User talk:Rlandmann/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • In the near term the beta table was just to get to a single standard without contantly changing the main table- though this is probably not going to work. The dream of single standardized table for all the aircraft pages is good one, though as you point out the issue is not the quality of our current table but quantity of its distribution.
  • If we had such a system you describe there with the CSS- it would also eliminate the need for stepping releases. The idea with versions for current tables is to use the newer one and update the older tables that are out later( peraps for when a wiki update system will do it). As its very hard to catch up when you start at the begining and the steps would make it easier to tell whats an older version.
  • You speak of making compromises for a common standard- if you could craft your version of a 'table without compromises' I would very much like to see this.(considering the quality of your work I dont think I would be dissapointed)
  • Names of footer categories-orginally some names seemed better but I think at this point names need to be generated largeley on a case by case basis that best fits the aircraft. There is great value to be had from standardization and its often worth the price paid for it- but not always. I do not like it when something begins to serves itself, rather then its orginal goal. I think that goes for the table as well as the footer designations (among other things).
  • If you think 'related aircraft' is a better choice by all means use it. I only pushed 'rel dev' because it seemed better for some--but I would never want it to be used when that was not the case.
  • I am concerned if I should work on your benchmark list as if these were planes you had wanted work on I am sorry. I had been putting in stubs solely with the idea of finishing it, not to some how encroach on aircraft you were intested in wrting
  • Do you know how to find pictures for use without having to ask, for the wikipedia. I have found many pictures but have not used them, even if credit would be given, beacue of concerns over ownership issues. (nevermind most were probably ripped from other sources in the first place....). Is it enough just to give credit for some pictures or use outright ones that seem cleary be in public domain?
  • Some tension over things seems to come from miscommuntication. I know I haven't read all your comments as carfully as I should have, as is so often the case with these things.
  • I have many ideas for tables and such and many airplanes goals though I will try to scale back so there is not so much friction. The (perhaps) vauge counter-editing has certainly resulted in genunie improvements though there's no need for energy to go into this given such similair goals an ideals for the wiki. I hope this is offer some relief to the situation.
  • I will continue work on tables ideas- as I hate to not attempt some sort of advancement of the thing (not that you dont) as the small changes people have made seems to of brought it along so well up to now.
  • Well I'v managed to write a novel here, so till next time! Greyengine5 04:47, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I'd never really understood the US Navy way of doing things, and now I see why -- it was crazy.

So that makes the PV-1 and PV-2 the same aircraft as far as the USN was concerned, just two different versions of it, even though they got named differently.

I'm still a bit confused about the footer. 'Designation series' is obvious, as is 'Similar aircraft' (roughly simultaneous aircraft in about the same role).

What I'm not sure about is the whole 'Related Development' etc. How do I show what-replaced-what? Or is this not the place to convey the whole 'Neptune was replaced by Orion' concept? Thanks, —Morven 03:51, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the tables. I hadn't noticed it because it doesn't happen with a maximised browser window at 1280*1024. I've reproduced it on my machine with IE6, and more importantly, I've reproduced it using Mozilla 1.6. I say it's more important that Mozilla 1.6 does it because Mozilla is much more standards compliant than IE6. I'm not sure what's going on here, but I'd say it's something we need to pin down asap. David Newton 18:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That table is now behaving the same as the MediaWiki messages do. I do think it's better that way, even if it does make people scroll down a bit. David Newton 10:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

double redirects[edit]

dont forget to fix the double redirects after you move a page, like AIDC Ching-kuo. --Jiang 23:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It all looks right to me, but my Chinese is pretty bad so I may not know what I'm talking about. --Jiang 23:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've overhauled the complete Tupolev page and classifications. Hope it'll help to sort things out. Cheers!

