User talk:Ardfern/Archive 13

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

File:Stevenson Square, Manchester, November 2020 (10).jpg

File:Stevenson Square, Manchester, November 2020 (10).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 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Provincetown, October 2004 (04).jpg

File:Provincetown, October 2004 (04).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 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Craigavon_Borough_Council

Category discussion warning

Craigavon Borough Council 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Ricky81682 (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Venezolana

Category discussion warning

Venezolana 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop moving correctly title photographs

You're breaking the naming structure I use for no reason other than your own preference. Using "bad name" when clearly the file had no issues (was correct) and isn't supported by COM:FNC (also on the same page "Uploaders often have schemas naming their files; moving files might break them"), so please stop. Bidgee (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have only moved file names that are incorrect (ie missing one or more pieces of info (airline, type, reg, location and date)), however if your naming structure leaves out date then so be it. Ardfern (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW this is not about my own preference, I simply want the file names to cover the 5 pieces of info above, which doesn't seem unreasonable. I don't change file names which contain this info if it is in a different format from mine.Ardfern (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going from File:Cathay Pacific (B-KPR) Boeing 777-367(ER) at Sydney Airport (1).jpg to File:Cathay Pacific B777-300ER (B-KPR) @ SYD, Sept 2018.jpg, is totally different to the original naming scheme and the original isn't incorrect, only just missing the month and year that you prefer (and could've asked on my talk page to look at including it and if it will break anything). Bidgee (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't think this would be a contentious area. Including the 5 pieces of info seemed sensible to me - best intentions and all that. Don't understand about people's schemas etc. Simple solution, don't touch your stuff. Cheers. Ardfern (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad name

Please stop changing "bad name" of aircraft.
File name of aeroplane no need to include many infomation (airline, type, location, etc), which can be found in Summary/Description.
Dltl2010 (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, many files contain either no description or summary, or nothing meaningful. Having the reg only is not sufficient, see Category:Images of aircraft with bad file names etc. Ardfern (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from a Wikidata guy :)

Hi! I've been browsing the aircraft categories on Commons recently and I'm really impressed by your hard work. Well done! If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you two questions:

  • Why do you think Wikidata (which I now consider my main project of focus in Wikimedia, having gruadually moved there from Polish Wikipedia) has become danger to Commons?
  • If we were to start creating Wikidata items for aircraft, just as they had been created in their thousands for maritime ships, in your opinion what should be the primary identifier for planes? I mean, for ships there's the IMO number and it solved the issue of ships changing owners, names, registrations etc. Commons categories for the same ship, while it was bearing each of its names, are subcategories of the main IMO-based category. Do you think such a solution could or should be used also for aircraft, using, for example, manufacturer's serial number? Best regards. Powerek38 (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the kind words. On Wikidata (particularly with regard to aircraft) my main concern is about accuracy. I have found very often that the Wikidata item is at odds with both Commons and Wikipedia info. It is also often not kept up to date re fleets or whether airline is defunct or not for instance. I have enough work to do on Commons without trying also to keep Wikidata items up to date, which to me is a duplication of effort. On Wikidata items for aircraft it should be by manufacturers serial number (msn). However, this is not without its issues. Many manufacturers use a single number (eg Airbus, Embraer etc), whereas others use both an msn and a line number (eg Boeing , McDonnell Douglas etc), both of which I think should be reflected in Wikidata items. Hope this helps. Ardfern (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes of established category system

Good evening. I would like to kindly ask you to stop unsettling our category system concerning aircraft types at airports, which had been in place for 8 years and more.

After you have invented a new intermediate category during the last few days in the new form "Type by Operator by Airport", for example Airbus aircraft of Air France at London Heathrow Airport, a new and artificial need has been created to shift thousands of keys in the existing categories to your new form "Category:Airbus aircraft at London Heathrow Airport| A320", which until now was completely unnecessary.

Such massive changes in our established category system needs at least some discussion.

