This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Many thanks!
I concur with you on absolutely every point; in particular with your characterisation of these articles now as "Fred said this, George said that" and that the claims of the stability of the articles were based upon having driven off contending views in disgust.
The mediation was in fact opened ( here) but is now a moot point since I reluctantly indef-blocked one of the disputing parties a couple of days ago for behaviour too depressing to recount.
Any help that you could bring to the table now would be most welcome; but in truth, these articles are such a mess now that it will be hard to know where to start. Take a look at this section on the mediation page. I seriously wonder what would be lost by finding an earlier version of each of the affected articles to roll back to...
But please - by all means, wade in. I seriously don't think there's any COI issue here. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gary, glad to know you're back in the swing, but a little time off occasionally for whatever reason is a good thing. Re the sig. thing – the best thing to do is look at mine in 'edit' with reference to the colour codes from Web colors and Hexadecimal HTML / Decimal RGB colour codes to see how to create letters of different colours. Then in "My Preferences", you need to fill the new sig in the space provided and tick the raw sig. box – et voila! It's possible to do other things like changing the font type but I can't remember how I did that when I was experimenting. Hope that helps. Cheers:) -- Red Sunset 22:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gary, just got in from work myself (no extra hour in bed for the wicked!) and taking a quick look at wos' hapnin'. It's surprising where you can find yourself getting involved on the Wiki – I suppose that's what makes it so interesting, not to say addictive. Never in a million years would I have thought I'd see myself editing a Shakespeare-related article, let alone create three new ones this week (well, two and a list), but there you go! My better half has decided what I'm supposed to do for the rest of the day, but I'll certainly drop in on the BEA Trident crash when I get the chance. ;-) -- Red Sunset 11:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(Heseltine still alive? citation needed – don't believe everything you read, this is the Wiki after all! Lol)
Hi Nimbus - yes - got it in one: it was a botched rollback in the process of correcting false precision errors introduced to the article, as you've already surmised. I've had a go at explaining the problem in more detail to the user concerned. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 18:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comprehensive response. Just out of curiosity, what was the other book you purchased? -- Rlandmann ( talk) 23:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, both the articles you've linked use the same infobox; it's just that there are some inputs missing in the Merlin article. Or, more precisely, the final form of the infobox supports a few more parameters than it originally did. (Remember that not every parameter supported by a template needs to be supplied in an article).
So the solution is simply to add the "missing" parameters to the Merlin article - the template reached its current version very quickly, so it's unlikely that many articles are missing the full set of parameters. The only way to fix this with automation would be to have a bot go through the articles and insert the missing parameters when it finds them; but programming the bot would probably be more labour-intensive than fixing the relatively few affected articles by hand!
Thanks for the feedback on the other issue too. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 21:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I've touched on the important points and cited refs wherever possible; however, I couldn't find a reference for the thrust values (copied from an unsourced article) of the system when driven by the F135 engine, other than the F135 itself is capable of 40,000 lb afterburner thrust (no use at all). I think this is an essential one to provide, and would rather not remove important unsourced info – any ideas? Secondly, I'm a bit undecided about the "Engineering challenges" section – the information I dug up seems to be reasonable and doesn't contain anything contentious – so I suppose the source is suitable enough?!? Thirdly, I basically padded the "Specs" section out with whatever I thought would be suitable, but it could be much better if I could find the info. I'd be grateful if you'd give it the once over and see what you can do in readiness for release, or take it from here and release it yourself – no problems either way. Cheers from a PITA! (Lol);-) -- Red Sunset 21:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Concur that this is almost certainly unfree: the way to handle such things is through
WP:PUI. The specific instructions are
here.