Fikri 09:46, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I made a comment on Talk:Mitsubishi_J8M. Please take a look. - - Paul Richter 07:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your comment 3/25 on my own talk page before posting the above, but it looks like we both covered the same ground. - - Paul Richter 01:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Greyengine5 20:11, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Well I'v check out some more about this trolling phenomenon and decided your not a argument troll. It seems trolling isn't arguments that waste time but a kind of thing where you try get stir up trouble/cause problems etc., and certainly vastly more of insulting thing to ask someone then I releasized intially. Your definately willing to debate endlessly about things but there's nothing wrong that ;). Anyway disgregard that question as I didn't quite read enough there. As for the project, I tried a footer with the same font as the table ( its on the footer page if you wanted to check it out). Also, with all this years of aviation stuff going on I'v been checking out early aviation and I'v been growing concernend about the accuracy of some of the records being claimed. I'v made a page Analysis of early flying machines on the whole matter and was wondering what your input/additions/improvements are. Greyengine5 07:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well to be honest thats what need to be sorted out! Im not sure if the page name is right, as I just wanted to list them with a overview of aircraft design and titles given to them at this point. I am concerned about many of the titles given some to aircraft, stated as facts but in truth have been the subject of much debate. Indeed the encyclopedia should just be for facts, but unfortuntely these early flying machine seem especially prone to indulgences and selective memory with whats what is considered a 'fact'. As of often mentioned the involement of national ego's and a lot of revionist/ disinformation thats been created over the years doesn't help much. In many cases these titles belong to even earlier aircraft, with many pioneers getting breezed over. At this point, more information needs to be gathered on all these earlier pioneers and there accomplishments to give a more npov of early flight. I know I only appreciated the magnitude of work such as Otto's and of course the Wright Brother's after examining all the other pinoeer's. I look forward to any more input you have on this stuff. As with any sort of accrediting of something on the wikipedia, its hard working through the all the varoius claims. Greyengine5 21:07, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I changed the page name to just Early flying machines in the interest of moving away the analysis idea. I'v tried to update the Timeline of aviation history, and Aviation History but the whole area needs a lot of work. Also - Perhaps a benchmark page for all the early and ww1 era planes? Greyengine5 00:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I couldn't agree more- very well said ("imho")! Im going to try and seperate out that table between actual attempts/literature. These early flight titles are difficult to work on as they come add a bad juntion of national pride and the complexites of aero stuff, and it seems blurbs on them have been spread out over a lot of pages. Look forward to hearing anything else you have on this whole matter. Greyengine5 22:51, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Hello- I had an idea about a totally standard list footer (maybe it could be turned into "msg"?) be sure to check it out (footer page). The idea is that it could be on all aircraft pages, and using the msg shortcut it could be distibuted quickly. As for this early flight stuff, though- its proving much more of minefield then I anticipated! Greyengine5 03:35, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Im glad its working ok, i must say i felt a little rash plastering it everywhere! Dont worry about the lesson- remember that we never disagreed over the merits of standardization and 'from the field'. It was just that often finicky balance between customization and standardization. Having seen pretty much every air page doing the microfooter, I certainly come down much more on the side of standards for the wiki then I did before, as its a very 'unruly' bunch that exits now. (yet a another proof of the 'yards'!) I will post the pages that link to that media wiki as a summary of whats out there so far-in the interim of your super list. I also continue looking on line for mega-lists to see if the tedium of that can be escaped somehow. Have some more ideas for media wikied boxes as well, and of course I look forward to this >1920 list. Greyengine5 07:13, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


