Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/09/Category:Aircraft by registration

• This is not about deleting Category:Aircraft by registration
• This is not about renaming Category:Aircraft by registration
• This is not about deleting any of the subcategories of Category:Aircraft by registration
• This is about the names of the subcategories of Category:Aircraft by registration

In general, I think it's a good idea to group the images of aircraft in this way. It's likely that this has improved categorization of images. I'm not entirely happy with the names subcategories are using. I was wondering if these should use an additional element to the registration itself, e.g. "Aircraft registration number ASDF" or "Aircraft ASDF" etc. -- -- User:Docu at 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support A very good category and initiative. But if we have more such "pseudo random" named categories, we will have sooner of later a clash. Moreover, each category name must at least say what it is about. So there should be indeed at least a recognisable pre- or postfix such as with category:Ships by IMO number. I guess that most of it could be changed by a bot. --Foroa (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree to a Prefix "Aircraft ..." instead of the pure registration number. Who will do the work? Is there any chance for a bot? Gomera-b (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes it should be easy to do by bot. -- User:Docu at 17:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I Changed my mind! Postfix instead of Prefix! Makes life much easier in terms of sorting. I think a simple ...(aircraft) could be a good solution. Example: "Category:D-ABCD (aircraft)" Gomera-b (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support As of about two weeks ago I have begun adding the aircraft registration to the Wikimedia category. I agree that postfix (aircraft) is a good idea - Arpingstone (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support as N654NC (aircraft) or C-YNXQ (aircraft), etc... --Admrboltz (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support fine for me. What I am concerned about, and I honestly don't quite know where to take it up, is that by adding these categories, such as in Category:Braathens, we are making it a hassle to actually use categories, because I then have to go into ten subcategories to find a suitable image for an article, when I yesterday could see all the images in the category. Please advise me if there is anywhere else I can discuss this matter. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Catscan can provide with a similar view (click on "catscan", "for all images", "scan"). -- User:Docu at 04:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  QuestionHow to proceed meanwhile? Continue as it was? Gomera-b (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, even if the consensus is for moving them to ASDF (aircraft), cfd discussions are generally open for at least two weeks. If some categories would already be using the new format, I'd just skip them when renaming. Besides, there is just one bot question I need to solve: the deletion of the old categories (mainly a permission question). -- User:Docu at 07:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that we have to wait that long; I could close this almost immediatly as the current naming is against the Commons naming rules (A category name must state what it contains). I think that:
    • We have to define and agree upon the precise prefix and the sortkey rule
    • The content of the old category can be replaced by {{Badname|Newname}}. --Foroa (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Support for Postfix like Category:VP-BCZ (aircraft) Gomera-b (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Info Based on Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Aircraft_by_registration, I notified some of the frequent creators of subcategories of this discussion. As it doesn't go far back, I probably missed many. Please add notifications where needed. Today, I added one on Airwolf's talk page. -- User:Docu at 12:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And thank you for this. Indeed, Category:SP-LOT (aircraft) is fine with me.  Support. Airwolf (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete the lot, this is not a good way to categorise, particularly as the vast majority of these categories contain only a single file. It is now an absolute pain to find photos which we need. For example, if I need to find a 747 of Qantas, the only way under this categorisation scheme is to know the registration of the aircraft, and if I don't know this, I could end up having to wade thru a hundred potential categories (as per number of aircraft in the fleet). It is not a good way to categorise, and these categories should be deleted until such time as there is a decent way of making it easy for ALL users to find content. --russavia (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there was a category for 747s of Qantas before. You still need to do the same thing: find the category for 747s (that is Category:Boeing 747) and then the one for Qantas (Category:Qantas). On the later you click on "Catscan" and paste "Boeing 747" into the field "for pages by category" (or "для страниц в категории") and then click "scan". This should give you 19 images [1]. -- User:Docu at 11:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking here or here might be quicker --Foroa (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a lot more difficult if you simply need a, let's say, good picture of any 747 to use on your website. If there are no FPs or VIs of 747s, you're in big trouble. Airwolf (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess the internal search is acceptable as it's also based on categories and the idea is to search through categories. Will it work once the Qantas is sorted by registration? I suppose I should also have mentioned that, as it's likely that some images are not completely categorized, one would need to check related categories to get the full list (e.g. all Boeing, general airplane, Qantas or Australian airport categories, possibly aircraft registration subcategories that are not categorized by operator or manufacturer). -- User:Docu at 14:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment unless the corresponding bot request gains some support, the categories can't be moved. -- User:Docu at 09:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be at least one admin who is willing to delete the old categories manually, so I can do the move tomorrow. -- User:Docu at 10:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understood that Multichill was prepared (= accepting to do it one day) to do the move and delete job when passing a properly formatted list (=if we provide him a proper {{move}} list). --Foroa (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC) + clarifications in parenthesises. --Foroa (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, he offered to do it, but he didn't prepare for it, probably because there are some many other things he is doing and for which he already asks for help. -- User:Docu at 13:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done. Following the above discussion, all categories are now at "<registration> (aircraft)". The 2600 categories were moved by bot and mainly NuclearWarfare, Tiptoety, Juliancolton and Abigor deleted the old categories. -- User:Docu at 01:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info There are a few categories that haven't been moved yet. These weren't subcategories of Category:Aircraft by registration. They can be identified by looking through, e.g. Special:PrefixIndex/Category:OY-. If you add them to Category:Aircraft by registration, I will do a follow-up later. -- User:Docu at 08:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]