User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 3

Template note
Just a quick heads up: if you use anything other than the digit "1" in the "eng1 number" parameter, it will call the word "each" at the end of the line, meaning that you will get things like "One × Foomotors F-123, 300 kW (400 hp) each", since of course the software doesn't know that "1" and "One" are the same thing! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - noted. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up
Thank you for the heads-up on the image copyvios of. I have started speedy deletion of the blatant violations, and am tagging all the rest of this editor's image uploads as di-no source. Given the wildly divergent metadata on the images, unless he is using a dozen different cameras, I fear that they are all copyvios. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

More templates
Spot-on. Yes, there are a few odd designations that appear in strange places - sometimes deliberately like the F-117! I've also noticed various manufacturer navboxes and have been moving them as I encounter them. As you've seen, these vary tremendously in quality and in what they include, so they will need to get looked at sometime --Rlandmann (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just something else to be aware of - the link in the template should be the name of the actual article, not a redirect, otherwise the current page won't get bolded. Take a look at Fokker F.VII to see what I mean: the template points to Fokker C-2, which is a redirect. I had a lot of fun with this stuff yesterday!!! FWIW, In all the ones I did yesterday, I placed designation sequence boxes above manufacturer boxes. I don't think it really matters, but we might want to be consistent --Rlandmann (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added the navboxes that you and I've created to the WikiProject Aircraft/Templates page - we should probably keep this updated as we go --Rlandmann (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * USN footers should probably be broken by manufacturer, since this is how the sequence itself works. (It's messy though sometimes, with letters occasionally getting changed (Lockheed going from -O to -V) or reused (-G being Great Lakes and later Goodyear)). To us today, it's a counter-intuitive system. As I went through the fighters yesterday, I noticed the huge confusion it seems to have caused, with sequences being added like (for example) "F2D - F2F - F2G - F2H" which is of course nonsense! Because of this, the more explicit we can be about the sequence, the less likely people are to get confused. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing pages created in error
During new pages patrole, I came across US transport aircraft. You had blanked the article, because it was meant for a template. If you would like a page you created by mistake deleted, you can use the db-author tag to flag the page for speedy deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Former destinations: List what can be sourced
"(cur) (last) 09:00, 6 January 2008 MilborneOne (Talk | contribs | block) (33,998 bytes) (→Destinations - removed former destination - not normally done - how far back do you go 1923) (undo)"

No, you go as far back as can possibly be sourced. I found a source for Seattle, so of course it stays. Anyway, we could also easily solve this by defining it as a list of destinations *post-Aeroflot breakup* because Aeroflot had different definitions over the years. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

US Air Force Apache helicopter
Please provide me a source proving that the United States Air Force has Apache helicopters in its inventory. Thanks.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 02:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ADF serials
You are, of course, correct: there is a fundamental difference between these ADF numbers and the alpha-numeric designations used by the US, Canada, Sweden, and others (which we definitely should template). On the other hand (retitled to ADF serial prefixes or something more accurate and descriptive), they do provide a way of logically tying together ADF aircraft, I guess more in the style of footers like wwi-air or another Canadian footer I've seen somewhere. What do you think? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any hard guideline on the number of navboxes, but the collection on some articles is now getting very long, as I'm sure you've seen. The more I think on it, the less happy I am with the ADF footers: I'm concerned about a slippery slope that could lead us to the serial numbers of the Botswana Air Defence Wing (or whatever it's called these days). Good catch! In the days and weeks ahead, those of us most closely involved in templating are going to have to answer these questions, and sort out the most appropriate intra-project linking method(s) (navbox, category, lists) and make good precedents. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Navbox template(s) for Shorts aircraft
Thanks for the note about the template. I must admit that the chronological navbox is a bit superfluous on the Shorts Brothers page, since the aircraft are all there in order anyway. I based the navboxes on the existing Piper template, just to see what they would look like. I'm going to create the template(s) proper and add it/them to each Shorts aircraft article in due course (unless someone else beats me to it). I often find myself calling up the Shorts Brothers page, simply to navigate to another Shorts aircraft article, so the navbox idea is real progress. --TraceyR (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

