![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
With regard to units of measure... My intent was to use the units of measure in a way appropriate to the aviation & historical ontext to which this article belongs. For that reason, I see the editing of these units of measure to detract from the article, rather than add to it. I'll check back next week, and, unless moved by objections, I'll be correcting the units of measure back the way they were. Part of my feeling is that this article is something I created, and that I had a specific intent to communicate with the reader, a communication involving not only the literal word on the page, but also context & style. An article about an early 20th century airplane should sound like it's about an early 20th century airplane. Otherwise, we should go all the way & replace all the statistics with their SI equivalents. Anyone care to discuss the 447.4 kW engine on this plane? :-) SteveB 03:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Seems a bit redundant. "A footnote in history," or "a notable historic fact" seems less so. But, if it must be your prose, . . . .-- Evb-wiki 18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I have just returned from the Norseman Floatplane festival and have a new dramatic in-flight photo of the aircraft. I would like to change the infobox photo to this new image. I will retain the other photo in the article. Is it time also to remove the trivia section? An admin is on a tear removing all these sections. FWIW Bzuk 13:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
With regard to units of measure... My intent was to use the units of measure in a way appropriate to the aviation & historical ontext to which this article belongs. For that reason, I see the editing of these units of measure to detract from the article, rather than add to it. I'll check back next week, and, unless moved by objections, I'll be correcting the units of measure back the way they were. Part of my feeling is that this article is something I created, and that I had a specific intent to communicate with the reader, a communication involving not only the literal word on the page, but also context & style. An article about an early 20th century airplane should sound like it's about an early 20th century airplane. Otherwise, we should go all the way & replace all the statistics with their SI equivalents. Anyone care to discuss the 447.4 kW engine on this plane? :-) SteveB 03:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Seems a bit redundant. "A footnote in history," or "a notable historic fact" seems less so. But, if it must be your prose, . . . .-- Evb-wiki 18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I have just returned from the Norseman Floatplane festival and have a new dramatic in-flight photo of the aircraft. I would like to change the infobox photo to this new image. I will retain the other photo in the article. Is it time also to remove the trivia section? An admin is on a tear removing all these sections. FWIW Bzuk 13:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC).