User talk:Buster40004/Archives/ 2

Hyper
Thanks for the heads up. It seemed the echo chamber decided to delete after talking to each other and not bothering to consult. *sigh*

The references for that article were sent to me in photocopy format directly by Kimble McCutcheon, president of the AEHS. These included a lengthy section about the hyper efforts, as well as several other bits of paperwork from the Army about the project. I should also point out that the AEHS actually has a running copy of this engine, the only one in the world.

Note that the article was written, and corrected, long before the current referencing hyperactivity. At the time references were not widely demanded, generally not used for obvious statements, and AGF was the law. No longer, I see.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * For sure, in fact I think the main reference was the Smithsonian book you mention. Did it have a lengthy section on Allison following? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd love to get those pubs. Do you have my real-world email? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Fantastic work on the article! Let me know where you want to go from here, do you want to try for a GA? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

non-free images on User:Buster40004/Sandbox/Projects/Hiper engine/Hyper engine
Hi, I noticed that you had some non-free images in your userspace draft. I have removed the images from display, as non-free media can not be used outside of mainspace. May I ask you to re-insert the images after you have moved the article to mainspace? For more information, see WP:NFCC, or ask me. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Continental I-1430
Hi Terry,

Your comments here regarding the potential move of the Continental I-1430 article would be greatly appreciated. The move will likely go ahead as no one has objected, but we are unclear as to whether there are two engines involved or just one.

Neelix (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Neelix, please check here for my comments. Regards,  Buster40004  Talk  22:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nakajima Ha-5 Zuisei
Ok this one needs more serious work than I can fix given what's already in the article. Some points:

There's a section describing the evolution of the A-series engines though the AH, which ends stating that the AH was the last of its line. The very next sentence starts talking about "the engine". What engine was this? Was the Ha-1 the AH, or some other design?

Should we not move the earlier engines to an earlier article? Would the development of the A-series not be better placed in the article on the Ha-1?

Are you sure the name "Zuisei" is correct? I know of the much more famous Mitsubishi design with the same name.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops. My mistake on the engine name. I must have slipped while trying to read the translation of the engine development.  There was a comparison to the Mitsubishi engine and I grabbed the wrong part while curring and pasting from my notes.


 * Yes, the "A" series was a part of the Ha-1 engine development, and it may be redundant here. I reworded the paragraph to clarify which is which.


 * My primary source is an English translation of a Japanese article, and is missing quite a few words which we, as speakers of the language, would like to use. Here is a cut and paste of the translation:


 * "At the same time, an engine was developed upon the Navy's     request called "Sakae", of which the Army name was      Ha-25 (crick here for details)."  (The 'crick here' is not a link).


 * Regards,  Buster40004  Talk  15:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No way, "crick here"?! That has to be a joke! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Check it out!: Engine History of Nakajima Aircraft at ww2aircraft.net website, about half way down the page - 10th or 11th paragraph from the top. By the way, nice edits on the NK7 Mamori article. Regards,   Buster40004  Talk  00:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Lycoming O-1230 split
G'day from Oz; I have just split some of the Lycoming O-1230 into a new article for the Lycoming H-2470. As the creator of the original article with access to the sources, you might want to revisit them both with a view to rejigging the refs. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Bennett Aircraft Corporation html 6d5e95a4.png
 Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bennett Aircraft Corporation html 6d5e95a4.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Japanese aeroengines
Kudus on your great work on aircraft and aeroengine articles, particularly on Japanese aeroengines. On a related note, I've created Template:Imperial Japanese Army aeroengines to help keep track of the Japanese Amry "Ha" designations. I've bee trying to add the template to the relevant articles, but I know I've missed some. Any help with that, and expanding the template, would be greatly appeaciated, as you have time. - BilCat (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * On a navbox for the unified system that uses Ha numbers under a standard system: I know nothing about that system. DOes it overlap the older system, or just assign different numbers within the same system. If it doesn't overlap, we could just add the new numbers in a separate list on the IJA template. - BilCat (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

AWB
Buster40004, I have approved your request for AWB. Please review the Rules of Use, then you can get started! Happy editing! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:)
Hi there

Just a note to say I really appreciate the work you did on my very first contribution yesterday - so quick! It was interesting to see your bio and feel like a part of something larger than myself. I hope when I retire I can be as useful as you are to humanity. On that note better get back to looking for a job... bit tough at the moment here in London. Have a nice weekendThecontextualist 09:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecontextualist (talk • contribs)

Shaheen Falcon
Shaheen Falcon was my very first article. Thanks for looking it up and asking to wikify it. Before that I didnt even know what 'wikify' means, or what the standard layout of an article was, or about interwiki links. I have tried to improve it and I see you've removed the tag. I'm looking up more information on the topic. So if you have the time, in 3 or 4 days, please look it up again and see if its up to standard. I will be glad to know your opinion. Thank you. Gregorvitch (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Buster40004 for replying so quickly. I did read the article on layout after that wikify tag was added. But maybe I need to read it 3 or 4 times to know it well. There are lots of other help articles for me to read. Thanks about that advise on .Gregorvitch (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Navboxes
Hi Terry, I see you have been creating engine navboxes, it would have been best to discuss these at the engine project first. Please see Navigation templates, the main problem is that many only contain one or two entries (and can not be expanded) so a navbox is not required and they may get nominated for deletion. You are also not linking the entries (which is the main purpose of a navbox). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   22:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of the templates are a bit broad, but it's my prefernces to limit the aerioengin navboxes to just engines. In cases where a company also produced aircraft, and the numbers are very small, like under 3-4 each, then they could be combined on one navbox. For companies with only one or too aeroproducts, such as Allis-Chalmers, we could probably create national navobxes and group those companies together. These are just hints/suggestions, and I don't have a problem with you creating them before discussing them - you do good work that seldom needs to be undone, unlike a few other prolific users in WPAIR who don't always show good judgment! (And Gary probably knows which 2 I have in mind - and no, Gary, I don't mean you! :) You are a highly competent editor, our occasional strong disagreements notwithstanding. - BilCat (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm. Now what do I do?  I highly respect both your opinions, so we need to find an answer.  They are easy to create, and just as easy to delete, should that be what needs to be done.


 * I am working on a consolidated Allis-Chalmers navbox, one that includes all of their product lines fom agriculture to power generation. The J-36 engine was a mistake to produce there, and it was a good decision to move it to a company that could produce it.


 * BillCat, thanks for the complements. Nimbus awarded me the Wikiwings a few weeks ago, and I appreciate the encouragement and support from both of you. Regards,  Buster40004  Talk 23:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The navbox guideline mentions 'a handful' as a minimum number of links required, it used to say three I believe. I created the majority of the engine navboxes about two years ago, the company lines that were deliberately left out only had two or three products, that's why they weren't created. To be honest there is so much crap going on on WP nowadays that nobody will notice. Red links in navboxes were discouraged, they might have dropped that now but no links at all is unusual to say the least! I have neglected the engine task force recently due to RL commitments and waning enthusiasm, it's a winter job mostly but I am still maintaining standards (or trying to!!). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   00:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Trying to clear the fog! The key thing with navboxes is that the articles should be related. Someone has added the Bentley timeline navbox to the two engine articles but they are not featured in it, so they are not related to this navbox (it's a company article navbox only). If the article name does not appear in bold text then the navbox should not be there (or there is a formatting/redirect problem). The exception is 'aviation lists' which goes at the bottom of every aviation related article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   00:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The navbox page you linked to is actually an essay, but there may be a guidelien page that I haven;t read. I understand you point on the small producers, and I hope we can find a way to adress their products with some sort of navbox. I use navboxes for navigation much more than I use cats, so I would like to see a navbox solution, but that's just my prefernces. Perhaps a navbox on early jhet engines produced my non-engine companies would be useful, probably by country, but perhaps not if there are only a few.


 * Yes, the Alis-Chalmers design was a mistake, but with US piston engine manufacturers fully occupied with producign engines for the war effort, the US went to experienced steam and gas turbine or supercharger producers to tackle jets first. The top three were Allis-Chalmers, GE, and Westinghouse. AC was a bust, Westinghouse was incompetent despite prducig a couple of good axial designs on its own initially, and we all know GE is the number one aeroengine producer in the WOrld. One out of three ain't bad! - BilCat (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My mistake, the guideline is Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   01:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been working on a complete engine web site that is not published to the web, at least so far. I have been collecting data on every engine that I have ran across for the last three years. I would like to see Wp have a this complete list and an easy way to move about it, and an easy way to find what you are looking for.

I prefer to navigate through articles by the way the links in the navboxes work. I see them as modules that can be "plugged in" where appropriate and necessary.

Is there a way to transclude one (or more) navboxes within another? Or is it better to use them on an article about engine manufacturers with few contributions?

Lastly, which is best: redlinks, no links, or leave the item off the list? I prefer an unlinked black text item over it being missing from the list.

Regards,  Buster40004  Talk 01:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Categories, lists, and navigation templates states:
 * "Text colors in a navigation template should be consistent with Wikipedia text color conventions, so links should be blue; dead links should be red; and red and blue should not be used for other (non-link) text. Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers."
 * I don't see ay other mention of red/dead links in that section, so I take it that such links are allowed.


 * When WP:AIR project first began wide-scale cration/implementation of aircraft navboxes, particularly those for aircraft manufacturers, a few years back (2007?/08?), the majority of them had many redlinks. The next 12 months saw a real increase in the numbers of new articles that were created, and some members, particularly User:Rlandmann, credited the creation of these navbxes for pointing out where we needed articles, and nspiring editors to create them, I know that has been the case for me on a number of ocassions. For those reason, I strongly advocate using redlinks in navboxes, even if almost all the links are red. As the tempaltes for navigation, I don't think non-links should be there at all. For one, when I see a new navbox, I often click on all the redlinks and watch-list those pages, so that when the articles are created, they show up on my watchlist. - BilCat (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that, if in hindsight, it is decided to delete some of these navboxes they can be 'speedied' (WP:SPEEDY) under G7 as the sole author. Blackburne and Bentley show only two engines each in sources, I have not looked at the others. The navboxes were a good editing tool for the creation of new articles which is why we ignored the guideline (as it was) to not add red links, there was even a bot running around adding a 'navbox with redlinks' category to templates, unemployed now I think.


 * Plans to improve related article navigation are always good but they will be limited by existing WP-wide ways of doing things, as a general encyclopedia we can't go too far (much as we would all like to!). Each engine type article should already have a link to aircraft engine, be categorised as some form of aero engine (often by era and manufacturer) and also have a link to list of aircraft engines in the 'See also' section (which now includes all the variants but that's another story!). If it has a navbox then that's a bonus. I think they are pretty well linked considering they also usually appear in the aircraft type articles that they powered. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   09:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. To keep track of the navboxes that have fewer than 5 items, I will remove them from the list by moving them back to my sandbox and I'll csd the remaining redirect.  I will also redlink the no-link items on those that remain.  Then, using this same criteria, I will continue on my navbox quest, as time permits.  Regards,  Buster40004  Talk  19:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Did I miss the discussion on renaming all the engine navboxes? The convention was agreed on 'aeroengines' long ago, you have started new boxes as 'aero engines' and are now moving the established templates to this format. The reason for doing this really should be discussed at the engine task force first to get a consensus. Cheers Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   04:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yikes!!!

I found a what seemed to me to be a random useage of both aeroengines and aero engines. I should hgave asked, but I guess I guessed wrong on which one to use. I will immediately repair the damage that I caused. Please accept my apology. Regards,  Buster40004  Talk 04:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I would appreciate that. I check Category:Manufacturer-based aircraft engine navigational boxes fairly regularly and I don't remember seeing any that were in the other format, there might have been and they should have been aligned. The principle was that if we found an article without a navbox we could have a pretty good stab at entering it by using the manufacturer plus the short code word 'aeroengines' without looking up exactly what the template might be called. The same principle applies for aircraft eg, Template:Supermarine aircraft. Cheers Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   04:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I just clarified the guidance on naming these boxes at the engine templates page, to be fair it just directed you to the category and it assumed that newly created templates would follow the convention there. Cheers Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   04:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I only have a few to go and all will be fixed. Regards,  Buster40004  Talk  04:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a quickie, we use 'aeroengines' for the template coding but 'aero engine' in text everywhere else!! The other option was the hyphenated 'aero-engine' and we decided to standardise with the non-hyphenated version. Cheers Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   05:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Consistency at its best. Being on the west side of the Atlantic, I tend to use aircraft engine, but then, our customs in terminology have always been amusing to me. Regards,  Buster40004  Talk 05:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I f I may intrject again, I think we do generally use "aircraft engine" in the text of US articles and templates, and I think that was part of the discussions that Gary has mentioned. - BilCat (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (EC) I think when we discussed it both forms were being used on both sides of the Atlantic, the discussion was whether we used the hyphen or not, there's all sorts of ways of describing them, aircraft engine is very accurate and is the name of the main article. One other tip, in the navboxes we don't repeat the manufacturer with every entry, the links should get piped (WP:PIPE), so in the Rolls-Royce template we have Avon instead of Rolls-Royce Avon, just cuts down on clutter. I noticed in the Fiat template that you added three Schneider trophy engines, these are already listed (AS.2, 5 and 6 I think) and their lead sections say that they were Schneider engines. Cheers Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   05:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to reduce the engine to just the name, not including the maker, unless there were two very similar engines. I did not know about the Schneider engines, I thought perhaps they were a sub-set of the same engine already listed. I'll get that fixed asap. Regards,  Buster40004  Talk 05:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several 'Trents' in the Rolls-Royce template, the important thing is that they pipe to the right article (which they do). I'm thinking now that we mainly used 'aircraft engine' for what displays in the template name as internationally neutral, I have used 'aero engine' as well in the templates that I created, should shoot myself for not being consistent but then again we are all human!! Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   06:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Break
Could you do me a favour please Terry? Could you open the talk pages of all the navbox templates that you have created? If you use the code 'WPAVIATION|class=template|Engines=yes' this will assess the page as a template and also include it in the task force 'articles by quality' statistics (Category:Aircraft engine articles by quality). Cheers (again!). Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   06:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Will do. I have already started doing that as I make the other fixes. Regards,  Buster40004  Talk  06:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers. You are still changing displayed titles to 'aeroengines', this is not a word but a wiki codeword (same as 'aeroenginespecs'). I think you have made a mistake in the Elizalde template. Perhaps slow down a bit!! All good stuff Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   07:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Buster40004/Sandbox/userbox


Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eeekster (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Page moved
Hello Buster, just so you know, I've moved the page you created at Buster40004/Sandbox/userbox to User:Buster40004/Sandbox/userbox. It looks like you missed that User: bit at the front, which put the page up as an article rather than as a user subpage. Please let me know if you have any questions. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 01:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Unicodifying?
Hi Terry, I just noticed an awful lot of valid wikilinks being removed from aero engine articles, especially from the lead sections. It may look like repetition but it is entirely normal to wikilink manufacturers and engine configurations in the lead sections as not everyone reads the infobox. Many terms appear wikilinked in the lead section because it is the first instance in the article. Unicode is a computer text standard, not delinking. The linking guidelines are at Manual of Style/Linking. Cheers. Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   06:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Engine navbox title changes
Hi Terry, just noticed your mass changes to the engine navbox titles, another editor is restoring them. I mentioned previously that 'aeroengine' is not a word, it's either aero engine, aero-engine or aircraft engine. Your name changes have also introduced a redirect into the title where there was none before. The navbox title format was discussed and agreed at the engine task force some time ago, we agreed on either aero engine (no hyphen) or aircraft engine, if there is a need to change them project wide then that should be discussed at the task force as well. Slightly more worrying is that in some cases this is the second time that you've changed them after they have been restored by myself or another editor, this could be seen as the start of an edit war (see WP:EDITWAR) if it is intentional. Cheers. Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   19:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)