List of RAF stations
Thanks for the apology you left on my talk page, much appreciated. Looks like you wern't the only one to miss the tag - I suppose that is one of the downsides of large articles. BTW, do you like the "improved" format I created. While you give it a scan, can you have a look at the talk page too? , Whoops, you already have! Kind regards -- Teutonic Tamer 19:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Boeing 777
BBC report quotes the AAIB report, which say "2 miles". In aviation distances are meaured in nautical miles, not statute miles! Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As the original is from AAIB, I'm pretty sure they mean nautical miles, but just use miles as they would assume it would be known they meant nautical miles. The British Airways Flight 38 article has already survived one AfD. Should survive another as it's now almost certain to be a hull loss (1st).Mjroots (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You're one of the few editors I've encountered that is willing to remove the current tag when the heat of the event is over. Thanks. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Triplane category
Thanks for sorting that out. I've done the redirect, as suggested. (I also like the Hawker navbox). --TraceyR (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Boxwing?
Just happened to stumble on your list of created articles. Thought you might find this little gimmick useful:

Caption Place your userboxes here...

Trekphiler (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (P.S. I found it someplace, & can't recall where, or I'd offer credit...)

Invitation to participate in a peer review of EasyJet
Hello! Based on your areas of interest, we believe that you may be interested in participating in the peer review of EasyJet. Comments from reviewers are needed over the next few weeks to assist editors in improving the article; we would be very grateful if you could spare some of your time to help out! If you would prefer not to receive such invitations in the future, please leave a message on this page, and we won't trouble you again. If you have any questions about the review process, you can ask them here. Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AAIB website
Hi, any chance you could check the AAIB website bulletins to find a link to the access door incident (BA 777). Sorry I can't do it myself. Mjroots (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You got mail
Nothing in particular, just anything you know of. No need to hunt, but if you come across anything anywhere, I'm interested. BTW, as I think of it, have you ever seen Appleyard's 1917 book (booklet?) on convoy defense? My local library says they can't find it even exists. (Price cites it in A/c v Sub, I think.) Thanks again. Trekphiler (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft articles
Looking at aerostart, I'm not getting anyting but a setup box, not the list of spex I show elsewhere. Go into the template at Curtiss XP-31 Swift (this one ) & you'll see what I mean about no fuel, & I'm not sure what to do. I'm in no way qualified to redo a template, or create 1. And I'm missing your point about alerting... Trekphiler (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I caught the "no tl"! (Geez) =D I also tried the "show preview" on my sandbox & got no specs, just a "specifications" header. Does it need a brand-new page to work as advertised? (I just finished a page that could have used it... Oh, well.) Trekphiler (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Test edit on a blank page. No joy. Same problem. Trekphiler (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * New test edit. I'm stupid today. :( That's more/less the 1 I lifted from elsewhere (tho it's got more "weaps" options, so I may transplant them), but no fuel option (which I do still want...) Posted to Aviation & Aircraft pjkts, & to "New Articles" talk for info. Thanks for the help. (A vote in fave of adding a "fuel" line wouldn't be amiss, either. :D) Trekphiler (talk) 19:39 & 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll probably keep it in my sandbox, & in an edit doc (Works or something), so I can find it regardless. I do see it's got its own limitations: no speed in knots (the older 1 has, & I like that), & neither offers a "prop type" option (which is important for prop a/c, doubtless you know...); I also liked the older (other?) version offering a second line for "type engine", rather than 1 for "maker". (Am I getting too fussy?) Trekphiler (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Test edit revisited. Tried it in the sandbox section after I got it open, added spex, & still got nothing... Could be a system problem at my end; I've been getting "no function" messages from my gallery on WPCommons since yesterday. Ah, well. Trekphiler (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So:

Move this to Curtiss XP-31 Swift if you can see all the spex? Or delete it otherwise... Trekphiler (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Deleted and copied to XP-31 Swift. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for just jumping in like that - once I saw major templates getting edited, I just got a little nervous! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not edited by me! (Not successfully, anyhow...) Thanks for the move, Milborne. I'm gonna stick to the old template for now. At least I can see it. Maybe there's a glitch somewhere, here. We'll see if a new "fuel added" template works for me. (If not, you may get more "move & del" messages! =D) Ciao, y'all. Trekphiler (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll be pleased (I hope) to know, the template works. I lifted it from Curtiss XP-31 Swift entire & pasted into Curtiss Twin JN without a hitch. Trekphiler (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC) (I never expected it to be this complicated...)