RL I thought our debate on the footer was going well. I am thouroughly dissapointed with your last comment. I was disgusted by its vauge reference to other resolved incidents, what appears an attempt to broaden the scope of debate, and -most damaging- a false personal accusation. It was a proverbial 'slap in the face' to me that nothing short of apology from you would resolve. Greyengine5 08:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I dont appreiciate your comments, nor your argument tactics. As much as I have enjoyed many of your articles, your the only user that has made the wiki a unpleasant experiece for me. I reccomend you overhall your discussion tactics, and avoid, in particular, expanding from the issue at hand or making personal comments. As for the footer, I made my stance clear on the page. I still think it was a good resolution, and, once again I am not 'against' any of the standards. As for finding 'non-stub' pages for you which I have indeed done, your welcome to find them yourself. I niether think thats a good measure of what people contribute, nor is it even acceptable to ask that. I have never, and would not require you to generate this as it would be a insult to you, and to the very nature of the wiki, aside from wasting time.Greyengine5 22:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Endless vauge insults, shifting of issues, inflammatory comments- this what I was recommending you change. Your response contains many things that-to borrow a phrase I 'predicatably disagree' with. You say you are not concerned with how 'pleasant' you are- I hope you change from this attitude. To say I need to 'find another project to monkey around with' is a inflammatory and disrespectfull comment. To suggest I have a double standard for 'wiki freedom' is also false, as, when issues arise a fair comprimise is reached- something that I have even done with you. As for content issues with the footer etc.- as you've been pointing out its clear we are partly victims of commonly held differing views- deltionist vs inclusionist etc. I think its fine to continue with comprimises as we'v done, though they must be reached sooner and with less wasted time,effort, etc.. Greyengine5 02:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just to round things out- thanks for the complement. Pehaps we can work on standards for general data tables as well? Greyengine5 03:16, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I dont expect you to temper- Im not one to hold grudges anyway. If its done, its over, and if we could just work in peace together on aircraft that would be compensation enough. I do need to clear up what I think is misunderstanding, though. I don't want to change the current footer (or the table)- its done (at least not for a long time(change it that is)). The tuplev thing was about creating a new, more specialzed standard just for those pages. Just as one day the current air footer may just be a specialized subset of a 'transportation' footer, new footer/boxes could be a subset of it. To put things in perspective here, I had actually considered trying to go through an update to our current data table standard after seeing the wide range out there ( even beyond what been caused by tinkering). Indeed your boldness is correct- I thourghly agree, and I have diverted much time into this. Speaking of which, you may be happy to know I have just converted the List of military aircraft of Japan and welcome any work/ideas as you suggest. One idea, I noticed your work with japanese characters- perhaps we can get japanese character in there as well. I also thought it might be better to split it to before ww2 and after so it would be easier to inlcude codenames, or things like numbers lost to enemy fire. I have little doubt that airpages can become the most standardized, comprhensive, organized, data set of the whole wiki. Greyengine5 07:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Btw, in case you wondering, yes I had been working on the jap page for a couple hours before you suggested the concept- your comment reaffirmed the usefullnes of that sort of thing to me thoguh. Im going to try and add in the japanese character for pages that have them listed- in case you wanted to add some more as well. As for my tendancy not to write full articles- I'v made few attempts to write longer text for new pages, but I'v shayed away since my text got rewritten or totally replaced. As result I keep it text to minimum to aviod having this sort of experience. As for the tup footer, I like your tup series box, but I also like the one on that page and I think both full good niche. I prefer the series box idea to creating a whole 'nother footer (like th air box thing) in general, but in this case I wanted to keep what fikri worked on- and I thought it may have some potential in its own right. If you want to develop more of these series boxes I'll be happt to help you distribute them, as this is just what I had wanted to to after totally general air-list box- (create more specific boxes for sub-groups). Well I hope that further clears things up. Greyengine5 18:12, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just you give you and update here and 'discussion methods'. I highly reccomend you shift away form protracting discussions. It wastes yours and my time, better spent on aircraft ,etc. Are comprimises perfect?- no but I think its important to aviod this endless continuations drawing these things out, or at least give it rest for some time. Notably, as I'v mentioned before- changing to other issues, personal criticisms, and re-starting/raising issue with things that have already been comprimised on are extending things far beyond neccesary. For new footer, just to reiterate, I did not want to change the basic footer. I am interested in new footer/boxes like the tup footer or your tup-air-civ thing. Seperate from this, I put some thoughts on the engine table there, as asked me about before. Greyengine5 22:16, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well I reccomend you distill down what exactly the problem is so we can resolve it. These protacted debates are unacceptable. Greyengine5 22:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, but protacted debates are still not acceptable. The amount of my time you'v wasted with them, the personal insults, etc. have been unwelcome to say the least. I didn't make the footer, fikri did. I know you have problems with it, that what we disagree on. Tell you what, change a standard footer to what you think it should be on those pages (as it was different from the actual design intially anyway). The only reason I touched that std. footer design in the 1st place was to comply with your problem with duplicate material- so I merged 'similar aircraft' row. While your at it make 'fikri-footer' modified to your satisfaction and we'll see where were at then. Greyengine5 04:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Disccussion about the footer details should probably take place on the footer page. (for our future reference)
If you get out in the world, you'll understand that saying lies about people is considered insulting.
Your the only person I'v had problems resolving issues with. I'v noticed you'v had some problems with other people as well. I think your the problem here, or at least your methods.
