Category talk:42-106511 (aircraft)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
 | Category:2100882 (aircraft) | Move to/Rename as | Category:42-100882 (aircraft) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:2102516 (aircraft) | Move to/Rename as | Category:42-102516 (aircraft) | |
| Category:2106511 (aircraft) | Move to/Rename as | Category:42-106511 (aircraft) | |
| Category:2106638 (aircraft) | Move to/Rename as | Category:42-106638 (aircraft) | |
 | The actual serial number assigned to this aircraft is "42-100882". | |||
 | Josh (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
- I added three additional aircraft with the identical situation above. Josh (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Reject the proposal. This is about the 'identity' of the subjects of images. The identity of any photo subject (eg aircraft, person, etc), is the 'name' that the subject presents to the world at large. For example, the identity of Bob Dylan, as represented in the names of Wikimedia articles, categories and images, is "Bob Dylan", irrespective of his current legal name, birth certificate, passport, list of "also known as", etc.
- Similarly, the primary identifier of an aircraft represented in images and categories should be the identifier that is presented to the human viewer via a camera and recorded image, at the instant when the image is created. The particular problem with some aircraft images is that the unenlightened viewer (=photographer/uploader/cataloguer) can only identify the individual subject by looking at a name or number painted on the aircraft. By contrast, some people who self-identify as "aircraft enthusiasts" have a different, esoteric, perspective. In that view of the world, the number painted on an aircraft has to be 'reverse-engineered' via obscure algorithms to arrive at what they perceive to be its 'true' identity, and they typically delete the displayed number in favour of their preference.
- Of the examples cited here, 2106511 is a specific problem, in that it is entirely unrelated to the aircraft that had the military fiscal serial number 42-106511. It is simply painted as 2106511, but its original fiscal serial is probably 42-103293, or 43-12193 in current FAA files, or perhaps it is a conglomeration of various other individual aircraft.
- 2106638 is another problem, because the aircraft painted as such has been constructed almost entirely from (old and new) parts that don't originate from the aircraft that had the fiscal serial number 42-106638, but it crucially includes a data plate (like a VIN plate) from that destroyed airframe to best suit US FAA (civilian) bureaucracy.
- In all four examples listed above, the current physical aircraft are owned by civilians, and operated (flown) under civilian laws and regulations, so any military fiscal serial numbers whether painted or inferred, are no longer valid or legal identities anyway. Inferring such fiscal numbers is simply a fanciful invention, and makes no rational sense to unenlightened users or photo cataloguers and archivists. By all means, create category redirects to reflect an esoteric system, but we should not apply inferred numbers to the image file names, or to categories containing the image files.PeterWD (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- 2106511 is not a serial number or registration. By having a category Category:2106511 (aircraft) under Category:Aircraft by United States Army/Air Force serial number and Category:Aircraft by registration, we are lying to users by presenting it as an actual serial number, which it is not. The warbird in question is a depiction of 42-106511, even if it is not the original aircraft which carried, which is presented on the aircraft in abbreviated form as 2106511. I would be perfectly fine with simply redirecting Category:2106511 (aircraft) to the actual registration of the aircraft in the pictures, Category:N251MX (aircraft). Josh (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that 2106511 is not a "serial number" or a civil registration allocated by an airworthiness authority, but it is clearly the principal real-world identifier (ie identity, aka 'tail number' in aviation parlance) observable to everyone, and should not therefore be hidden in a redirect, unlike the fiscal serial number that is virtual and not real (except perhaps to 'fanboys'). So, 2106511 (aircraft) should indeed not come under Category:Aircraft by United States Army/Air Force serial number, where Josh has placed it. Anyway, perhaps we should place the narrow-focus Category:Aircraft by registration into a new Category:Aircraft by identity, and then add another subcat Category:Aircraft by tail number, to more accurately reflect the variation in perceptions.PeterWD (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@PeterWD: Closed (no consensus to rename to actual serial number; instead remove pseudo-serials from real serial categories) Josh (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)