MoRsE medal
I've decided to give you a MoRsE MeDaL after having witnessed weeks of tireless additions of aircraft related articles. Keep up the good work! --MoRsE (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

de Havilland DH.60 Moth
Hi, Could you have a look at the variants section of this article please. We seem to have two variants with the same name 'DH 60GIII Moth Major'. I can't work out from the history when it was added, the production numbers are different, perhaps it is another 'Moth Major'? Congrats on your MoRsE medal BTW, well deserved. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

RAF prefixes
Heh - yes, I just found the Aerodrome post on the topic. Maybe we can go with Coastal Experimental and Trench-fighting Experimental for now? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

616 Squadron RAF
I appreciate your work in 'facelifting' my recently initiated 611 Squadron article. If you've time, would you like to improve the presentation of the new '616 Squadron RAF' article. I'm not at all adept at using the Wiki-type box layouts etc, and would welcome your experienced input!

I regard any inputs from you, on the various Wiki articles I access and contribute to, as always constructive and authoritative.

Regards

(hope I've used the tildes correctly - have been 'jumped on' about this by other wiki fanatics! (PS - got it right the second time!)

Ringwayobserver (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done as requested. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your expert help re 616 Sqn! Regards Ringwayobserver (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fokker F.14
The F.14 on the list is indeed the Fokker USA aircraft you've written up; if you move the article to Fokker F.14, that will leave Fokker F.XIV as a redirect for now until we write up the (completely unrelated) Fokker Netherlands F.XIV (see here), which will be a hady and obvious way to disambiguate them, since the Dutch aircraft was probably only ever designated with roman numerals. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandal warning?
Looking at the edit summary for Aviation in World War I, I'm seeing what looks like vandalism under your banner. I know your username well enough to doubt it, but I do wonder how it got there & how you seem to be responsible... (BTW, it's happened to me, too.) Trekphiler (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks trekp for the note about Aviation in World War I. If you check the edit summary you will find I reverted two different vandalism edits by an IP user. Because I do not have any of the fancy roll back tools I unid the latest vandalism then spotted the earlier vandalism and reverted that as well. I left a note on the users talk page and also because they have done it before have left a note with an Admin. MilborneOne (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I had noticed both fixes. Thanks for the explanation. Trekphiler (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

List of aviation accidents
I don't think it's necessary to go through the whole article adding countries to the names major cities. There's a general guideline on this somewhere, probably WP:MOS. LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 15:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Found it, at Naming conventions (city names). The guideline varies by country!  In any case, the pressure to keep the list short argues against stating the country except where necessary to disambiguate the city. LeadSongDog (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

BA038
I'm wondering why you reverted the article. Looking at the differences there is stuff that should have ben deleted, but also stuff that should have been kept - ref BBC3 and BBC6 for example - they are reliable sources and are relevant to the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. I reinstated the two refs. :-)) Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Flagicons
Why remove the flagicons from ZOOM Airlines? Are we going to change ALL destination lists (Delta Airlines, etc?). It doesn't hurt, and many different pages of diverse categories have them. I say, if it adds some colour and, more importantly, clarifies information, then they are fine.-- Rob NS  17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Chinook Sumburgh
Just realised we must have created articles at the same time!! Sorry about that I did all the usual searches then created the new article. All help appreciated (particularly as I had the fatality figures wrong from the earlier CAA Report!!), a neglected subject which we have put right. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, I like your title better (mine was rather wordy...) I've been waiting to get my hands on a copy of the report. It's nice that they finally posted it on the web.  G-BISO is another interesting one, but with much better results though.  --Trashbag (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

FAA certifying an Ethiopian Airlines
That is what Frank Huddle (U.S. consul general who was involved in the crash) said in an interview for the Mayday about it ("Ocean Landing" a.k.a. "African Hijack" is the episode, AND Huddle said this in the beginning as the passengers board in Addis Ababa). Was he not articulating his point properly? Maybe - But as he is a government official I didn't see how he could be incorrect. Maybe I should look into the matter. To make room for this I added "Huddle said" in case he made an error. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I watched the episode (from the UK airing of the show) on my computer to see what he said. This is what he said: "My wife Pom and myself decided to take a trip to Africa and go on a safari. I wanted a daytime flight, because it was safer. So I picked Ethiopian Airlines, which had a good reputation. It was one of the two carriers in all of Africa that was FAA-certified." (somewhere around four minutes into the program) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be what he is referring to. Maybe we could place the specific, sourced fact AFTER Huddle mentioning the "FAA certification" so the readers can see if this is what he is referring to. I may see if I can contact Huddle and ask him what he meant and see if he will answer :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 18:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your revert on KC-10
Sure, you're right in stating that they were modifications, but the resulting aircraft is essentially the same. Since the KDC-10 probably doesn't need its own article they should just be listed imho. - Dammit (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cessna 172 refs
Thanks so much for finding and adding those refs I tagged on the military 172 users! I have been getting really sticky on refs lately and bugging people for them. If you haven't seen it I posted a rationale at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. Thanks again for adding them! - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind note - glad that you find it more help than hindrance! Incidentally my tagging wasn't aimed at you, but an IP address 202.169.204.177 who was adding military names without refs! - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, West Coast Airlines Flight 956, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Xansa_logo.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Xansa_logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

 * The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates.  Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Amharic
I noticed that you removed the "question marks" from the article - In fact those are characters of the Ge'ez alphabet used in Amharic. I asked on a forum and got the Amharic there.

