User talk:Rlandmann/archive3

New French plane

Hey Rlandmann! I'm finally making planes again. As much as I try to conform to the standards, I'm sure I've missed something. Also, I have off characters at the top of my page. Would you like to check it out?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bloch_MB-131

Aircraft cat. (again)

Hey Rlandmann. I was under the assumption that I was using your setup, which I've come to prefer. I thought I was following that basic schema, albeit not quite fleshed out, and any errors I'm sure I'll catch and fix.

I've come to abandon the World War categorization because that's not an accurate definition. An item may have served before the war, after the war, in other wars etc. That also means that we'd have inconsistant categorization for equipment that hasn't served in a war. The date of introduction is meaningful, consistant and (mostly) undisputable.

For showing what vehicle served in what conflict and such, I think it'd be better to use standard List pages (we can have the same piece of equipment in unlimited list pages without cluttering anything up). Oberiko 01:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Queen Mab piece

Thanks for catching that; I now have a better idea on the desired source for descriptions. The Queen Mab piece was published once by me (one-time rights provided to that previous publisher), and I have ongoing copyright.

Thanks for everything, Rlandmann.Gonville 06:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

aero footer

Any way to clean up and/or widen the related aero links footer? Matching it stylistically to the {airlistbox} would be a good start, as the thick border and narrow content area sort of play with how much can fit on one line. It also sometimes overlaps the aircraft stats table. -eric 03:59, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

I tried using the same style as the {airlistbox} but it never matched widths, I think it's got something to do with the amount of text per line. Anyway, I took the content and dropped it into plain-text format - no tables, just a heading and three lines. That way you get the added benefit of the related content showing up in the table of contents, if there is one. It'll also wrap around photos, sidebars, and show up on mobile devices. It's pasted in below. I've actually applied it to the XP-55 Ascender article, and it looks pretty good stylistically with the airlistbox, too. -eric 04:55, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Related Content

Similar Aircraft: Kyushu J7W - Henschel P.75

Designation Series: XP-52 - XP-53 - XP-54 - XP-55 - XP-56 - XP-57 - XP-58

Related Lists: List of military aircraft of the United States - List of fighter aircraft

Aermacchi/Aeritalia AM-3C

Was it necessary to move it to AM-3? I was undecided at first, but every single mention of the AM-3 I've seen so far lists it as the AM-3C, which is, as far as I am now aware, the only variant other than the original MB.335. Impi 00:10, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks. Impi 10:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A space in the aircraft code name

Hello. I'm Marsian, a Japanese wikipedian. Could you tell me where can I find talkings about a space in the aircraft code name? I mean, for example, you're using "Ju 87" not "Ju87" nor "Ju-87"(maybe Ju-87 isn't correct). I've already checked the Google search result that shows 6,600 hits for "Ju87" and 22,000 hits for "Ju 87", 26,200 hits for "Bf109" and 45,600 hits for "Bf 109". So I guess this kind of naming method is more popular but I'm not sure. I think there might be some talkings about this topic somewhere in English Wikipedia, aren't they? --Marsian 23:10, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I understood. It was a great aid and you in fact are helping my translation. I was wondering why most Japanese articles don't have spaces like Bf109 or Ju87 while English ones all have. Simply, Japanese ones are wrong. Now perhaps I have a good ground to get Japanese wikipedians to change the names correctly. Thanks again. --Marsian 06:07, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

A-ha... All right, a trade-off between accuracy and familiarity. A little bit difficult problem. I'll ask other Ja. wikipedians. I respect your great sence of balance (and that's what I'm lack of). Thanx. --Marsian 08:29, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

Re:Early U.S. Bombers

Thanks for the input on the photos. Since you also seem interested in the early history of American Bombers, it would probably be better if someone else downloaded images. I really am naïve about the ins-and-outs of copyright issues.

I'm sorry about my naming conventions error. I realised it several hours after I got off from the last session. Obviously (in retrospect), the Y1B-4 was considered the B-4, and the production model a variant thereof.