How many times must I say I support the standard footer! I support the standard footer Feel free to update them to maximum spec.
How many time must I say I like your tup-civ-box idea! I like your tup-civ-box idea. I have things just like this in mind for other pages.
Fikri is an aviation proffesional and he crafted his own footer for a group of pages. I think it can co-exist with our project standards without weakening it. Just as the data table is unique to airplanes, his footer can be unique to those aircraft.
While I actually agree with the majority of your technical points, replacing fikri's footer with tup box(essentially fikri's cut to one line of info) is tanamount to elimnating it altogether. When the main thing Im arguing for is its continued exisitance, this should be predictably unacceptable.
My earlier question remains- what modifications, other then replacing it with 1 line msg, to his footer would make it acceptable? Greyengine5 06:24, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It was a liitle more then just that, but I'v lost track of the number personal accusations you incorporate into a normal disscussion. Some you'v redacted so I'll cut you some slack. As for wrting a full page, I'v worked on many parts of pages, sections. For non-stubs that I'v created, there are few, as I stated earler in two cases much of what I had done was rewritten so I have since shyed away from putting a lot work into writing a new page, and generally stick to shorts or adding sections in that area. The Dornier Do 10 while not overly long, took a inordinate amount of time to research and was by no means a stub. The Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 was under average, but longer then many others (this one was before the data-tables etc). This one was entirely rewritten, quite frustating given that its among just a handfull of the othter ww2 french types that are done-but such is how the wiki is.(partly why I hated to see fikri stuff reverted, I hate to see peoples work dissapear(i.e npov usefull content,etc). On the shorter side P-2 Neptune(since added to), and few other scattered about. Going back to inclusion verse deltist, I actually favor shorter articles for most craft- short and to the point, at least till more pages even have a article. For big types or after more are done, thats when it make sense- of course the state of articles varies wildly as its depedendent n whatever people want to put articles for. To get back back to the issue at hand,- the footer. I was never to fond of the type desgination, though I did find the term use interesting so lets cut that out then. Similair aircraft can go either place. I put it in the fikri, to aviod loosing the 'comparable' name. Perhaps that similair can be supplanted at some point comparable as you suggested, though it probably doesn't matter much either way. So that can just be part of the standard footer then. Bureas and codename I do quite like however. For them I propose turning the burea name into links to lists of there repective company aircrafts- so you could quicky jumpt to all the sukhoi aircraft rather then just a company article. I think there's real benfit to being able to jump to other russian planes, and that probably makes more sense then just linking to there company pages. As for codename, I would like to see this turned into a row as well so you can between them by there nato- codenames. There's alot of people who know these planes by there codenames, and, I though it was kind of interesting naming convention. Well let me know what you think of this- I hope better then what we'v come up so far. As I stated earlier, I would vastly prefer working away peacefully on pages with you then all this endless bickering back and forth. I could have written several full articles for the amount of time diverted into this! Greyengine5 18:22, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whoa lot of stuff there- just to clarify MS 406 was the most text I can find off hand, and was not a stub. Early flying machines was off the cuff, and for the rest- some hits and some misses, not really worth getting into. As for the footer, Ill just jump to remaning issues. Rather then turning burueas into links to specific lists(lot of work as u mention) or just one link, how bout just links to spots on the bigger list(using that code feature). Either a list of russian aircraft or the airliners- I haven't checked whats how there in terms of lists. Civ. versus milt is not so important I think with russian planes since a lot of those 'civilian' planes were duel use anway(not that other planes aren't). Either that or a whole 'russian' list box could be made to link to all those things mentioned there, though this same content could probaly jsu tbe incoroporated into the footer.
As for codename, you raise some good points and I half agree. However, I think it needs to stay in some form. These codenames are much more synonomous with these airplanes- many times the only name mentioned in books and media, so it goes beyond just offering content, but catering to how these planes have been refered to. In recognition of this and other ideas that could be gathered in there support, but also recognizing the 'mixed bag' it is for them to be there- I propose yet another compromise. The category is kept, but rather then listng all the codenames (which run into pov), just the one for that aircraft and two links- one to a article talking about codenames, and another to page listing nato/russian codenames. I think at some point, whether or not people find things pleasant to recongnize, many aircraft were part of wars and codenames part of that. Correctly reporting history is a stand this project needs to make. If we can get the russian codenames for Nato planes, I'd be all for that as well. Codenames for aircraft of the cold war are especially important as some owe there whole existance to a craft known only by secret names. I understand why your against it, and in many ways it would be easy for me to agree- but it strikes me as wrong to let it slide. It seems like a revision of history not to recognize the nature of of the planes and there 'many names'- to minimize them to just a brief mention. The compromise I think makes it more acceptable, since it moves away from suggesting that its a 'NATO' article. (althought the soviets did keep an active interest in nato codenames of there aircraft as well).
Yes I agree we might just be nearing the end (*gasp). I will suggest, that while this may be prefferable to true edit war, there is third option to even discussing it. A visual discussion, where we pass a design back and forth till its acceptable- rather then using a 'thousand words' it might just be easier to work on the design. Well- just a thought anyway.
Attempt at a summary (not related to the idea I just said btw)
Design Bureau- turned into links to manufacturers (of the same list-using code)
Type Designation- Tupolev Tu-204 (your out)
Related Variants- (civil) Tu-206 - Tu-216 (never a issue)
Nato codename- (tbd-see above)(just 1, name links to page on codenames)
Primary Designation- (not a issue)
Comparable Aircraft- moved to standard footer; 'comparable' kept on drawing boards as potential replacement name.
Related Lists- (moved to standard; even more customized list links?)