If you want to check the validity, talk to the members of the Amharic Wikipedia - I already requested an Amharic translation of the article there - am:Wikipedia:Translation_requests WhisperToMe (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

They are used to show how the name is written in non-English languages. This is seen a lot in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean articles, for instance. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image question
You're absolutely correct: the permission given by the photographer is insufficient, since he only seems to indicate that it's OK for Wikipedia to use the image. As it stands, it's a non-free image and will need to be deleted.

There are two directions you can take here:

1. Contact the photographer via airliners.net and explain the problem and that in order for us to continue to use the image, he needs to agree to release the photo under a suitable licence (or release it into the public domain). You can find a boilerplate declaration of consent here. If you get a response in the affirmative, forward his email and your original request to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", making sure that URLs for both the Wikipedia file and the airliners.net are included. Someone from OTRS will follow it up.

2. Contact the photographer via airliners.net and ask him to create an account here or at Commons and upload the photo himself.

When requesting photos, I usually use option 2 (including links to the account creation and upload pages). Either way, it's important that the photographer understands the implications of the process: that anyone will be able to reuse the photo for any purpose, including for-profit purposes.

FWIW, I've had a really positive experience approaching airliners.net people (and private website owners) and asking them to upload their photos. Most people are happy to help. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A-26 Survivors etc
Thanks for messages. Still couldn't find this without your link. Now composing edit stuff offline in text file, then paste selections to edit box, but keyboard shortcuts don't work, eg Alt 124, must chant "wikipedia mouse". Is search & replace possible ? PeterWD (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Marksman stuff, but that's the nonsense that I've been trying to fight against for months. Did you see my narrative at http://www.abheston.btinternet.co.uk/photos4.htm I know we can't use it as a reference, but IMHO it's a thousand times better than all the published stuff. Busy now with list of Profiles, but I'll get back soon. PeterWD (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for msg, done 2 small amendments to Marksman, will study other stuff, need to check specs etc. PeterWD (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Musketeer
Very sorry MilborneOne - that was indeed another one of my typos. I've deleted the redirect. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Section ordering
No, no - it's all good. MoS, GTL, WP:AIR, and Aerostart all agree: See also, References, External links. I've left a detailed response on the Vampire talk page. I couldn't readily spot any such re-arrangements made by Fnlayson, so if you're aware of any, maybe you could refer him to those documents? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fairtravel Linnet
I've just created an article on the Piel Emeraude and realised that you'd created one on its UK licence-built version, the Fairtravel Linnet. Any objections if I merge it in? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Explain
Please explain "do not make any sense" about the aviation cats. I put about 6 hours of work total into it, so I'd sort of like to know. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was created that way because some were in one, some were in the other and some were in both. But whatever. I reverted everything. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Templates
Nothing was taken any further; at the moment, aerospecs enjoys a status of something like an "unofficial alternative". As you're aware, of course, most new articles use it, and a rough head-count suggests to me that it now appears on something like 20% of aircraft articles.

I fear that the road to making it the "official" template would be a rocky one, mainly because using it to replace aircraft specifications in many articles would mean dropping a lot of detail in many articles. I actually see this as beneficial, since I (obviously!) believe that anything that's worth putting in a general specifications section is already in aerospecs, but some people seem to think that an article is enhanced by the number of specifications they can provide, and others seem to believe that removing data of any kind is somehow anathema.

I've been thinking that a good intermediate goal would be moving from "unofficial alternative" to "official alternative", which I guess would mean listing it as an alternative in the page content guidelines, and perhaps calling a moratorium on people replacing either template with the other one in articles that already contain. I know that, for example, one particular long-standing editor here has actually made a personal policy of changing articles using aerospecs to the older template.

