User talk:Karl Dickman

Note: I am implementing the use of synchronised threads on my talkpage, identical to those used by Alphax. To prevent interference with the threads, please post a comment rather than use any other method. To edit the synchronised threads, just use the [edit] link at the top of each section. See thread help for more information.

Archive

Archive	Start	End
Archive 1	2004-05-23	2004-12-31
Archive 2	2005-01-01	2005-06-23
Archive 3	2005-06-23	2005-09-05
Archive 4	2005-09-05	2005-12-01
Archive 5	2005-12-01	2005-02-10
Archive 6	2006-02-10	2006-04-14
Archive 7	2006-04-14	2006-07-09
Archive 8	2006-07-09	2006-11-15
Archive 9	2006-11-15	2007-01-10
Archive 10	2007-01-10	2008-03-30
Archive 11	2008-03-30	2015-09-08
Current	Current discussion

manufacturer name in infobox

I've noticed a lot of infoboxes you've placed list the manufacturer name in the infobox aircraft name field, such as de Havilland Vampire, and this isn't what it's meant for. There's clearly a manufacturer field, and the aircraft name doesn't have much space - when it goes to two lines, something is wrong, and it's probably that there's a manufacturer listed. I hope you'll consider going back to modify the existing infoboxes you've built in this way. Thanks! ericg ✈ 15:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

I've noticed you've been making some changes in aircraft articles that are contrary to WP:AIR/Page content guidelines. Yes, they are guideline, but they are there for a reason, and were created by consensus.

First, you have been taking out links to the manufacturers from the Introduction. The page content example of an introduction specifically shows the Manufacture name linked, in bold, with the aircraft name. I have no problem if the name is linked further in the Intro, such as the second or third sentence, but it needs to be linked in the Intro.

Second, the "Pop culture" section is supposed to come after, not before, the Specs. I assume the reason for this is to hide it from the rest of the article, or at least but some distance between it and the main text.

Third, it is more convenient to leave a line above and below the infobox in the code. It makes it easier to see the box within the code on a smaller screen, while not leaving any extra spaces in the text.

I am not seeking a fight, but I will be changing these to conform to the guidelines as I have time. The guidelines were made with consensus of the Project, and to my knowledge no consensus has been reached to change or disregard them. Thanks. - BillCJ 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I know you have made other clean-up changes (good ones too!) to the articles, and I am being careful not to revert those at all. - BillCJ 22:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember that a large amount of the WP:Air/PC was created by industrious editors who needed something done, and although it reflects consensus in most of its aspects, some minutiae were the decisions of the editors who created the page, not as a result of any kind of discussion. For example, there was no 'to link or not to link' discussion regarding the manufacturer name, nor was there any kind of discussion regarding the exact location of 'popular culture'—all we discussed there was what to include in it.

Regarding the extra line between {{wpairheader}} and the infobox, I think we discussed this before. Formerly, there would be a blank line at the top of the article when there was a carriage return between the header comment and the infobox. I checked, and it seems that this is no longer the case, probably due to a minor change in the MediaWiki rendering engine. I therefore have no objections to you reverting those edits, though I may continue to do them through sheer force of habit.

One final note: I strongly urge you to leave the pop culture sessions where I moved them. For years, the specifications have always been the second-to-last section, right before the references. It doesn't make much sense to have the pop culture between the specs and the references, considering that every other text-based portion of the article appears above the specs. As I said before, pop culture appears where it does at WP:Air/PC as the result of an historical accident, not of conscious consensus-building.

Cheers and good luck, Karl Dickman ^talk 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand better now. As to the Pop-culture, most of the article I work on have them below the specs, and it seem to work well there. I may try to discuss this and see if I can't get a consensus to have it below. The crufters have no problem finding it, no matter where it is. As to the links, I myself find it useful in the first line, as its right there when the page loads, and I sometimes put in a name of an aircraft whenI'm uncertain of the manufacturer, but want its article. I know its also in the infobox, but often its above or below the screen on a small monitor/small resolution. I won't seek out any articles to "fix", but I may make some changes as I edit for other things. Sorry if I was a bit abrupt, and thanks for your forebearance. - BillCJ 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing I noticed ont he Grumman F4f/F6F/F8F/F9F pages: they say American before the names. Any idea why? There are hundred of American aricraft articels on Wiki, and these are the only ones I've seen like that. I took one out of the F9FPanther page b/c I thought it was an error, then saw it on the other pages. - BillCJ 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably, the same editor started each article. I don't see much use for that style of phrasing. For most American aircraft, I would probably phrase the opening sentence with something along the lines of "The Grumman F9F Panther is a fighter aircraft developed for the United States Navy by the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation." This conveys the same information, but is a bit less clunky. Cheers, Karl Dickman ^talk 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: I moved pop culture on Eurocopter Tiger, but that's the only one I've moved since our discussion. I've posted a note on WT:Air, so hopefully I'll be able to continue tomorrow with the blessing of WP:Air/PC. Karl Dickman ^talk 06:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If the discussion on WT:Air continues the way it will, my moves of the pop culture section will have to be reverted. To make your life easier, User:Karl Dickman/Projects/Aircraft/Updates can be used as a laundry list of reverts: all articles that I have edited are struck out. For my part, I will also undo those changes. Cheers and good luck, Karl Dickman ^talk 17:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I do have my preference for where the section should be located, but I think the main thing is to be consistent in where we put it, either above or below. Whatever is decided, I'll abide by that. - BillCJ 17:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed category scheme update

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Hey Chris,

Seeing that it's been nearly a month and you haven't made any changes to my proposal, I'm going to go ahead and request 'ratification' of it on WT:Air within the next few days. If you'd like to make some changes of your own, let me know and I'll hold off on submitting the proposal until your done.

Cheers and good luck, Karl Dickman ^talk 06:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I have no problem with that. Sorry I forgot to follow up, i forgot to add it to a to do list and it just slipped away. overall i am fairly satisified with it. I think there may be some more categories that we overlooked but those can be added later after discussions and what not. Thanks again for the hard work, it is much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

B-17

Thanks for your work on the aricle, I'll keep an eye on the article to keep it from devolving. On to the next one. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Armament in specs

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

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 {{aircraft specifications}}. 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)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thumb sizings

Thanks for removing the thumb sizing on those helicopter pages today. User:Signaleer didn't like the fact that I feel a pic he uploaded shouldn't be the lead on the P-51 Mustang page because it's too dark, and this is his way of "discussing" it like an adult. I guess it means if I don't give in to hem, he'll try to make my life misearble. Unfortunatley, you were the one to have to clean up this mess. I hate giving in to this guy, becuase that's what happens every time he disagrees with someone. Giving in only makes it worse for the next person he disagrees with. Up to know, no one has been willing to challenge him enough for WIkipedia to take action against him. - BillCJ 04:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello there

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Hello, Wikiman (see my username). You will be quite pleased to know that I have been editing a great deal this year. Your successors are doing their best. Would you be kind enough to comment on my new username page? I have been doing quite a bit of remodeling. Thank you! Morada 19:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Morada1356

I certainly am pleased to hear about your. However, I'm afraid I don't know who you are, having only the benefit of your pseudonym to guide me. Karl Dickman ^talk 09:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm Brittany M. We knew each other in high school and hung out a bit in middle school. You know me- I'm the girl who was smart but extremley quiet (I'm much more talkative now!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morada1356 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Cat scheme

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Hey Mark,

Regarding you comments on the proposed update to the WP:AIR categorisation scheme, I want to recap a few things to make sure that I'm set to move ahead with (another) 'formal' request for ratification.

My assessment: your comments 1, 3, and 4 seem to be resolved. (Regarding 4, I think it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than be spelled out in our cat scheme.) 6 is essentially unresolvable for the moment.

Regarding 5: are you proposing that the page Learjet be moved to Bombardier Learjet, that all Learjet aircraft since '91 have their titles changed from [[Learjet <model>]] to [[Bombardier Learjet <model>]], or both?

Rgarding 2: the definition of special-purpose aircraft, it seemed from WT:AIR that the best course of action was to rename the category Category:Special mission aircraft and use it for miscellaneous ones.

Also, what do you think of my comment that the AC-130 is more of a special mission aircraft than anything else? Karl Dickman ^talk 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe issues 1 and 3 have been appropriately addressed. WRT issue 4, you're right in that it will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but I would hope you'd include the three naming convention points as the WP:Air preference, so that we'll have fewer cases to deal with in the future. Those three points were

1. the nation of the designer/manufacturer;
2. if primarily license-manufactured by a foreign customer with little or no domestic use, then that nation; and
3. if the main original producer is later bought by another company, the name of the former should be used.

If so, this resolves issue 5 as well. (Ditto 6 in the future, if followed.) I was not proposing a rename, but rather raising the issue of consistency. "Learjet" was an American company; if it's now to be listed as a Canadian company, then the proper title is "Bombardier Learjet". According to point #3 of my aircraft article naming convention guideline schema above, the article title would remain "Learjet" (which is what I personally prefer) and categorized as "U.S.". However, if Bombardier Learjet were to introduce a brand new model, we'd have to rethink it as the Canadian TTa producer of Learjet models in its own right.

Regarding issue 2, I'm not sure there really was a consensus. I do prefer having a "Special Missions Aircraft" (or perhaps more accurately, an "Other Special Missions Aircraft") category as a subcategory of "Military aircraft"; I'm not sure whether the "Civilian aircraft" category should have one (which would require Military/Civilian in their names to distinguish them), since most of those would fit just as well under "Experimental aircraft" (if suitably defined).

As for the AC-130, I have no problem treating it as a "Special mission aircraft" — but then so are all the other "double-letter" variants. Frankly, I still feel uncomfortable lumping attack, COIN and gunship aircraft in with bombers. The latter are strategic and the former are tactical in role. I'd prefer to separate "Attack" back out and include gunships and other COIN aircraft in it. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

What is the incessant obsession in changing dates in the infoboxes of aircraft articles- many of which I have written or heavily edited? I keep one style of historical dating: "7 June 1943" throughout as a means of standardizing dating conventions. Bzuk 18:30 28 January 2007 (UTC).

[[1943-07-07]] is a more versatile tool than [[June 7|7 June]] [[1943]], becuase it renders according to a user's preferences. 1943-07-07 looks to me like 1943 June 7, but to you it could look different. Karl Dickman ^talk 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actinidin

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Actinidin, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.

• Dear Karl Dickman, I think actinidin shouldn't redirect to kiwifruit, because it is an ensyme. - 80.99.125.207