed this myself and believe it is a problem with the templates. Their content seems to be continually changing and it keeps throwing up problems, has done for months. It is their author you need to contact and I would be really grateful if you could and get this sorted. Thanks Ardfern (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)