Talk:McDonnell Douglas MD-12

1 free image to replace two non-free

We're actually supposed to replace non-free content wherever possible according to our rules about copyrighted material. ...original images and sound files licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use.

Accordingly I've made an image which accomplishes the same thing as the two non-free images currently used, it includes details similar to Image:MD12-poster.jpg, but with a livery based on earlier concept images, and includes the views shown in Image:MD-12 3-view.gif.

• Those orphaned fair-use images will be tagged for deletion soon. No reason the poster can't be used. "Preferred" does not mean a hard rule as you are taking it. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In order to be as clear as possible I'm going to answer your post comment by comment. Those orphaned fair-use images will be tagged for deletion soon. It's not really a concern since we know where to find them should a need arise in the future. 1) No reason the poster can't be used. and 2) "Preferred" does not mean a hard rule as you are taking it. I disagree, 1) A key part of a fair use rationale is how one answers the question: Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect, or adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all? and 2) What I quoted came straight from a policy which to me means preferred is what the policy dictates unless there is some reason for an exception. I can't think of one in this case though. Anynobody 03:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Of course you might have a little biased towards the image you created. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• TRue, they are readily available online now. That's not the case with a lot of images, eg NASA and some DoD ones. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course you might have a little biased towards the image you created. Not really, if you show me another better image which happens to be free I'd be all for it. (I made the model because I was bored. Since I had the model and couldn't find any free pictures myself the solution to replacing the copyrighted images seemed obvious) * TRue, they are readily available online now. That's not the case with a lot of images, eg NASA and some DoD ones. If you're really concerned about their availability, do what I did, download them. Anynobody 05:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the new image is just a bit too busy for the Lead. I don't know how the resolution would hold out, but would it be possible to have separate images? One larger, main image, and a separate 3-view, which is what we had with the non-frees. Good job, btw, not trying to be too picky! - BillCJ (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoting text to reply to just wastes space, but whatever. Downloading an image does not help when you need to provide a source location. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the new image is just a bit too busy for the Lead. To me it was simply efficient, given the size of this article multiple images seemed too much for what is essentially a stub, however I went ahead and broke the info into two images (each replacing one of the non-free images) to keep things as similar as possible to the last version.

Quoting text to reply to just wastes space, but whatever. Indeed in some cases space may be wasted, but if it helps avoid long protracted misunderstandings I think it'll even out. Downloading an image does not help when you need to provide a source location. Sure it does, if md-11.net disappears it can still be credited (going by what WP:EL#What can be done with a dead external link says about dead links it doesn't need to be active in order to be cited.) Anynobody 01:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, the article is more than long enough for 2 images, and could support 3 without much problem either. Anyway, I do like the single image in Lead, and you did a good job on the image. - BillCJ (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

-The links in the External links section is different. I mean the source of the image such as with Image:V-22_concept.jpg. I've seen a few images get deleted because the link was no longer valid. That was mostly Commons images from the NASA site. In any event thanks for making the images. They use better/different angles than the MDC brochure ones. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Again thanks for creating the images (and recreating). Keep up the good work. Yea, archive.org links could be used if the page was deleted for free-use images too if really needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

Why do we illustrate this article with an A380??

The poster image referred to above actually looks like an MD product. Either bring it back or redo the CG image to reflect it. Please. --Pete (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Which image are you talking about?? This Image:Md-12-2.png only has "McDonnell Douglas" and "MD-12" as its markings. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question would be: Why does every photo of an A380 look like an MD-12? ;) - BillCJ (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you might say why does a 707 look like a DC-8. But every manufacturer has their distinctive design characteristics. Regardless of markings, you can pick an Airbus from a Boeing from a Tupolev. --Pete (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've let the creator of the image know of your accusations. Hopefully he can deal with this directly for you within the next few days. Anyway, I think this flushes down the toilet the opinion that the original fair-use images here are replaceable. I think we can add them back now. - BillCJ (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pete, I really didn't render this as an A380, which has a slight arch downward near the nose. Check out the nose on the Airbus and compare it to my (and McDD's illustrations which I used as my template) and you'll see they are not the same. (The A380 looks a lot like the MD-12 though, I'd most definitely agree.) Anynobody(?) 05:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(PS I got the livery from this image) Anynobody(?) 05:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

the speed mentioned

Article table stated Mach 0.85 - this seems ok. Then followed 565 mph and 1050 km/h. First - IF 1050 km/h is correct, then the speed in knots becomes 1050/1.852 = 567. Hence I changed mph to knots. (1 knot = 1 nautical miles per hour = 1852 meters). However both 1050 km/h and 565 (or 567) knots both seem to be a little to high. In the future I strongly suggest to use knots about ships and piston enined aircraft. And both MACH number and knots for all kindds of jet engined aircraft. These two figures must be correct. The MACH number isn't directly calculated into any other speed, since it depends on how thin or thick the air is (see Mach number). When the correct units are presented, can they well be calculated to both mph and km/h. But neither is used within avionics (perhaps some Russian aircraft uses indicated km/h, and very old airplane from UK uses mph. But here are the used units within modern aviation:

• indicated airspeed - knots (and Mach number)
• true airspeed, ground speed and even taxi speed - the same
• altitude - feet , 1000's of feet
• vertical speed - feet/minute , 1000's of feet/minute
• distances - nautical miles (which is around 15% longer than a UK/US land mile and exactly 1852 meters)
• runway lenghts - meter
• heading, pitch, runway slope (anything which involves angles) etc - degrees (with one lap = 360 degrees).

These are all well sourcered in their repectively articles. Boeing720 (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)