Wiki time is a little short this week (as you seem to have noticed!) - I've just started a fantastic new job which has come with a steep learning curve; so real life has taken its toll. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 12:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely; if we can replace a Russian source with an English-language one of the same reliability then we should do so. Shouldn't be hard for the British and American engines listed. At the same time, we should remove the link wherever we see; citing the book is OK, but since it was published in 1939, it's probably still protected by copyright... -- Rlandmann ( talk) 11:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
On the Russian web site, maybe add ( English translatation) to the reference. - Fnlayson ( talk) 01:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice work getting the Template:P&W gas turbine engines navbox started. I note that there are more engines to be added, and I'm trying to help with that as I can. I'll also try to add the group list formatting soon. I'm mainly trying to make sure we don't work at cross-purposes on the navbox, so I have a few questions. First, are you planning a separate navbox for the piston engines? Are there enough P&W piston engines to warrant a separate navbox?
Also, is it a good idea to lump the PWC engines in with the parent's engines? (Just asking on that one, as I honestly don't know.) Many of our Canadian editors like to claim that PWC is a completely separate company within UTC. While this may have been true for PWC's predecessor, United Aircraft of Canada, both the PW and PWC websites clearly list PWC as a division of PW, so having them on the same navbox makes some sense. However, if the PW navbox becomes too large, I wouldn't oppose splitting them up either.
Finally, how should we handle the military and civilian designations. There are several ways to do it, but we can discuss those on the template's talk page if you like. Thanks as always. - BillCJ ( talk) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I figured that, but just in case . . . Anyway, Template:GE aeroengines is finished and online. I ended up away from the telly with some time to play with, so there you go! - BillCJ ( talk) 19:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Gary, the Allison template was easy compared to the job for the next ones! Lycoming (turbines)/Garret/AlliedSignal/Honeywell is going to take some work. Putting the template togeter should be simple enough, but we aren't going to be able to use the company articles lists of engines, because, asside from Lycoming, there aren't any! In fact, the three non-Lycoming articles barely mention the aero engine businesses, and none give a good treatment.
The Lycoming Engines article is good enough as is, and its template should be easy to put together. Lycoming sold the turbine engine side to AlliedSignal in 1996, so listing all engines in production or under development before then should work.
The Garrett Systems article covers everything from the founding of Garrett AiResearch in the 1930s to the current company under Honeywell. Garrett AiResearch is currently a redirect to Garrett Systems, so I'd like to pull out most of the pre-Honeywell merger info for Garrett, and put it on the Garrett AiResearch page, with the focus on the aircraft engine line.
The next step will require more work, since there is no content on the turbine business in the AlliedSignal or Honeywell articles. I'd like to create the Honeywell Aerospace page to cover the tubine and other aerospace activities of Honeywell, and AlliedSignal to some extent. That will have to start out as a stub with an engine list, but hopefully it can be improved. Gunston's 2006 edition of his Aeroengines book does give enough info to make a good start.
Any thoughts, comments, corrections, or other options? - BillCJ ( talk) 18:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
No Problem, mon! This is WP - no deadlines! I'm not that up on the history of British engines, so it all balances out. I'll start on the Lycoming template next, then work on the Garrett/AlliedSignal/Honeywell engines on one template. I'm not sure those will be big enough to split up on there own, but we'll see how it looks when it's done. Take care! - BillCJ ( talk) 05:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Good work on this article! It looks a lot better than it did! - Ahunt ( talk) 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi again: no problem - that was just me trying to be over-precise!
If you are curious as to which aircraft we have owned I have a photo gallery of all six. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice going taking that photo of a Lycoming O-360! I have been looking for the opportunity to get a photo of one for a while! - Ahunt ( talk) 21:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Gary, as far as I can tell, there is no navbox for Snecma engines. Since you created Template:Turbomeca aeroengines, I thought I'd touch base (wicket?) with you before jumping in. Snecma has not had a lot of engines, so the template will be a bit short. An option is to combine it with another manufacturer, of which two come to mind. Since Tubomeca is now part of Snecma, that is an option. The other is to combine the Gnome et Rhône engines with Snecma, since Snecma was created by nationalizing Gnome et Rhône in 1945. However, Gnome et Rhône primarily made piston engines, while Snecma has generally made gas tubines, and I'd rather keep them separate at the moment.
