User:Karl Dickman/Threads/07/01/26a

Armament in specs
Please stop replacing |armament with |guns, etc. It absolutely does not matter from the template standpoint but it needlessly adds to the length of the page and at times creates formatting glitches. In addition, you have been deleting a lot of information (as in the case of F-4, for example) when doing that. I was always strongly opposed to the overcategorisation with the guns, missiles, etc. subtags and I will continue to revert them. - Emt147 Burninate!  18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the universe isn't quite as orderly as I wish it could be, and you were right to tell me that I was being overzealous. I think part of the reason I'm such a prolific wikihead is that I'm a bit obsessive; the downside is, of course, that I obsessively make changes that others object to—most frequently, not even thinking carefully about whether said changes are really a good thing.


 * Your scolding did make me think, though: it's time for some pruning of . I'll propose some pruning some day, when I'm not busy with school.


 * Cheers, Karl Dickman talk 06:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the template is very bloated. The only problem with pruning is that specs will be lost on the 3 pages that use Vne, etc. - Emt147 Burninate!  05:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, since the template has a link to Vne, we can use Special:Whatlinkshere. When I removed the parametre for zero-fuel weight, I was able to convert the pages that used them by doing a whatlinkshere on zero-fuel weight.  Karl Dickman talk 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be to maximally simplify (we have the |more parameters for added flexibility) - basic dimensions, basic weights, basic performance. IMHO there is certainly no need for the 30 engine parameters (and the arcane code that goes with them), and so on. - Emt147 Burninate!  22:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)