User talk:Ericg/archives/2007/Jan-Feb

Cites
Technically you are correct. However, the reality of Wikipedia is that ref tags are a prerequisite for A-class/GA/FA status and using Harvard-style citations in the ref tags creates less clutter than a full citation, plus it allows to cite specific pages/tables/sections of a book. There are parts of the F-86 article that are unreadable in edit more because of citation clutter. - Emt147 Burninate!  03:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you're now mixing citation types. And, even worse, the same source is cited twice in two different sections of the references section. If you're concerned with inline citations taking up space, don't use the template, just type it out. I guess I'm not seeing the issue with just using the footnote system. ericg &#9992; 04:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a citation mishmash. Here's what happens: I put a citation in the text with a cite template. Bzuk edits the text and changes it to Harvard footnote plus the full cite minus the template in the References section. N328KF comes along and formats citations into the template again. And so on... There is a lot of people running in circles instead of doing productive work because everyone wants a different citation format. The problem with not using Harvard cites is that it makes it very cumbersome to quote specific pages or tables from a book. But every article I've ever tried to push through A-class, GA or FA review was required to use the system. Furthermore, WP:FOOT says Consider maintaining a separate bibliography/references section, then just the page number and book name can be given in each note, following Wikipedia:Citing sources. Perhaps the solution is to split references into Notes where the refs go and the References with full citations? - Emt147 Burninate!  04:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What other templates?
Template:Mikoyan aircraft Template:Ilyushin aircraft Template:Tupolev aircraft &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mirage 5
The Dassault Mirage 5 is up and running! Thanks again. - BillCJ 23:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
Could you please take a look at my question on Talk:F-16 Fighting Falcon regarding ever-growing "more users" fields on that article. it had grown to 14, so I cut it back to 3 on New Years. However, no one is satisfied with the current 3 users, so it is going back and forth between 3 and 4. Thanks. - BillCJ 00:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Pic sizing again
User:Signaleer has been reverting my edits removing pic sizing. At this point, I have left 2 messages on his talk page, including links to the discussions above on the subject. As yet, he has not responded, but continues to revert. If he reverts again, it will be four time. I beleieve I have reverted him 4 times also, so I will not do it again. Hopefully this matter will be settled by the time you read this. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh the 3 articles I had problems with were C-47 Skytrain, C-54 Skymaster, and CH-53 Sea Stallion. He has also removed sizing on the CH-54 Tarhe page.

Just to let you know that I put in a 3RR violation report on User talk:Signaleer‎. Now that I see you are aware of the problem. if you wish to handle this from now on, I will back off. Thanks again. - BillCJ 07:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is BillCJ. My 24 hour suspension is supposed to be up, but my IP is still autoblocked. I am using another comp to post this message. (I won't do any editing with it.) Meanwhile, Signalerr promptly reverted the pic sizing again, 10 minutes after his block was lifted on time. What in the world is going on here? I get blocked for more than 24 hours for trying to do the right thing, and this guy gets to go back and revert again? Anyway, you can fight the pic sizing battle on your own; it's not worth it to me if other admins keep blocking me, even though I was trying to communicate with him all along. - (BillCJ) 172.146.214.245 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, my autoblock has finally been lifted. Good luck in your batle with Signaleer; he's a stubborn one. - BillCJ 18:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I havne't been going out of my way either. Though they were not on my watchlist beforehand, I changed the C-47 and C-54 pages while doing other edits there, related to adding infoboxes to the DC series. Everything else has been on my watchlist, I promise. - BillCJ 00:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page
Thanks for fixing that. As you guessed, it was an unintentional edit conflict. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 06:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Summaries
The template is the standard summary template. I don't use one of my own. The subject is mine. I mistake too many edits for vandalism becuase users, especially anon users, fail to leave a subject. When a subject is present, I commonly assume that the edit is valid and ignore it. No summary causes me to assume that it is vandalism and I have to check the diff. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Curtiss Seahawk
I noticed that you had "SC-1 Seahawk" on your to-create list. The type is actually already on Wikipedia, as back in November 2005 I created SC Seahawk. The page does need some expansion, though; just thought you might want to know. - Aerobird 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Avro Tudor
Have now checked by phone with Harry Holmes, author of 'Avro - The History of An Aircraft Company' (Airlife 1994). He tells me that the date in this book for first flight of the Tudor was misprinted by the publishers. Harry confirms that the correct date was 14th June 1945. Regards. 'Ringwayobserver' (Alan Scholefield) 14 January 2007.