On whole nother note, I have interesting idea- if and when any revision are made to a footer, I propose replacing as much as possible with msg's to escape the improvement versus distributon paradox. Having air content be in line with proffesional aviation definitions is good long term goal, as any constructed definition is going to lack defintions.

Finally - RL thanks for your complements.

- Greyengine5 02:55, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Allright, with it being easter I'll keep this short as well. Visual vs text - its whatever the sitituation demands, in seemed like a good idea since the end game is a box with links in it. Ok 1 has was already rejected, and you'v forgot a lot in 2. . Given all the problems lets just leave them as links to the bureas, and let the details of the transport link can be worked out later. I'll agree to your nato deal if you'll let the links to design bureas's stay. As for civ- vis milt given that some 'transports' had glazed noses and most of these fucntioned as military transport as well I dont see to much of problem. Also, most of the company pages have list of there respective aircraft so its no just company info being linked to. Just like anything in wiki, its just a steping stone to something better- so I fully agree its time to move on.

Russian Civil Transport Aircraft
Design Bureaus Antonov - Beriev - Ilyushin - Kamov - MiG- Mil - Lavochkin - Sukhoi - Tupolev - Yakovlev
Related Variants (civil) Tu-206 - Tu-216
Primary Designation Series {{tu-civ-trans-text}}
See also Antonov civil transports - Ilyushin civil transports - Yakovlev civil transports


