User talk:Ericg/archives/2005/July-August

archives2004 [ July-October ] — 2005 [ March-June | July-August | September-October | November-December ]
archives2006 [ January-February | March-April | May-August | September-October | November-December ]
archives2007 [ January-February | March-April ]

---

Aircraft specs

Thanks for the note, I was meaning to look to see if there were standards for what I was doing. I'll do some reading over there and make sure I'm staying within the consensus when I add specs. Later! Rx StrangeLove 01:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Parametrised template

Sorry for the one-sided conversation. Things had died down a little, so I wandered down the street for a haircut! The nested templates for WikiProject Ship are awesome aren't they? My hat is well and truly off to David Newton for designing them.

We could nest both a metric-first and non-metric-first option together, thus requiring only one template for the whole project; but to avoid burying things too deep, I think that if we go to a template, we should use two.

As things stand now, the switches we would need are for:

Wing (fixed/rotary/variable)

Capacity (yes/no)

Jet or rocket engines (yes/no/afterburner)

Propeller engines (yes/no) (maybe yes/no/human for a few unusual cases?)

Armament (yes/no)

Supersonic (yes/no)

and probably something like:

Range (distance/endurance)

Note that separate yes/no options for both reaction engines and prop engines allows for (Yes Yes) for mixed-power aircraft and (No No) for gliders.

Other options currently under consideration could be implemented with options like:

Overload (yes/no)

Templates have come a long way since we discussed them last year! :)

Despite the noises some are making, I remain firmly convinced that there is a core set of data that is equally relevant and applicable to 99% of everything that's ever flown.

One specific request that I wanted to make of you - since you're a designer by trade, I was wondering whether you might put some thought into the question of if we end up adopting an infobox (which neither you nor I wants to see happen, but anyway...), how could it be done in an aesthetically pleasing way? Please save us from the turquoise table! --Rlandmann 06:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Well done! Thanks for jumping in with the demos. I'll comment on the Template talk page shortly. --Rlandmann 06:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Why does.....?

Hi Eric. I tried to support Text as Presentation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Specifications survey but struck a numbering glitch. My comment was added below the line where you advised someoneto move to talk. I started my comment with #, but instead of continuing the numbering in the section, by defaulting to No 10, it reverted the numbering back to No 1. What do I need to do to fix this? Cheers. Moriori 22:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Abbreviation of knots

Hi,

I wondered if you would reconsider your vote for the abbreviation of knots. The official abbreviation as used by ICAO and member states in METAR and TAF etc has no 's' for the plural. Thanks. Bobblewik 13:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

re: specifications templates

I'd be happy to collaborate on whichever spec layout is chosen. I've seen your inline specs and they look fine to me, minus of course my preference for aligned data.

For a table, I only want it to be clean. Convincing others that colors etc. should be absent from the table may be hard, and I only hope that everyone realizes clarity takes precedence over any aesthetics. In certain places "pretty" tables are appropriate, a encyclopedia I think is not one of them. I'll try to scan in some spec tables from paper references (Jane's et al.) and see if that helps convince them at all. ✈ James C. 17:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

PBY Catalina specs

I replied to your comment on my talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Fantastic picture! Thanks! I had a question for you, too, but I forgot what it was. :) Gimmie a few minutes. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A-ha! I remember! In the template you asked me to use for aircraft specifications, there's a section for "Rate of climb". I was unable to find that stat in my available reference books. Can I sub "Cruising speed" for it? Fernando Rizo T/C 04:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • replied on my talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey Eric, some questions:

• You're right about the bigger image increasing whitespace. Am I just being totally paranoid about the whitespace :) ? Should I just let it go or do we need to figure something out?
• I wrote the introduction section that you partitioned off into Background in an attempt to mimic the large introductions that FAs tend to have (B-36 included). Don't you think we're going to need a longer introduction? Also, what do you think of my re-write; does it read better?
• Not a question, but just to let you know, I just treated myself to this book off of Barnes & Noble.com. I'm salivating already. I figure we're two weeks out from self-nominating the article.