To be honest, however, my attention is still too taken up with the aftermath of the page reordering and templating, and I don't feel that's a cause I want to take up right now. Maybe in another few hundred articles' time! --Rlandmann (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Marksman Thanks, I missed the Specs section, so went ahead with Aircraft specifications template, and at least it works now. I see now the purpose of own sandbox, hindsight. PeterWD (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Michael, I'm puzzled about your restoration of Executive and Marketeer. Surely they are variants of the A-26 but not variants of the Marksman? PeterWD (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of airports in the United Kingdom
Based on the discussion I've come up with an temporary page at Talk:List of airports in the United Kingdom/Regions to see how it would look. Can you take a look. I remembered your comment about it being hard for people to find them by regions and was going to try one listed another way but the combination Metropolitan county and Shire county seems confusing. Perhaps it would work or would "Ceremonial county" work? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

French navboxes
Just a couple of thoughts since I've seen you wade in: these manufacturers are tricky! Up until the mid 1930s, they all follow generally predicable patterns (nonsense example here): AB.14 followed by AB.15. Seaplanes and flying boats (Hydroplanes in French) were usually prefixed "H", so the next in our sequence might have been the HAB.16 followed by the AB.17.

In the mid 30s, they changed to using an extra digit at the end to signify a variant, so now, the next in our sequence might be the AB.180 - under the US or German systems, this would have been the AB.18A and the French AB.181 would have been the AB.18B. I'm not exactly sure what prompted this change, but all French manufacturers did this around the same time, and it co-incides chronologically with the French government busily nationalising the aircraft industry, so I feel sure these events are related.

We therefore normally shouldn't be making separate articles (or template entries) for the AB.192 and AB.195 any more than we would usually treat the "F-19C" and "F-19F" separately - they're variants of the same plane. What did they do when they reached the 11th variant and ran out of digits? Added an extra separator: eg Potez 63.11 (sometimes written 63-11). The base model was sometimes written AB.19, or sometimes AB.190 - this seems to have varied between manufacturers. Note too, that the AB.200 and AB.230 may have been substantially the same aircraft, separated for whatever reason the manufacturer chose.

The trick when working with these manufacturers is determining when the changeover occurred; but once you see three-digit numbers appearing, you know they were on to the "new" system.

And, of course, there were always exceptions.

This is all really counter-intuitive for English-speaking aviation enthusiasts used to the US and German systems, hence the big mess that our French aircraft coverage is currently in! We desperately need to rationalise all this one day... but it will be a big job. It's added to by the fact that the "base model" may be virtually unknown in English publications and often probably only existed as a single prototype anyway, therefore eclipsed by the production models.

Finally, note that Bloch should probably be covered by the Dassault navbox; this was effectively the same company pre- and post-war, and Dassault directly continued the Bloch numbering.

....which of course, is why I'd left these guys on the back burner! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The trouble, there are few (if any?) three-digit sequences. The highest examples I can think of are around 90x (Breguet). Problems arise with things like the the Ouragan/Mystere: both MD.45x; effectively signalling that Dassault considered these a straight- and swept-wing version of the same design. I guess there's a direct analogy with the F9F Panther and F9F Cougar.


 * If you simply mean, however, that we should write "MD.320" instead of "MD.32", then of course I agree with you! But I also think we should be writing "MD.300" for the 303 and "MD.310" as a single entry for the 311/312/315/316 (even if it means we're piping links for the moment).


 * To keep things nice and consistent, we should probably reorganise the Dassault template into "Manufacturer designations" and "By role". I know it's all more work; which, like I said, is why I'd been avoiding the French firms as much as possible just for the moment! --Rlandmann (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

airntd
Looks OK to me - can you point me to an example of brokenness? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That was actually broken before he got to it; I noticed it some time ago. I've been meaning to take a look when I have time. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

List of UH-1 Iroquois operators
Sorry to revert your last edit but I had to remove senseless edits of previous user. He removes structured information making article senseless. He also removes information entered according to MOS style. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately revert was necessary. If you look at reverted version you'll see a lot of structured information etc. I've asked BillCJ for help but I'm not sure when he'll be able to arrive with help. BTW - did you saw new compact TOC in few List of operators articles? I've prepared it yesterday for articles with lists and large number of sections. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