I know next-to-nothing about Gnome et Rhône engines, so I'd rather not do that template. I can do the Snecma template, and we can see what it looks like, and then decide if merging it with one of the others is a good option, or if we should keep them all separate. Any thoughts? - BillCJ ( talk) 02:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Template:Snecma aeroengines is done!
Gnome et Rhône is next, and I hope to get on it in the next couple days. All I know about it is what is in the article, ans I'll take the engines lists from there. Hopefully it's accurate and comprehensive! Are there any major US companies I've left out? Westinghouse, perhaps, but I haven't found an article with a product list, and there are several subisiaries with articles, and I don't know which is the right one! Not sure where to go after this - any suggestions? - BillCJ ( talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, almost forgot Curtiss-Wright's Wright engines. Not alot of them, but it will make a neat navbox. And there is a list at Curtiss-Wright! - BillCJ ( talk) 22:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, Wright is done. Westinghouse should be fairly short also. It might take some research, but Williams shouldn't be very long either. I'm not sure what I'll do next, as I'm about finished with the engines I'm familiar with. I need to ask Ahunt about Canadian engine manufacturers. PWC is on the PW navbox, and the only other one I know of is Orenda. As you mentioned, the German and Russian companies need to be done, and the Japanese also. I'm more comfortable with the English-language companies, simply because all the major sources will be in English. but as you said, this is fun for me too, and a learning experiance. Not surpring far a guy who read encyclopedias as casual reading at age 14!
In a different direction, the US piston engines also need to be done. To my knowledge, the system started aout as an Army-Navy one, but it seemed to catch on pretty quickly with US companies, since it was easy to determine displacment,and then stick the correct letter in front of it. I don't think any organization supervises the system today, it just keeps on going. I'll probably do it next, since I still have the US companies fresh in my mind. I don't think we'll have the room for every potential displacement number, so we'll have to limit it to engines we know actually existed, though redlinks should be fine. The V, R, and O engine types should be the largest sections, and I plan on following the basic format used by the USDOD Gas Turbine navbox. The PW, Continental, and Lycoming templates, along with some of the others, should already contain the bulk of the engine types, at least the major ones and ones with articles. After that, it should contine to grow as others add to it, and new articles are written. Good luck on your reading - not too many people understand curling up with a reference book! Or encyclopedia volume! - BillCJ ( talk) 06:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Gary, I noticed that you have been adding redlinks for the Rolls-Royce RB162, as I did last night. I was planning on asking you about the RB162 anyway. Do you have any info on the engine, and are you planning on working on an article near-term? Just asking, as I really don't have anything other than the Gunston encyclopedia. also, the RB193 appears to be a variant of the Spey, so we could probably add some info there, and create a redirect from Rolls-Royce RB193. - BillCJ ( talk) 17:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm about to split the Dassault Balzac V off of the Dassault Mirage IIIV page. I don't think this should be a problem, as de:Dassault Balzac V and ja:Dassault Balzac V are separate from their Mirage IIIV pages. Any thoughts? - BillCJ ( talk) 17:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking over the new Dassault Balzac V page. I got all the specs I could from the German page, as I've not been able to find them anywhere else. Have you looked at the German article? I skimmed though it with a translator, but some of the words didn't translate. I don't know if there is anything useful there or not. - BillCJ ( talk) 01:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Your driving safely is far more important than any WP article! Ah, the perks of no deadlines! - BillCJ ( talk) 09:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I just put the list of aircraft into alphabetical order (rather than article order) as it looked daft with a mixture of US designations and manufacturers name jumbled up. Do we have a naming convention for lists? I will go and ask. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I will clog my talk page not yours! Here goes:
A neat list using unpiped article names.
Now alphabetically arranged by manufacturer but the numbers are out of order.