I do have my own nit though. I notised that you have changed 'nft zin' to 'n ft z in'. Firstly, I am absolutely certain that the convention for abbreviated units is the former, though both may be viable. If it is just a question of which one to use, the former should also be opted for. In general, when the spaces are added between n and 'ft', this causes the imperial units to squish into the metric units, and that can be somewhat distracting. I feel it would be rude for me to change the system yet again, so I will leave the decision up to you for the moment.--Ingoolemo 01:23, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

I checked on the standard format for metric that you mentioned, and it seems to be correct. Rather than quibble over what system we should use, I'm going to try to find a format that will put more space between the imperial and metric columns.--Ingoolemo 21:17, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Oh No! I certainly didn't mean I'd make changes to the standard template. What I meant was that I was going to experiment with some way on my own. But now that you mention it, I think that if the spaces format is going to be made standard, the template should have the units with spaces before them.--Ingoolemo 22:28, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Would you mind giving me input on the best article to put the B-7 under? I decided to make the title of the page Douglas Y1B-7 as opposed to Douglas B-7, because the USAF Museum website says that the planes never entered production. But in the Boston (disambiguation) article, it says that the Douglas B-7 was called the B-7 Boston in servise of the RAF. Until more information can be dug up, I don't think lins showing B-7 should be changed (yet). What do you think?--Ingoolemo 23:06, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

whatever, the former tag was messing up the comments section

Is it Handley Page or Handley-Page? I've seen both all over the place, sometimes in the same articles! The second form makes more sense to me, not that it means much. Maury 13:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll leave it as is for now then. Also, do you think BAe Jetstream 41 should redirect to the main Handley Page Jetstream article, or be left separate as-is?

Thanks for the Robin Klein fix

I meant to come back and find the correct name for those categories; thanks for beating me to it! :) Guybrush 22:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Russian Regional Jet categories

After having messed up the categories on that entry, I have concluded that it is probably better to leave that to you. ;) Also, you may or may not want to categorize Lockheed Martin Aerial Common Sensor, Goodrich Corporation, and Voyska PVO, as well as the new entries for Boeing subsidaries, Boeing Commercial Airplanes and Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. -Joseph 03:47, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Spaces before imperial units

I have responded to your question on my talk page.
Bobblewik 15:40, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sysop

Congratulations! You are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the administrators' how-to guide helpful. Good luck. Angela. 16:18, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Swedish regiments

Thank you for fixing what I couldn't handle myself. I'll work further on the list and hopefully we'll have an (almost) complete list of independent Swedish army units from the 17th century up until this day. :)

feldgrau

Latécoère 28

I spent hours trying to get right what I thought to be the "standard" way of making a data table for a new airplane article. I am not very good with any kind of markup language, even the supposedly simple one or ones used here at Wikipedia, so I spent a lot of time jiggling things around and testing them (I copied from the deHavilland Dragon Rapide article at first) to finally see that colored table appear. Then you destroyed it! And from what I have seen of incoming new articles in the last months, you seem to be one of the Wikipedians who should know about these things. So destroying those colored tables is the new standard. Or is it? I suppose I should be glad to see that darn confusing table format disappear for just plain text, but on the other hand I spent a lot of the time on it, and after reading (in the last hour) several pages on aircraft data tables in Wikipedia, and on that bulletin board or discussion board that was set up, I really see no clear table format. But more importantly, I have been working as a Web usability consultant by day during the last four years, and I have learned that some color, and some form uniqueness (not just any mind you) can be extremely useful for navigation and for specific as well as general browsing. Right now, I am off to the library to get some more info for that stubby start for the Latécoère 28, but I am sure as heck not going to even dream of starting a new plane article till the aircraft regulars get a more stable format. AlainV 22:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Aircraft

1. Text vs table. Discussion over which approach is best has taken place over the course of nearly a month, with support for specifications in text form emerging as the clear favourite. It makes no sense to persist in promoting a dead format, when everyone who cares enough about the issue to have made a comment wants to move away from that format.

I like the text format. This comment demonstrates your inability to understand what I said in the forum.

2. General information about units is of too broad a nature to belong on a WikiProject page. It is useful to people working on this project, so a link is helpful, but cluttering up the main page is not.

Its so usefull its not clutter.

3. The mediawiki information is obsolete - this has been replaced by the Templates. In any case, its admonition about not pasting huge chunks of duplicate material on large number of pages was levelled at you - the only project participant to have done this (first with your initial version of the airlistbox, until someone explained Mediawiki to you) and then with various incarnations of your USAF footer. This is no more relevant to WikiProject Aircraft than a paragraph explaining how to make a wiki link.

Its not 'obsolete', as mediawiki is still used for some things categories cannot yet do. As for posting things to pages, thats what people are supposed to do on the wiki - improve it.

4. The project is currently using the external web-board for discussion. Pasting archived discussion on the talk page is only going to confuse matters by suggesting that discussion is currently going on in both places, when it's not.

Its not 'past archived' it was the most recent discussion leading up to the forum. The idea was to leave the most recent talk there for a couple months until actually was 'past'. I'll cut it back further as a compromise.

Please stop trying to fulfil your own personal agendas, and try to gauge which way the Project is heading. No-one but you has expressed any problem with the updated Project page. --Rlandmann 02:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My 'personal' agenda here is executing the goals of the of the project, and the only 'problems' are reasonable concerns-the same as everbody else. Greyengine5 07:37, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Branding aircraft articles

In answer to your question:

I agree with you that a bit of colour - something to "brand" the articles with would be desirable, but in the end the practicality of the text format has won out. Maybe there's another way of achieving this?

There are many ways to do this. Just putting a small color image (48 pixels would be enough) at the top, like the roundels on RAF planes and other such IDs, would suffice. Of course you would have to agree on a system for this, such as putting each country's military identification logo and choosing the "main" airline logo for civilian aircraft. Quite a job.

But just the presence of an aircraft's photo or diagram would be more than enough in the Wikipedia context, for branding an article as aeronautical. For those articles which do not yet have some form of illustration I would suggest that you put an image (again, fairly small, 96 pixels would do) of an ultra simple monochrome outline of a plane, like the ones we see on maps for military and civil airports, with the title "illustration pending" or something of the sort. If you do not have one at hand, just ask me and I will draw one and place it in the public domain. AlainV 09:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Full spec

• Good catch on the full spec table. Seemed like reasonble way to preserve the data, didn't know were not supposed to use those. I think if you stick reasonable objections like this, we might just have chance at cooperating again (Such as on the jetcruzer, which has turned out well). I know we'v had our differences, but I suppose I must congratulate you on your fantastic work on categories. Greyengine5 04:07, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

You left the archiving stuff on the project page but put the pages that did on delete? If you think its ok to leave that then we shouldn't delete other pages, obviously. If your were waiting to ask me about removing it, feel free to do so unless you think it actually is ok and did the deletes for some other reason. Perhaps there's another way to preserve the tables (on the talk perhaps?) to avoid subpages. Greyengine5 04:21, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Ah ok you took care of it. I think Ill stick a reference to putting it on the talk page just for archiving's sake. Greyengine5 04:27, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Archiving obsolete tables

You left the archiving stuff on the project page but put the pages that did on delete?

It's not usual to delete links to a page pending deletion until it's actually deleted. I would have been very surprised if those pages had survived the VfD process, but now that even you are no longer advocating keeping them, that chance is approximately zero and I've removed the links.

Can I ask you why exactly you're so adamant about keeping the (obsolete and misleading) "Mediawiki" advice in the guidelines? It really had no place on the project page in the first place, and was only placed there in reaction to your activities (I seem to recall the user who placed it there placing a similar message directly on your user talk page). No other WikiProject Aircraft participant has been involved in pasting large amounts of identical text around Wikipedia, and don't seem to need to be warned not to do it.

In any case, since there's now a direct link to the Style and How-to Directory, and since that document contains accurate information about implementing reusable text (as well as lots of other potentially useful stuff), there really is no reason that I can see why it should be left here.

What other random pieces of advice do you think belong on the page? "Don't run with scissors" maybe? ;) --Rlandmann 04:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where tables have been replaced by text specifications, they are already archived in the history of the article. What's the need to place them somewhere else as well? --Rlandmann 04:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can't imagine you having a problem with pasting text everywhere as thats what you do as well with categories, the airbox, etc.- and I mean in the sense thats part of improving the wiki and something I agree with. If it was a mistake, then its one your guilty of to.

Mediawiki is quite usefull and should at least have a reference, the incorrect advice should of course be removed. Greyengine5 04:55, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

I forgot- as for the archiving its just to make it easier to see. It will just be buried under potentially hundreds of edits and lost to wikihistory. Its not to important either way, but I think its pretty reasonable to leave them there. Greyengine5 05:09, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

It's not text per se that was the problem - it was the masses of identical text that you (and only you) were adding to a large number of articles. The biggest problem with this is of course that if that text needed updating, then it would have to be individually changed on hundreds of pages. Plus, of course, it was tables that you were pasting everywhere, which by their very nature look messy to anyone editing the pages.

1. Since the advice was only specific to one participant in the project (you - although it wouldn't matter if it were me, or any other one person), it really isn't relevant here. There are lots and lots of handy hints and tips about editing pages in Wikipedia, but unless they're specifically or especially useful to WikiProject Aircraft, WikiProject Aircraft really doesn't need to devote "airtime" (ahem) to them.