Fernando Rizo T/C 08:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• The book is here, and I've been more or less wrapped up in Real Life for the last couple of days. Today and tomorrow I'll be adding significantly to the Cat article, as always your input would be great. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Cirrus

Agreed, I messed up by putting an SR22 pic on the SR20 article. So I've made it right by putting the SR20 on the Cirrus SR20 page and the SR22 on the Cirrus Design page - Adrian Pingstone 18:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:ICAO aircraft designators

You're right. I've been way too obsessing over the ICAO designators. I need to look at how I'm putting them in. Thanks.CambridgeBayWeather 01:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Note

Please test template designs in the Template Sandbox or a user sandbox. (SEWilco 05:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC))

I don't have copies of any Windows products for testing either. I'm primarily concerned because of several recent disliked formatting changes to Ref/Note. Too bad there isn't way to invite testing by numerous people. (SEWilco 15:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC))

Thread problem

Template-based "threading" confuses MediaWiki, causing the "[edit]" links which follow a Thread to not work properly. (SEWilco 17:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC))

Specifically, User_talk:Ericg#Aircraft_specifications_format has an "edit" link which works OK. The "edit" links after that Section point to the wrong Sections, due to the interlaced Thread handling. I am told this is a known problem. (SEWilco 19:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC))

PBY Catalina

• Added a production table to the article tonight. The source for the info is Roscoe Creed's book, I'll do the footnoting tomorrow cause I'm not going to be awake much longer. I realize that the colors are ugly as hell, feel free to change them if you feel so inclined. ;) Lemme know what you think. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Nice looking work on the table! Easy to read. GraemeLeggett 09:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Like Graeme said, your revision of the table is so much prettier than mine, I'm still in shock about it. Great job, Eric! Fernando Rizo T/C 17:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Replied to your last comment on my talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft Infobox

• What the hell is your problem? I added the infobox because I thought it would be useful, and while I didn't agree with your decision to remove it, I am not a part of the aircraft wikiproject and decided not to fight you. All of a sudden, I see this absurd message on my talk page that I chose to ignore your request and that I should be working with the project and not in parallel to it. I haven't made any changes to those pages since you removed the infobox, so you need to get your facts straight before you start attacking people. Also, based on the discussions I read at the wikiproject, you are the one who doesn't want an infobox, and you have decided that you are in charge of the project and therefore, there will be no infobox. Back off. Dbinder 13:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Apology accepted :-). If I have the time I'll try to integrate the info into the article. Dbinder 16:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

hi eric

You wanted to see my sig. p.s. bye— ceejayoz ^★ 01:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Xiong's template discussion

I have replied to Xiong's request to discuss our goals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Template. You may discuss further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Template. Thanks, Ingoolemo ^talk 19:44, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

Fernando Rizo's RfA

Eric, thanks for the kind words of support on my RfA; it really meant a lot to me. I won't let it go to my head, though. ;) Anyway, thanks for the support, I won't let you down. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Hawker Tornado

I'd be more than happy to join the aircraft wikiproject. I assume I just add my name to the list? In the meantime I'll make amends to the box, and find some pics somewhere. Thanks--Xiphon 04:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Aerial Top Dressing c.f. Crop Dusting.

Regarding the entires about aerial topdressing and crop dusting, I think there has been some confusion about the meaning of these terms, which I have helped perpetuate by putting a rather badly worded link in your crop dusting stop.

My understanding is crop dusting pre-dates top dresing, but the two are not the same thing. This is certainly true in NZ usage.

Topdressing concerns the delivery of fertilisers, (usually superphosphate and lime), where as crop dusting initially referred to the use of insecticides and fungicides. I thought it had since come to include the spread of fertilisers, and added the link thinking top dressing was a subset of crop dusting - though certainly I should have made this clearer. In fact, having read your comments I did some rapid research into crop dusting, and note many still seem use the phrase only in relation to spreading posions. I am afraid although I made a number of searches relating to top dressing I did not include crop dusting in my initial searches, otherwise I would certainly have modified the way I attached the link to your page.

Although the material, including the two texts, encylopedia entry cited state topdressing - meaning the spreading of fertiliser - was a New Zealand invention (and indeed the Museum of New Zealand displays a Tiger Moth to commemorate the fact), it is quite possible the parochial pride allowed previous researchers to overlook prior foreign invention, which for some reason did not widely catch on.

I had meant to add an invitation to others to add to it, and had been intending to add notes about the development in Australia and the UK when further information arrived. I note that as you say, the page is still heavily dependant on New Zealand history and your suggested renaming is probably appropriate in the interim.

Incidentally I see you are writing about the Hawker Tornado - by coinicidence last year I met the daughter of a pilot who died testing this type.