User talk:Ericg/archives/2006/Mar-April

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 ]

---

AWB

Gotcha! Thanks for catching that one... I'll go back and fix the few pages I've done. Unless more people chip in on the process, we are looking at probably 6 months to convert everything. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

They fixed a regex issue in AWB so specs conversion using regex should be 99% automatic now (you still have to manually move the text around the page, stuff like that, though). I'm writing a new AWB settings file using regex as we speak, I'll let you know when I post it. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the additional data on the L-39 page... I wasn't sure how that worked. I think we need to modify the instructions inserted into the pages because the right parenthesis does not produce very good results. The conversion with the new regex settings file is going faster but I had a long streak of very weirdly written pages last night so it was a lot of manual labor again. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding regex problems, not sure what's going on. I was running 2.2.0 last night and it was working just fine. You may wish to inquire on the AWB talk page. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

2010 probably explains your issue. The \r\n wasn't fixed until 2020. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Inserting aero-specs and substing the template is pretty hard to do selectively -- regex has no brains so it has no way of knowing if the specs are there, just like it doesn't know if it's a plane or a chopper, or a prop vs a jet. But perhaps someone more skilled in this than I can figure something out. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

FW190 A edits

I posted this in the FW190 discussion thread, but figured it polite to respond to you in person.

Butcher Bird: The Focke-Wulf 190 by Edward Shacklady

Focke-Wulf 190: The Birth of the Butcher Bird 1939-1943 by Morten Jessen

The Focke-Wulf 190: Fw190 by Gordon Swanborough & William Green

Produdction to Front Line #5, Focke-Wulf Fw 190 by Malcolm Lowe

Focke-Wulf FW 190 Volume 1 by Krzysztof Janowicz

Walk Around Number 22: Focke-Wulf FW 190A/F by Squadron Signal Publications

The Focke-Wulfe Fw190 Fighters, Bombers and Ground Attack Aircraft by Heinz J. Nowarra

You will find most accurate information in Janowicz's and Shacklady's books. The others are mostly a collection of images from various other publications over the years. The FW190 by Swanborough and Green is a bit dated but also is a good resource book.

--Evil.Merlin 02:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Refs size

I am just doing it that way because it appears to be what well-done articles using the new refs system are doing. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its relevant but just to let you know — Joseph did the same with BAE Systems. I know it was a great improvement there. Previously if any text containing references was moved, the reference had to be manually updated (i.e the corresponding number). With this system you can totally reorganise an article and allow the references to reorganise themselves. Mark83 20:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

|ref=

That's a fantastic idea! Great job! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

3-views

Great 3-views! Could you briefly share your technique for getting the dimensions/proportions? (I'm moderately skilled in Photoshop and curious about your approach). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I've been meaning to do some tracing to blow up several blueprints to poster size but I've been too lazy to actually do it. :) Keep at it, they are coming out great! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Greg Goebels 3-views from the Vector Site are in public domain and can be used to fill the gaps. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

proposed merge of Quickie Aircraft and Rutan Quickie

No, I won't revert my own edit, that's ridiculous. You should say why you disagree on the article talk page.

Articles don't have to have exactly the same topic to be merged. The question is not whether they are exactly the same thing or related but different things, the question is whether they could be better presented as one article or two. Just look at their first sentences. If Quickie Aircraft ever made any aircraft other than the Quickie, you should edit the article to reflect that. —Keenan Pepper 00:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, he did revert his own edit. ;) ericg ✈ 19:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment

I will be updating/creating pages for mostly World War 2 aircraft, so if there is anything you need, feel free to ask. Thanks for the heads up on the template; I will make the necessary changes in the future. Thanks again --Spot87 23:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --Spot87 03:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Airlift (military)

I didn't write the article, so I wouldn't know. I simply merged Tactical airlift and Strategic airlift together.--Kross^Talk 21:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Parser