A partial application list from the current Pratt & Whitney J57 article, a mixture of article titles with non-piped manufacturers, does not look good IMO. It can be corrected easily to:
Or not so easily (more typing) to:
Even here the manufacturers are in order but the numbers are out of order and two aircraft don't have names (not much we can do about that). I agree that sometimes there is no easy or right way of doing it but a general convention guideline would be useful. I was basically annoyed that my edit was followed just 11 minutes later by a 'correction' also indicating that my edits that night were being closely monitored, I really don't like that behaviour but have to live with it. I hope that you agree that I add constructive content to WP, do not under any circumstances become uncivil with other editors and above all retain an open and unbiased mind. I have just purchased another set of books for the project and hoped to use them to fill more gaps, barring any 'style' distractions and nit-picking. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
They have changed the template which has made a mess of your user page! MilborneOne ( talk) 09:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Eek-enheimer! Gary, I just had a look at the BMW page while looking at German aeroengine companies. What a messen! (Forgive the faux-German - my one-quarter German blood can't help it!) The article itself is quite a mess, but beyond my scope or desire to attempt to clean it up. For our purposes, it barely even mentions the aeroengines at all. I did happen to find Category:BMW Aircraft engines, which lists all (I hope) of BMW's aircraft engines. Could you look at the cat, and see if there are any engines left out? Thanks. The Junkers page wasn't too bad, and it has both an aircraft and engine list. However, the Daimler-Benz page has a one-sentence mention of aircraft, tank and submarine engines! And the article seems quite short for such a storied company. Again, that one is beyond my scope. - BillCJ ( talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks good! I've been trying to inmprove company articles as I go along, such as with the Garret AIResearch page. I/m not good at writing prose from scratch tho, which is why I haven't tackled Honeywell Aerospace yet. On "Variants and applications", I assume you mean to combine the sections when one or both are relatively small. Another section is "Derivitives", which could be a list, a text section, or the article could need both. As I'm sure you've noticed, there are alot of dervived engines that are not variants per se, but still do not have their own articles, and some are not lonly ikely to either. An example is the JTFD12 engine derived from the JT12. It's only application is the CH-54/S-64, and there's really not enough info on it to cover it on its own. Anyway, I'll try to start out on the DB engines tonight/tomorrow, if I can. - BillCJ ( talk) 02:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I generally try to look at the interwikis also, especially the German, then French or Italian, pages, and also the relevant interwiki for aircraft from non-English aircraft/engines. The German articles can be supringly good or bad, as you probably know. Often their more comprehensive than English Wiki, even on aircraft from ENglish speaking countries, and sometimes they even have article we don't. However,the German WIki also has huge gaps in their coverage, even of German types! I do try to add any interwiki articles I find, and I even add some of our articles, esp. the new ones, to the relevant non-Engilsh pages of the more-important types. I find some good pics that way too. - BillCJ ( talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
An RLM engine designations template sounds good.
On an unrelated issue, I was looking over the MTU Aero Engines article to see if it was worth making a template, as all the engines listed are collaborations with other companies. Anyway, it stated it was partly formed by MAN AG, so I read through the article. The is a somewhat-confusing MAN AG#Electrodynamic moving-off element section. which does not in any way define what a "moving-off element" is, though it uses the term several times. By context, this might be a transmission output shaft, perhaps a literally-translated term from German. The section is unclear, and de:MAN page does not seem to have a similar section, but perhaps there are links to a relevant article there. Any thoughts on this matter? Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 03:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, torque converter makes more sense. I've tagged the section for refs and clarity, so hopefeully it can be cleared up soon. - BillCJ ( talk) 04:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow glider pilot. I notice your offer of assistance in the discussion in the glider/sailplane debate. Looking through some of his previous talk pages, Wolfkeeper seems to be both misguided and determined, perhaps even bombastic. I am unsure how to deal with him but a start might be for you to support with Rlandmann's proposal on both the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Talk:Glider. Thanks JMcC ( talk) 19:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep - that's how to "un-redirect" a page! -- Rlandmann ( talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Gary, the Packard V-1650 has been created, but I've not done any makor work on it yet. (It's copied whole from the Merlin page.) I'll be working on the Eurocopter Ecureuil split for the next few hours, so feel free to work on the V-1650 page, even tho I have an {{ Inuse}} tag on the page. Thanks much! - BillCJ ( talk) 18:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
You know, I've just had it up to here with your insistence on using real facts and being polite in dealing with others in Wikipedia!! With that in mind, and, on behalf of others that have noted your stubborn belief in following rules and being compliant, versatile and well-meaning, hang this on your principles. BTW, your work has progressed remarkably quickly from a first submission to a DYK and you have shown some talent in writing while maintaining rigid adherence to high standards in research.
FWIW Bzuk 15:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
Thanks very much, I'm blushing now!! The system works if you follow the rules (although I don't know all of them yet). I will wear my 'Wikiwings' with pride. Nimbus227 15:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Gidday Nimbus! Welcome to '09. I hope you had a good Christmas and have some time for pursuing your favourite activities. Maybe you've been able to add to your library? Anyway Cheers from the other side of the (now) very small globe! Minorhistorian ( talk) 00:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the initial assessment of the above article. As the original contributor I do feel that your assessment is a bit harsh.
The "Start Class" summary states: "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources". It goes on to say:
The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
I have no experience in article assessment, so I bow to your knowledge here, but I would like you to have another look in the light of the following:
Thanks for your time - I look forward to hearing from you. -- TraceyR ( talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The template is coded to require the use of the B-class checklist for C- or B-class ratings. If the checklist isn't filled out the template shows it as Start-class, and categorizes it accordingly. I've done this for several reasons. According to Template:Grading scheme, in order for an article to be B-class, it needs to satisfy 6 criteria (Our requirement was developed earlier, and is for just the first 5). If any one of the five are "no", for example if it was not suitably referenced (#1), then at best it is a C-class article. If it only meets 2 or less (or none if the checklist isn't done) of the five then it is automatically assessed as start-Class. By using the checklist the article is placed in a number of maintenance categories. If you say "no" to criteria #1, it goes in Category:Aviation articles needing attention to referencing and citation, #2 is Category:Aviation articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy, etc. I've put instructions to this effect at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Project banner, but if more explicit warnings are required, I suppose I could add code to the template to have a warning pop up, how about "You have assessed this article as (C- or B)-Class. Until you complete the B-class Checklist, is will be assessed as Start-Class."
Overall I had hoped this system would enforce proper assessing of articles and the use of maintenance categories for better editing. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input at peer review. At the top of the Peer Review page it says "How to respond to a request ... If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not use level 1–3 section headings, and do not link your username, unless you preceed it with "Comments by" or a similar expression. Also please do not add horizontal rules to peer reviews." If you look at the chronological listing of peer reviews the numerical order of the Table of Contents gets messed up by headers higher than level four. I already do lots of peer reviews, mostly for requests who have not yet gotten any feedback at all, so I will pass on your kind invitation (and thank you again for your help there). Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi please can you look at Advance Motor Manufacturing Company sometime and advise on Aviation categories and any internal links? It started off as a simple bike manufacturer but ended up taking me on a couple of crash landings - and to the South Pole with Captain Scott.... Thanks Thruxton ( talk) 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you read through your last entry to check that it was what you really meant to say and to whom it was directed. JMcC ( talk) 15:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind remarks, Nimbus, re my modest article on this fine museum. Thanks also for 'facelifting' the article's presentation. I'm relatively inexperienced and inexpert at contributing to Wikipedia. In particular, I'm hopeless at 'clever' formats etc. I just don't know how to put forward to 'DYK'! Very happy for you to do so, if you wish! I looked at 'your' article on the XF-104 - very interesting - it puts Kbely in the shade. I've pleasant memories of seeing Dutch and other NATO 104's performing their extraordinary sharp turns - never could make out how such a small-winged aircraft could do that! RuthAS ( talk) 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your 10,000th Wikipedia edit! - Ahunt ( talk) 12:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 16:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Casting your considered eye over the elliptical wing section, does this look better? I've trimmed some of the extras and described the flaps which, as Binkersternet pointed out, were conspicuous by their absence. Amazing how such oversights still slip through even the most observant of editors! Minorhistorian ( talk) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
G'day from Oz. Nice work with regard to the Jacobs engine articles! YSSYguy ( talk) 20:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK that on 28 May 1931, a Bellanca CH-300 fitted with a Packard DR-980 diesel engine set a 55-year record for staying aloft for 84 hours and 33 minutes without being refueled?