2. Reusable text is no longer implemented through Mediawiki - it's done through Templates.

3. The only use that reusable text has ever seen in WikiProject aircraft is in implementing "horizontal" navigation, a function that is now provided by Categories. In time (a long time from now), I fully expect that we will be able to replace the links in the airlistbox with links to Categories (when we have many more articles than we do now).

So I ask you: why is the "Mediawiki" advice specifically and particularly relevant to WikiProject Aircraft? --Rlandmann 05:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I forgot- as for the archiving its just to make it easier to see. Greyengine5 05:09, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

But why? Why should these be made any easier to see than any other replaced text in an article? --Rlandmann 05:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The messages were different in one instance and in the other mediawiki was unkown to me ( but you know this, -no?). Many people have used mediawiki, including yourself so its is relevant. However, what does make it not relevant is the that mediawiki is now supplanted by templates- somthing you should have mentioned sooner. Certainly, get rid of it then!

Why? Why not? Because the data table was a concentration of work and info different from regular text, thats more important then other edits. Having that fade away under under hundreds of edits would be a shame. Greyengine5 05:27, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Mediawiki

The messages were different in one instance and in the other mediawiki was unkown to me ( but you know this, -no?). Many people have used mediawiki, including yourself so its is relevant. However, what does make it not relevant is the that mediawiki is now supplanted by templates- somthing you should have mentioned sooner. Certainly, get rid of it then!

OK - that was my mistake - I had just assumed that you knew about Templates and couldn't work out why you were persisting in talking about Mediawiki. My bad.

Why? Why not? Because the data table was a concentration of work and info different from regular text, thats more important then other edits. Having that fade away under under hundreds of edits would be a shame.

I disagree - the table is dead, gone, and now that I see what a fine job Eric did on the text specifications, I say "good riddance to it". We both put a lot of work into that table (as did many other people), but now that it's been supplanted by something superior, "fading away" is the best fate for it... But let's see what the broader community thinks. --Rlandmann 05:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It already is the broader communities decsion. It said 'if you want to' for a reason there and whether people actually thought it was worth doing would determine what happened. Its not about reviving a dead standard- heck I would have liked to have seen the new standard much sooner. Greyengine5 05:59, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Ok since we both agree we need to see what broader community thinks, I added a message on the page to show that. If thats out of the way now, I was wondering if you wanted to put together a benchmark for conversion to the new standard. I had been gearing up to do a mass conversion (which is why why had been working on the old standard archiving ideas) and think some sort of benchmark would be usefull for coordinating those activities. Greyengine5

Archiving tables

It already is the broader communities decsion. It said 'if you want to' for a reason there and whether people actually thought it was worth doing would determine what happened. Its not about reviving a dead standard- heck I would have liked to have seen the new standard much sooner. Greyengine5 05:59, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood me. The "broader community" I referred to is the Wikipedia community at large, in their participation on VfD.

"If you want to" communicates to people that the tables are somehow an endorsed alternative standard. We're having (and going to have) enough people waste their time and energy laboriously hand-coding data tables based on what they've copied from old articles. The less visibility the better now. --Rlandmann 06:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok since we both agree we need to see what broader community thinks, I added a message on the page to show that.

Even if that were the case, you don't go taking pages off VfD - you simply add new comments to reflect your updated opinion (many people use the strikethrough to mark old comments that they don't hold to any more).

If thats out of the way now, I was wondering if you wanted to put together a benchmark for conversion to the new standard. I had been gearing up to do a mass conversion (which is why why had been working on the old standard archiving ideas) and think some sort of benchmark would be usefull for coordinating those activities. Greyengine5

I would tentatively welcome such a joint effort. One way to approach it might be to pick a group of aircraft (for example, aircraft on the RLM list) and each of us go through the list from an opposite direction, replacing whatever tables we find along the way until we meet in the middle?

I say "tentatively" because I have my doubts about how rigorously you will apply the new standard. For example, when a contributor has modified one of the old tables to include extra data that was never part of the standard, I wonder whether you'll follow the new standard (and move any extra information into the body of the text) or whether you'll start creating new variant tables. Let me know where you stand - I'd welcome the chance to work with you instead of against you. --Rlandmann 06:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bah, do what you want - I'm tired of you arguing like this. I thought you might have changed and not be so difficult to deal with in a serious debate. I too would welcome the chance to work with you instead of against you (as we have in the past), but its probaly better if we keep our distance, at least for now. Greyengine5 07:36, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

New Format

I actually think it does look nicer, and I agree with it. Maybe its just me, but last I checked, table and non-table were 2-2. Did I miss something?--→Iñgólemo← 00:21, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

