User:Karl Dickman/Threads/07/01/17a

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)