Ok this thing isn't going to be a 1 line msg. You never said related variants was a problem. Your 'see also' is neat but it could be in the standard ft, or left out. Look, my offer stands- Ill trade your nato designation offer(gone) for design bureas(kept). I can appreciate your desire for it to be for linking not content providing, npov, etc. However, you'v demonstrated you dont have a problem with intra-wiki footers for groups- so at this point its just a debate over the degree of content(which will end up changing anyway). If you dont have problem with linking to lists of aircraft then it makes no sense not to link to the other bureas, which are mostly just lists at this point.
If you just 'don't like it' thats not enough as, fikri has just as much right to customize those pages as anyone else, just as surely as we have right to have the project. That he's a avitaion proffestional adds even more value to a contibution. Iv given a lot of ground here- some deserved- some to be 'conciliatory', but your going to need more cogent arguments to convince me further.
Iv noticed that you'v removed personal criticisms,stuck to the issue at hand, etc. with your last response. I totally applaud this growth as I think it will benfit both you and especially the wiki. (I cant stress enough how much this is appreciated). The fact remains however, that this sort thing would have taken a small fraction of time for me to resolve with anyone else. I'v been willing to invest a lot of time as matter of courtsey and responsibility (as have you) in sorting this out, but its fast become an unreasonable amount.
In light of all table issues I think things have gone long enough to transition into a new 'track'. We could table the issue(put it aside) or move up the reccommend hierarchy of dispute mediation. Im not totally sure where things lie now, but I think we need a mediator (do these have to be admins?) for some input, or arbitration. Iv never had a problem like this before, but this seems to be what happens in these cases.
On the other issues you mention there, it all sounds quite good. The mediawiki concept as well as this idea for drafting releases for stepping sounds neat as well. I posted some various dribble there on the engine table page as well. In the meantime, as far as air pages go I'll try to work on more full pages and continue with tables. Also, for the piaggio, just 'piaggio avanti' turns up more google hits, but the manufacture released it as 'P-180 Avanti' (according to one book). I dont have a problem with it as avanti but we seem to stick to 'official' names. Mines as well wait till they releae another one I guess. Thats all, look forward to your inputs. Greyengine5 02:19, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I understand the nature of wiki contributions- the issue is maintaning usefull information and assessing its level of credability.
Bureas is just a way of linking to other russian planes- we already convered that it makes no difference to whether its to lists, places to a page with lists, etc. Whats important is all the names are there for ease of access.
Without going through all these things again, once again, some points I have no problem ceding, some I have disagree, and some I flat out agree.
Its been this way since I saw your first post.
Lets remeber this is not some all encompasing things here- its small custimized footer for nine pages. If this was happening all over the place, you might have more of case. Your talking about it like its this is going to go everywhere and will ruin the whole project. I reccomend we just put it to vote on the airproject page, and be done with it. Greyengine5 06:03, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I didn't think its underhanded at all, and though you would actually like it. The debate wasn't about 'large footers' it was about fikri's and putting customized content into a footer. Which I as far as that goes, Im starting to agree with you more and more.
I have considered just withdrawing drawing support for that idea so we could get on with things, and was going to show you the standardized USAF as proof I was actually interested in abiding by that idea. I already supported the idea of standarized content (i.e the air box), and the logic in people points really turned things around for me.
As far accusing me of character issues, I noticed that you to, once in a more pubic debate make a much greater attempt to be pleasant, trutfull, and leave out personal criticism. I didn't admire the lack of these qualities in our previous debates, and seeing more normal commentary from other wikians and you make me realize how improper you were really being.
I view this sort of behavior and shape-shifting in the lowest regard in real life, and find it equally bad in the wiki. I don't think this behevior benfits the wiki nor are you somehow redeemed by your articles.
Consider whatever ties we had in the form of a 'working relationship' etc. to be over, at least for a very long time. I hold no 'grudge' against you, but I dont wish to have involment of a person of your qualities.
As per my above points your free to change fikri's back to your wishes or the projects. As I said, the points people are making are very good, new arguments which changed my mind.
As for the usaf box, which I had thought abided by standardization/focus etc. I was hoping would be a standard format for other airforces (on the transferable idea). I was using it to update all the related pages and found it quite usefull (in the 'yards'). However, If the whole idea of footers for sub-groups is rejected by consensus then it will go as well.
That is all RL, good luck on your pages. Greyengine5 04:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


You want another chance- perhaps. I would expect more of your 'public' mode, however, and more sticking to the issue.
The usaf series will become much smaller (not much bigger then our current footer), but I couldn't do this with the first draft very well. My monitors at 1600by1200 so I probably underestimated the size issue of this 1st draft.
Those other sub-boxes there are ineffecient in terms of page space utilized and are incompatible with my plans for tabs for other branches. The profusion of smaller lists are also going to be a nightmare to update.
The series footer needs time to develop before jumping in with replacements. Ill think youll like it when its done, though.
Since you seem like writing pages why don't you stick to that, and leave this to me. Greyengine5

Yes thats what I want as well, and am slowly working towords something like that. I am against having two orderings of units. Greyengine5 01:09, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That page duplicates info with no reason for it, and needs to be merged to the existing list. Stop interfering with my work on the USAF fotoer, If you wanted to be of use find a list of army and navy aircraft. Greyengine5 15:33, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It seems the 'profusion of tables' is finally becoming reality, even beyond what I anticipated. The units order seemed trivial (hence my rejection of it) but Im glad to see you'v finally come around on this issue (table variants). Greyengine5 18:01, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The series needs to be on all the pages to be complete, and its fine in the interim. The USAF list was from the footer. Greyengine5 21:26, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Dont understand what you suggesting there, also there is no more big list. Right now it looks like its going to end up getting replaced by this thing anyway. Like the expandable lists on mine- cool no? Greyengine5 01:00, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Aircraft List[edit]