T-6 Texan variants list
Milb1, do you have a good source with a list of T-6 Texan variants? I just noticed there's not a list in the article, with all the variant info being in the "Development" section. SInce you always seem to be improving to my "attempts" to creats such lists (not a bad thing!), I thought I'd see if you want a crack at this one first. :) Btw, thanks for improving the Tu-142 list - it was very late when I stopped last night, but I hope to do some more on the whole page tonight. - BillCJ (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Cherub
Hi, I have specs for the Cherub from an old Shuttleworth book, I can put them in if you like (unless you have them and were going to do it later). Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Righty ho! There are some obscure types in that book, have we got the 'Pobjoy 'R'?! In the back of a 'Janes WWII aircraft' book that I have are all the major engines of the world with specs (but not the Cherub!) Nimbus227 (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, and we have Pobjoy R now (I nicked your text and changed it a bit), the Cherub had specs in imperial and metric but the Pobjoy a mixture of units but not both (must get a converting calculator). I wonder what a Hendy Hobo was? Nimbus227 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BA Swallow, confirmed 'Cataract'. More on my talk page. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Flags
OK. I was not aware of it. I will self-revert.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ammendment!
I appreciate the reversion of my mistake. I initially misunderstood what "project" referred to in the tag, later on I realized the real meaning but did not have time to undo my mistake. Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

LHR T5 opening
I wasn't sure whether that was the official opening or just a formal opening. Thanks for the clarification. Regards, NcSchu ( Talk ) 14:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Specifications
Just a couple of (hopefully!) helpful hints to flesh out some of the barer specifications sections: Cheers! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * metric-to-english and english-to-metric conversions are really easy in Google. If you type in "12 ft 3 in in m" or "468 kg in lb" Google will do the work for you. It doesn't do hp/kW conversions though; and when going from metres to feet, it unfortunately gives the result in feet and decimal places rather than feet and inches - so for this conversion I rely on this site.
 * aerofiles.com has basic specs for practically every US-built aircraft ever made; and is a reliable source for policy purposes, since some of the site's major contributors are published authors in the field.
 * aviafrance.com has pretty much the same for French aircraft. As far as I can tell, it doesn't fit the reliable source criteria here, but I've never known it to be wrong when comparing it to other published sources.
 * along the bottom of my user page, there are some cryptic shorthand notes that I use to access some of the more useful specifications databases - it was only ever put together for my own reference, but perhaps I should really develop this into a resource for everybody. In the meantime, please feel free to poke around - there's some great stuff out there!
 * Apart from that, if you really can't find any general dimensions for the aircraft, you can include an extra parameter "|genhide=Y" to suppress the output of this section, or "|perfhide=Y" to suppress the output of the performance section. These are documented in the template documentation but not included in aerostart, since they really should be a very last resort.


 * Yes - it's the obscurity that means that we need to make an extra effort when writing up some of these types. In many cases, the Wikipedia article we're creating (even if it's a stub) may be one of the most comprehensive sources of information easily available in English on a particular aircraft. Given its obscurity, however, and WP:AIR's own systemic biases, it might be years (or never) before anyone comes along to tidy things up; so for these aircraft a "more specs please" template or leaving unit conversions undone is problematic. "If not us, then who? If not now, then when?" :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - I think that that site's metres/feet conversion is less flexible than Google or simetric, though. You can't seem to enter a "feet and inches" value directly into it. I'm happy to add it to the arsenal nevertheless! I've also created an Excel spreadsheet that handles most of the conversions we routinely do. I haven't been using it since I "saw the light" and migrated to Linux, but if it would be useful to you, shoot me an email and I'll send you the file --Rlandmann (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Airlines
It's fine now and was fixed with this edit. I saw the same problem at Emirates and left a question at Village pump (technical)/Archive 132 and missed Village pump (technical) which was about the same problem. I was going to run through all the airline articles with AWB but saw Bot requests so I figured it was in hand. I did remember to fix the infobox and the documentation. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

LOT Polish Airlines Flight 165
Weather was a contributory, not the main, cause for the crash. The mystery, still unsolved, is why the aircraft overshot the destination by some 80 km. Zawoja was not anywhere near, and well to the south of, the intended flight path. There are some sources, in Polish only AFAIK, which discuss the possible causes (and don't come to any conclusion). I'll expand the article later, and change the Type to Unknown (or similar). Thanks for adding the infobox all the same.--Jotel (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

BA038
You removed a similar event from the BA038 article saying it was a Co-Pilot error. Do you have a non-PDF source for that so I can have a read please? Mjroots (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's in Flight International then I won'd add it back in. They are a reputable enough source to be believed. Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Eclipse 500
Milb1, thanks for starting the clean-up on the Eclipse 500 page. I fully intended to get to it myself tonight, but do appreciate the second pair of eyes looking it over. - BillCJ (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)