New Format

I actually think it does look nicer, and I agree with it. Maybe its just me, but last I checked, table and non-table were 2-2. Did I miss something?--→Iñgólemo← 00:21, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Just to give you the heads up: I tend to give dates as 1948 March 21 or something like that. Its a tough habit to get out of.--→Iñgólemo← 01:21, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Aircrat tables

Have I missed something or are you trying to force changes to the Wikiproject based on a 2 votes against 2 votes poll on an off-Wikipedia site? Rmhermen 04:53, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

I think you are jumping the gun on this change. Even 3 to 1 is hardly a large indication of interest in changing this standard. I mean, of course, in a poll with only four votes cast. I also my desire to retain tables so you could make it 3 to 2 (5 votes cast). I will be leaving on vacation for as much as 1 1/2 weeks so will not be able to reply soon. Rmhermen 13:54, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest running a properly announced poll (using the procedures of Wikipedia:Survey guidelines) on Wikipedia itself. And I would also suggest you simply archive old talk - not create subpages and move content among them without explaining where the content went. Subpages are generally a "bad thing". Rmhermen 14:23, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Specialized

Yep, forgot the category on [Specialized Bicycles], but it should be Cycling, not Bicycles. --Twinxor 08:19, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Teamwork

Thought we had good teamwork on aero and antonov stuff- Worked out well. Greyengine5 22:41, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Yep - thanks for the catch on Aero Commander. I always knew the aircraft as the Rockwell Aero Commander, never knew it had a longer history until this morning.

Observation - we work together well on articles. We work together very very poorly in broad policy matters. --Rlandmann 22:44, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yea that probably sums it up. ;) Greyengine5 22:45, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

USAF Museum Pictures

I've finally remembered. I think the pictures I got off the USAF Museum site ought to be removed from the articles, until we can get the issue of copyright cleared up. What do you think? →Iñgólemo← 22:22, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Aircraft tables

I'm a bit confused why you have erased the aircraft tables for some of my latest entries (e.g. PC-9 and PC-12), without any comment as to why, and put the info into the body of the text.

I had guessed that because the PC-12 is primarily a civilian airliner, and civilian airliners do not seem to have tables, you moved that info around. OK, fine.

But the PC-9 is primarily a military training aircraft, which all have tables, so I'm a bit flabbergasted why that has been erased ...

Regards, Elf-friend 14:01, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Naming convention for television articles

Hi. Seeing as you were once previously interested in a naming convention, I'd like to invite you to vote on adoption of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Voting is taking place on the Talk page and ends on Sep 13 2004. -- Netoholic 23:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for voting... Can you just re-timestamp your vote? The poll technically didn't start until 00:00 UTC, so someone could say it doesn't count. Thanks! -- Netoholic 03:16, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would like you to reconsider your vote on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). The policy as it is written may well be the one that is finally adopted but it is my contention that the process of establishing that policy was not carried out in the correct manner. A proper poll, and an associated level of discussion, allowing those interested in the subject to express an opinion and cast their vote, needs to be carried out. The original "straw poll" had no publicised deadline, the "policy" page was written while interested parties continued to vote. I and several other users would like to see the process restarted from scratch. Rather than vote to endorse a unilaterally declared "policy", we feel that we should be given the chance to cast our vote for one or more choices, as is the norm for such matters. Mintguy (T) 22:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Atlas Cheetah rewrite

Hi, this is a bit of a warning about the Vectorsite, it's not always accurate. In the case of the Atlas Cheetah page, it was far off, and most of the info was incorrect. I've rewritten the article with the correct info, but it still needs a bit of work and some copyediting to get rid of some of the clumsy writing, but I'll get around to both those things. I've also taken the opportunity to implement the new style format in the article, so please, tell me what you think. Impi 00:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AVE Mizar

Thanks for the new tip. Anything I should know about communicating with others, i.e., should I copy posts I make to someone's talk page to my talk page, etc? Should I copy our previous conversation here? If I have some questions about cooperation/coordination, is there a place to discuss that or should I just ask you? Thanks in advance. -- Rsduhamel 00:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Airco DH.2

Sorry, I was just tinkering. Geoff/Gsl 00:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image:Merbold.jpg

Hi there! Thanks for adding the image Image:Merbold.jpg. It currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, and I was hoping that you would add one as untagged images may be deleted eventually. (You can use {{gfdl}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! --Diberri | Talk 23:42, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

North American X-10 re-write

I have re-written the main text of my article on the North American X-10 at North American X-10/Temp. It should no longer be in violation of copyright rules. DarylC Sep 1, 2004