I was thinking the same thing, right now Im quite lost as to how to organize it more effectively but maintain information. I'v taken to just 'tableizing' whats there so it doesn't require so much scrolling. In the long term If we can assemble a flat alpha ordered List of all aircraft I prefer it to this one since its a mix of use-base and technical-based seperations which makes it exceedingly difficult to merge (since planes can be in multiple categories. Greyengine5 06:03, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed that at present, Wikipedia is using a mixture of styles for Polish aircraft designations, sometimes even in the same article! Can you suggest whether PZL.37 is better than PZL-37 or vice versa? I think we should pick just one of these alternatives and stick to it.
Well, for years I've been acustomed to "PZL-37", lately I see in books also "PZL.37". Possibly PZL.37 is more similar to the way it was written before the war (I'm not sure), but such a way of writing don't come easily for me :-) In one pre-war book I've seen even: "P.Z.L. 19". I think therefore, that PZL.37 is a more elagant-looking compromise. There is no official version, anyway. As for new planes, like PZL-104 Wilga it's definitely "PZL-104". So, I'd cautiously vote for PZL-37, for the ease of using. The other problem is with "PZL P-37", but in most books only the fighters are named with "P". Pibwl 22:57, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If PZL.37 was more correct at the time the aircraft was built, I agree this would be better, and maybe we can standardise on that?...
I'm afraid it's impossible to say, which was more correct. In the post-war books you can find all: "PZL-37", "PZL.37", "PZL 37" (and "PZL P-37", "PZL P.37"). If we chose "PZL.37", there's another problem: "PZL.37" or "PZL. 37"? PZL-37 is more intuitive and most people will search probably this one. I'll try to find some other opinions, anyway. Btw: a pre-war manual of P-11.. sorry, P.11c, is entitled: 'P.Z.L. typ "P. 11c"'. I don't know how was in bombers' manuals. Pibwl 18:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've also added a few more PZL aircraft in the PZL article - could you please check my work?..
- do you think, that there's a use of adding such obscure things, like PZL-27 passenger prototype (only 1 flown) and fighter projects (PZL-45, 62)? I could write a few lines about each of them - but that's all. Pibwl 18:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Years in aviation[edit]

Thanks for linking the "year in aviation" pages to the main year pages. I was planning to do it but had had enough for one night. I haven't done pre-1910 years because I don't know enough about aviation history to know if they warrant their own year. Perhaps they should all re-direct to "1900s in aviation" or "early years of aviation". Do you have any suggestions? Geoff 22:08, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've made aviation pages for 1900 to 1909. I started from 1900 just to keep things neat. I'll add the navigation table to the existing 1980s pages later. I started writing some aircraft entries as a break from my usual stuff and got a bit carried away. Also, sorry about my confusion with the T-6 Texan II. I think I've reverted all the links that I changed. Geoff 00:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I strongly believe a link to X-plane should be somewhere in the little box at the bottom of each of those article pages. Where should it go? —Mulad 23:46, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Weapon calibers[edit]

Thanks for your comments on weapon calibers. It is an interesting point that a weapon described as "half inch" by Americans would not be described as "12.7 mm" by Russians, even though both names are common. I had thought that they were equivalent.

I was aware that there were various ways of measuring. I was not aware that this correlated systematically with the measurement system itself. I was also aware that the Americans and British used different definitions of inch up till 1954 and that adds complications. I would like to investigate this some more. Bobblewik 12:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Rlandmann - that's a new one to me. I would think that 1897 would make it too early to be called a 'blimp', but since I don't know what it truly is, I can't say for sure it isn't. I'll do a bit of research - feel free to alter the ZMC-2 article if you wish. Thanks for the info. Brian Rock 02:36, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Airline lists[edit]

Hey Rlandmann: Thanks for the message. Airlines, as well as boxing, gothic and Christianity are some of the topics that fascinate me the most. Boxing is my favorite sport, and Im a Christian that enjoys dressing in Gothic clothing. As far as airlines, books dont give them their due credit as economic boosters around the world, delivering cargo and passengers every day and uniting cultures , yet no one even talks about them, On the guinness book of world records, for example, there is only about two mentions of some airline with a world record.

That said, I agree we need to merge the lists but I would side by Alphabetical list of airlines because I was the one that originated that list, so perhaps Im not the bbest person to ask about which name it should! But they definitely need to be merged. I actually dont know how to merge pages myself.