Something weird is going on with the thrust:weight calc - check out Concorde. Oddly, it's working fine at English Electric Lightning. Unless, of course, I don't understand what is being calculated. Which wouldn't be a shock :). ericg ✈ 22:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Shoot, I was afraid it was going to happen. It can't handle absence of parameters, so if there's no thrust/weight it will give an error. I'll disable it for now and see if there is a workaround. This would also be an major obstacle if we tried to implement calculated wing loading, power/mass, thrust/weight, etc. Thanks for catching that! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see what's going on. Can't you just nest an if function to test for {{{thrust/weight}}}? ericg ✈ 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What was actually happening is that the thrust/weight is written as .373 without the leading zero and that made it freak out. I'll play around and see if I can make it work. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, you were right the first time. I just added the calculated thrust/weight; it wasn't there before, and was causing an error. I don't think the leading zero is needed. ericg ✈ 22:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, reimplemented with a #if test statement. Thanks for your help in figuring this out! If you want to play around with the template, there is a sandbox version at Template:Airtest. User:Emt147/Awbtest has some specs that use it. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

And that's exactly what I am doing. Of course, in order to make the infobox as flexible as possible I'm planning to add all fields you currently have in your temporary template, but it is not going to be a replacement for the entire article. //Halibutt 01:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for being the only person in that project not to bite me so far :/ //Halibutt 01:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, just try to fit in my shoes: I asked at the talk page of that project if there's a chance the ugly (sorry, but it is ugly to me) template is going to be replaced. Then I announced that I'm starting a new infobox that would use as much of the current template as possible, after which pretty everyone started shouting at me.

As to the template - I'm working on it and will let you know as soon as I finish. Actually I base it both on your template and the Polish infobox (pl:Szablon:Infobox Samolot) which is a pretty decent infobox, but is definitely too long. I need it for my own articles where such infoboxes would definitely look more user friendly than the text-only piece in the middle of the article, and have no intention to force anyone to use it. //Halibutt 01:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought of duplicating the names of the fields you used for your template, but there are some problems with that. Firstly, as there is apparently a strong disagreement to replace the template you've been using "for over a year now" with a modern infobox, there is no need to make the two interchangeable. Also, I don't think making imperial/metric units "primary as needed" is a good idea. I believe having a fixed position for them is a much cleaner solution. Especially that the parameters as I used them are pretty self-explanatory, contrary to "length alt". //Halibutt 02:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to do so. However, take note that I prefer pipe links to html and the template is designed for aeroplanes and not copters (I don't believe in "one size fits all" solutions when it comes to as complicated templates). However, I really love to be proven wrong :) //Halibutt 02:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And here we differ. For me it's pretty clear that the information on what type of ruler the designer had on his table is not really important. The purpose of the infobox is to give the reader a quick reference to an approximate (usually) size of the plane. If that's so important for some of you, then perhaps it could be included in the text. However, I believe it's nowhere near as important as, say, easier comparison of various planes. I did not take part in works on your airtemp, and I'm by no means a specialist. However, basing on my own experience, I find such unit switching places from infobox to infobox simply misleading. I usually open a number of articles in separate tabs and very often do I compare the infoboxes. With variable positions it's not that easy.

Anyway, at the moment my draft places imperial units to the right of the metric units, but I could change the positions if you find such change necessary. //Halibutt 02:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Then how about a compromise solution then: let's add yet another parameter of {{{unit}}} that would describe whether the designers used metric, imperial or both systems. However, I still believe that such piece of info is of secondary value and at times problematic (did von Braun switch to imperial system in the US? and how about Sikorski?). Finally, if it belongs anywhere, it's the articles on design bureaus and not on every specific aeroplane. //Halibutt 02:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Just like Russian manufacturers used imperial system prior to 1918, British prior to 2004 and so on... Which however is not a basic characteristic of the plane, nor a matter of reliability. AAMoF it has nothing to do with wikipedia's reliability: WP is reliable because it quotes verifiable sources, not because it uses the same units as the designer of the plane (or rather what we assume were the units used by the lead designer). I even met a guy at the Warsaw University of Technology (an engineer), who patented a number of inventions measured with his own non-SI units; he simply designed his own basic unit of some 3 cm (width of his two nails, or something similar) and measured all of the diagrams with it. However, it did not affect the design in any way. Whether 1 ft or 0.3048 m long, it's still the same thing. //Halibutt 02:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Airtemp

Regarding #switch, I've got something I'm working on at User:Locke Cole/Template:Airtemp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), but unfortunately it doesn't work for some reason. :P I'm going to pester AzaToth and see if he can figure out what's wrong. But that's one way switch could be used (if it can be made to work, anyways). =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

AzaToth figured it out pretty quick. :P I was using #switch wrong. Anyways, I've added it to {{Airtemp}}, and it seems to work. If it doesn't please revert it. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, and the best part is it (IMO) makes template "code" easier to read/understand (compare vs. a number of #ifeq's). Anyways, glad you like it! =) Hopefully it survives the trial period intact (speaking of which, if you really like it, you might want to leave a note at m:ParserFunctions talk page). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lockheed_XB-30.jpg

In order to qualify for fair use, we need a hyperlink or some form of source information for this image. Thanks, Ingoolemo ^talk 09:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

WW2 Encyclopedia

Thanks for making that template for the book, it will make things much easier.

The only bad part is, (or good part, really) is that almost all of the aircraft in the book already have wikipedia entries. I've been filling in gaps, but as of right now there isnt a whole lot left to do. I am going to get my hands on a copy of the Jane's WW2 aircraft book, which will most likely fill in all the gaps in WW2 aircraft coverage. --Spot87 13:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Sorry, Eric, but your pals were simply crossing the line there. The first reaction to Azatoth's proposal was, just like in my own case, a bite campaign. I find such behaviour unacceptable and indeed my impression after the brief input at your WikiProject was that most of active members there actually believe they own all aeroplane-related articles and do not wish anyone to meddle there. I was pushed out, but got really frustrated when I saw the same thing happen to others as well. I appreciate your will of cooperation and I'm sorry if you felt offended. I did not mean to offend you in any way, as you were always fair to me, contrary to the rest of the guys there. //Halibutt 20:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

External editor support

FYI, I just answered your long-ago question on Help talk:External editors asking how to use ee.pl on Mac OS X. If you have any trouble with the instructions, let me know. -- JVinocur 05:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox consensus

I started a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft on adopting your and AzaToth's infobox. You guys did a great job, I'll actually support it and include it in my AWB tasks if it's adopted. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I left comments for the people actively involved in the discussions (you, Ingoolemo, Mmx1, Bobblewik, a few others) but you are right, I'll go through and hit the rest of the list. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox users

I think we need to scribble up some guidelines for what does and does not go into the "More users" field. For a/c with a hundred users, like F-16, I think the best option may be to do nothing at all, aside from the primary user, to minimize the risk of creating pissing contests about whose country is in the list. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Captions

What exactly are your criteria on captions? I think it's important to identify the variant if the aircraft morphed through several shapes during its service life, yet you keep removing the P-51D caption. It's quite different from Allison Mustangs and the P-51B/C. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can figure out a way to make it descriptive, rather than just the model, I would leave it. Just stating the subvariant, however, isn't what I consider a 'caption'. The differences in model are described in the article anyway. ericg ✈ 05:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the model differences are described in the article but a picture is worth a thousand words (pardon the cliche). I can write long captions elucidating the distinctive visual features of the particular variant displayed if you don't mind the extended captions. Every aircraft book I've ever seen labels every photo. I agree, "airplane in flight" or "airplane at an airshow" is an obvious and unnecessary caption. But identifying the variant and the operator is helpful. Not everyone can identify a USAF aircraft from the markings, not to mention the esoteric users. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'll seek balance. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

With a few exceptions (e.g. noteworthy armament seen in photo or historical aircraft depicted) I will aim for one line of text at the most. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox on Eurofighter Typhoon

Hi. I understand the "built" parameter should state the quantity built but as it is in production that is not suitable. You suggest adding "as of 2006." The problem with that is the number built today will be different from the number built in a month, and certainly different on Dec. 31! I thought a compromise was to add the number of orders, i.e. what will be built (excluding possible orders). May I suggest that a drive for uniformity has removed a useful and informative edit? Nevertheless, regarding the infobox in general, congratulations on a job well done. Regards Mark83 16:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)