I would very much appreciate that you would not continue these changes. Maybe we have to discuss the matter in collaboration with other users or administrators. --Uli Elch (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just because a category system has been in place for 8 years and more does not mean that it is necessarily correct. I always thought that we had missed a trick by not doing what I am now doing. If you look at Category:Airbus aircraft at London Heathrow Airport, I think the changes I have made are positive and helpful and give the category more meaning where it had previously only contained a list of aircraft types. Happy for it to be referred for discussion. Ardfern (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When a category system has been inplace for so many years without any dispute, with everybody beeing happy with it, it is not good style to mess it up without any discussion.
I have nothing against the creation of parallel categories or such below existing ones. But pressing in an intermediate category into the middle of a well-proven category tree just because "I always thought ..." is not acceptable.
That new category with 3 (three) parameters is no improvement at all, it makes work unnecessarily complicated. For this purpose we do have the Category:Aircraft at London Heathrow Airport by operator which perfectly serves the same purpose combined with Category:Aircraft at London Heathrow Airport by aircraft type. Blowing up the system by pushing in an additional one which artificially combines both is not worth the amount of work needed.
Many thousands of categories will have to be changed by inserting this new sortkey "| A320" etc.
Above, I had asked you twice politely not continue these changes until we have discussed the matter in collaboration with other users or administrators. However, you regrettably continue to insert these questionable changes completely uninterrupted like here, here, here and in dozens of other cases.
If you don't care about the request for a discussion I will be forced to take the matter to the administrators, unless you agree to hold your changes, with your next edit, until a consensus has been found. --Uli Elch (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make any more changes after you requested I stop. Clearly you have found edits I did earlier. I would confirm that I have stopped adding such edits and will desist until further discussion etc. Ardfern (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw - I had asked you to pause these edits at 23:02, 19 August 2021. In the above examples you continued to modify the categories at 00:54, 20 August 2021, 00:58, 20 August, 02:25, 20 August and in 36 cases of the Airbus A300 alone - that was after my request.
However, I appreciate your commitment to refrain from such changes until a consensus has been achieved. --Uli Elch (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coolranny, County Antrim, September 2010 (01).JPG

File:Coolranny, County Antrim, September 2010 (01).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 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

AFBorchert (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - categories of Avro RJ

Good morning. I just stumbled over the question of correct categorization of the Avro RJ concerning its manufacturer.

It was built by BAe, but called "Avro". Both of us have sorted it under "Category:Avro aircraft at XYZ", you here, whilst I did it there.

The Avro RJ, née BAe 146 (and HS.146!), has nothing to do with the Avro York, Anson, Lancaster, Shackleton etc.

Therefore, shouldn't we instead put it into the (correct) "BAe aircraft at XYZ" instead? --Uli Elch (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yeah I've been wondering about that too and had been avoiding it in terms of aircraft by country. BAe aircraft is probably right, rather than Avro. I was wondering if BAe was also right for the Jetstream series of aircraft (31, 32 etc). Let me know what you think. Ardfern (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Jetstream 31, 32 and 41 were all produced by BAe, so should be categorized under their banner. Btw, I've been wondering all the time why we have the 31 and 32 as different types, just because they have different engines. The A320 has either CFM or IAE engines, still we rightly list it as one type.
A question is how to categorize the original Handley Page Jetstream (only 3 built) and the later one built by Scottish Aviation.
Concerning the original question about the Avro RJ, I'd like to suggest that we gradually shift it to BAe instead of Avro, which appears ro be your opinion as well. --Uli Elch (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy that Avro RJ remain as it is (as it has three variants under it), but then categorise it as a type under BAe aircraft.Ardfern (talk)
Addition: Maybe we should also consider to rename / move the 3 Jetstream variants to include the manufacturer name as in their category tree, that means from "Jetstream 41" to "BAe Jetstream 41", like the ATP which also bears the "BAe" name. --Uli Elch (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest we retain the three Jetstream types as they are (saves all the work renaming them and all their sub-cats) but then categorise them under BAe Jetstream (and renaming the cat British Aerospace Jetstream to BAe Jetstream) and then categorising it as a type under BAe aircraft.Ardfern (talk)
Alright, then let's do the two changes that way. --Uli Elch (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on the BAe front, but could you ensure you use the correct airport names to maintain consistency eg Warsaw Frederic Chopin Airport rather than Warsaw Airport, and Groningen Airport Eelde rather than Groningen Airport. Ardfern (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Photographer's Barnstar
Thanks for posting your images on Wikimedia Commons, I appreciate your work. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:St_Faiths_Church,_Havant

Category discussion warning

St Faiths Church, Havant 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

City of Manchester

Excuse me, but why this move? -- Blackcat 09:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D-AMAX

Hi Ardfern, I have taken 2 days ago an image of a BAe 146-300 with registration D-AMAX, see ICAO-Notfallübung Köln Bonn Airport, November 2021-7050.jpg (part of Category:ICAO emergency exercise Cologne Bonn Airport, November 2021). But it seems not the current Category:D-AMAX (aircraft). Flightradar says, it is a Boeing 737 MAX 8, operated by TUI fly . Any idea how could this be? Raymond 19:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raymond, aircraft registrations are often used again in Germany. D-AMAX was also used on an Airbus A300, as well as the WDL Aviation Avro RJ100 in your picture (this has been stored for some years). I have added these both under D-AMAX (aircraft) and when we get a picture of the 737 MAX will add it too.

Good to hear from you again Ardfern (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 new planes

Hi Ardfern, I have spotted 3 new planes (to Commons) 2 days ago at CGN:

Maybe you have some time to add the history of these planes to the categories? Thanks a lot. Raymond 20:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done. The first two are actually Malta Air (subsidiary of Ryanair) aircraft which have not yet been repainted into new livery. Ardfern (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ardfern Thanks a lot Raymond 19:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ardfern/Archive_13&oldid=616345909"