Glasair Aviation
Hi. I thought you would be interested in my edits to Stoddard-Hamilton Aircraft and a Glasair Aviation page I created (which still needs work). From the research I did, the assets of Stoddard-Hamilton Aircraft were purchased by New Glasair, and combined with New GlaStar to perform Glasair Aviation - so the proper name for Glasair is now Glasair Aviation. Dlodge 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox users
I was under the impression that the Users in the Infobox can be both current and former users. This was discussed at Talk:CH-53 Sea Stallion (not related to pic sizing dispute, I promise!). I stated it should remain in the Infobox, as the Navy was a histroical user; no one disputed that, but it was taken out anyway. Any thoughts on this? Thanks. - BillCJ 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Random Infobox thought
Has any consideration ever been given to including a "Country of orign field" in the Aircraft Infobox? I can see how we might have just as much trouble as with the "more users" field, but it still might be useful info to have in the Box, especially for casual readers. - BillCJ 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting It Done
I read your comments here. LOL. There were five people who criticized the article and I wonder if they actually did anything about it. I think there is a significant tendency for Wikipedians to criticize and critique rather than actually get the work done. Thanks for being characteristic of the latter. - Rollo44 23:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations of articles
EricG, you know you are right that the first entry is identified by quotation marks for the title of the article and the journal italicized for magazine/journal articles. In encyclopedias or books, in MLA style, the same applies. Looks like I have a lot of bass akward submissions that I will clear up as I go. Thanks for jogging my memory to actually look up the correct citation/bibliographic style. It's been years since my classes on cataloguing and the brain does get a little foggy. Bzuk 13:16 25 January 2007 (UTC).

wikiwings award image.
Hi there, I do not know if you are the right person but may be you can help me. I have seen you name on the wikiwings2.png page. I am the founder of Aviation portal in tr.wikipedia tr:Portal:Havacılık. I have designed a wikiaward image to use to award the users who are working on Turkish Wikipedia Aviation Portal. I have used the original and a barnstar to crate this one: tr:Resim:Havacılık-yildizi3.png. But I need to have permission in order to modify wikiwings2.png image I guess. DO you know who can help me on this matter? Thanks in advance for your helps.--Plenumchamber 11:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply. Did you upload the wings only image on Wikipedia or not? If you did, I would like to learn its name, so that I can write it down as one of the sources on the image that I have created. Plenumchamber 18:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Propellers vs Turboprops?
Hey there, Ericg! Back in the fall of '05, you and I worked together quite a bit when I had a different username, especially on PBY Catalina. I'm back after a long hiatus, and I'm glad to see that you're still kicking around.

Anyhow, brass tacks here. I was looking for categories for a couple of relatively recent articles (Grigorovich M-16 and Grigorovich M-9) and found Category:Propeller aircraft. That cat is REALLY empty, and I figured I'd start populating it by adding that old girl of mine, the Catalina to it for starters. Then I started thinking: is this category empty of a lot of seemingly obvious WWII birds because we're making a distinction between plain-old propellers and turboprop aircraft? You are, of course, the man to ask.

Drop me a line when you get a chance. A Train take the 06:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Eric, I'm gonna get cracking on that. A Train take the 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fw 190
Ciao! I removed the link from the image of Fw 190D-9. Let me know if now it can work. But, just as a note, no one of the people reverting these beautiful images signalled me the reason on the my talk a single time. If they did, the problem would be solved easily and sooner. Bye and good work. --Attilios 11:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)