Well, thanks for everything, and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Red Hot One Martin

Hi Rlandmann. Call me mark - just picked my user name to be the same as another username/password combination. Had found the aircraft/engine list (and started adding the standard link table at the bottom of articles.) Thanks for the tips, I will start to link years etc. like you suggest. As far as the standard engine table goes I think I will defer the decision to more expert users!! I've only been contributing for about a week. I'll have a good read through "ProjectAircraft" to try and help where I can. Mark Higgins 00:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi RLM. I knew the correct title for U-47, but (when I write the article, under its correct title) I'll make a redirect for it. But I don't know the proper link for the light cruiser Königsberg. Perhaps you could help me with that one. Thanks, Tannin 08:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

use mediawiki to broadcast table-lists[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft#Use_MediaWiki_to_broadcast_table-lists B 22:10, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't move via cut and paste[edit]

as you just did on C-17 Globemaster. I am going to correct the mess. —Morven 07:12, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. If you're not an admin and need to move a page that won't move because the target has a history, ask for help. —Morven 07:18, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Recategorizing bombers[edit]

Why are you recategorizing the bombers? Right now they're grouped very coherently in a hierarichal nature. I've added Category:World War II bombers to the Bombers category, that includes all of them. Oberiko 00:23, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adding the B17 to "Bombers" is making a redundant entry in the category pyramid. If the B17 went under everything it qualified for it would be under:
  • World War II American heavy bombers
  • World War II American bombers
  • World War II American planes
  • World War II heavy bombers
  • World War II bombers
  • World War II planes
  • American heavy bombers
  • American bombers
  • American planes
  • heavy bombers
  • bombers
  • military planes
  • planes
  • vehicles

etc, etc. (there are about 3 more permutations I can think of, but I think the point is made)

This would clearly crowd it and make a mess of the system, that's why we generally prefer to use sub-categories as much as possible. By Adding World War II bombers to the bombers category, it gives access to everything underneath, and those articles are considered part of that parent category.

Now, I do agree with you that a strict one-category rule is impossible and impractical, but it should be limited for articles with distinguished, seperate categories (ex: the MP40 falls under both Category:World War II German infantry weapons and Category:World War II submachine guns, Winston Churchill is both a British Prime Minister and a Category:World War II people (I'll probably update that last one to Category:World War II leaders when I get the chance). See the categorization on the notoriously versatile De_Havilland_Mosquito for another good example.Oberiko 01:34, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Korean War categorization is a good one. If a plane was in both World War II and the Korean War then by all means it should be categorized as such. It would also allow users, at a quick glance, to see the evolving tech as weapons were phased in and out over the course of time.
I intended to start work on a sub-category of prototypes for each major category, but I've been busy with both work and administration here. I think it'd be great if you wanted to start on something like that. Oberiko 01:39, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Problem is, when you start to place it under higher tiers, where would you put it? It's quite valid for each of the above as mentioned. If someone decides they want a category with all American planes (quite plausible), that's another higher-level category stuck on. This multi-tier categorization clutters everything, making both the article category and most of the higher categories lose comprehensibility. It also starts a very slippery slope where if we do X we have to allow Y and so on. Oberiko 01:48, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Re:foriegn-use: IIRC, a loose consensous was reached about keeping it listed under the main designer/manufacturer nation and discussing foriegn use in the article (I think this was the Valentine tank where this came about, on one of the List pages).
I have no problem with categorizing articles that have no current category to group them together and make it easier to re-slot them later, I consider that quite prudent and hence left the other-wise parentless articles in the bomber category alone. My only concern was in having multi-tier categorization. Oberiko 02:17, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I rather like your date idea, it is quite specific. The only problem is the span, would it be based on decades? The items first to/or last use? But, by all means, if you can figure that out it'd be good to have something like Category: Bombers (1940-1950), Category: Bombers (1950-1960) etc. Off hand, it doesn't seem like something that would get to big to need much more subcategorizing then that, and could always be filtered down if need be. Oberiko 02:37, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Category renaming I have little problem with. I see no problem with recategorizing heavy/medium/light etc. into tactical and strategic. Oberiko 02:59, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Categories and Interwiki links[edit]

Can you please leave the categories and interwiki links at the bottom of articles? This is the standard and, for among other reasons, it's adding a lot of unnecessary space at the top of each article where you move them to the top. RADICALBENDER 02:27, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What to include in Category:Japanese Buildings[edit]

Just posted inquiry in Talk page for Category:Japanese buildings. As the originator, you're sure to be interested.