Slow down, I can't keep up with you! You must be built for speed – ever thought about becoming User:Nimble (Lol)?! The Spit looks very good but spotted a few edit opportunities nevertheless; however, Spar (aviation) doesn't seem to gel somehow – not knowledgeable enough to do much about it though. -- Red Sunset 13:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
File:22+35 left side.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:F-104G 22+35 LashamGB.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:F-104G 22+35 LashamGB.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Bitter and changeable sums up the weather here today; still, it served to curtail the shopping ordeal (every cloud has a silver lining!).
I noticed that the main text gives the power output as 230 hp (covered by the Gunston ref at the end of the section I presume), but the specs state 250 hp (Jane's) – a bit confusing. Perhaps one or the other should be changed to match and re-reffed accordingly? I was going to transfer the displacement figure to the specs table before thinking that Jane's may differ on that as well (and I calculate it to be marginally less anyway); however, I was still a bit naughty and gave the bore and stroke values Imperial primary units since the metric ones do match. Any thoughts on these points?
I recall a discussion started by BillCJ some time ago over the confusion of radial and rotary engines, and "radial rotary" was a suggested way of distinguishing the radially-configured reciprocating piston type from the Wankel type rotary, but I hadn't realised that "radial" was only applied to the conventional rotating crankshaft type – oops! As a result, I've reinstated the radial wl in the later section. ;-) -- Red Sunset 19:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice work; yeah, only metric values from Jane's and a mixture of Imperial and metric in the specs table just looked plain odd to me! Enjoy your 'consistification' time! :-)) -- Red Sunset 20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass 07:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic idea! Thanks for thinking of it! AKRadecki Speaketh 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Armstrong Whitworth AW 23.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. During the move I changed the name of the image to better reflect Naming Conventions policy, the article that contained the image has been updated to reflect the new name as it exists now on Commons. Cheers! -- Captain-tucker ( talk) 20:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nimbus, I have a new suggestion up at Talk:Glider#Arbitrary_beak. All suggestions and comments are very welcome. Regards, AKAF ( talk) 12:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry guys but I've had enough, sayonara Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Many thanks!
I concur with you on absolutely every point; in particular with your characterisation of these articles now as "Fred said this, George said that" and that the claims of the stability of the articles were based upon having driven off contending views in disgust.
The mediation was in fact opened ( here) but is now a moot point since I reluctantly indef-blocked one of the disputing parties a couple of days ago for behaviour too depressing to recount.
Any help that you could bring to the table now would be most welcome; but in truth, these articles are such a mess now that it will be hard to know where to start. Take a look at this section on the mediation page. I seriously wonder what would be lost by finding an earlier version of each of the affected articles to roll back to...
But please - by all means, wade in. I seriously don't think there's any COI issue here. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gary, glad to know you're back in the swing, but a little time off occasionally for whatever reason is a good thing. Re the sig. thing – the best thing to do is look at mine in 'edit' with reference to the colour codes from Web colors and Hexadecimal HTML / Decimal RGB colour codes to see how to create letters of different colours. Then in "My Preferences", you need to fill the new sig in the space provided and tick the raw sig. box – et voila! It's possible to do other things like changing the font type but I can't remember how I did that when I was experimenting. Hope that helps. Cheers:) -- Red Sunset 22:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gary, just got in from work myself (no extra hour in bed for the wicked!) and taking a quick look at wos' hapnin'. It's surprising where you can find yourself getting involved on the Wiki – I suppose that's what makes it so interesting, not to say addictive. Never in a million years would I have thought I'd see myself editing a Shakespeare-related article, let alone create three new ones this week (well, two and a list), but there you go! My better half has decided what I'm supposed to do for the rest of the day, but I'll certainly drop in on the BEA Trident crash when I get the chance. ;-) -- Red Sunset 11:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(Heseltine still alive? citation needed – don't believe everything you read, this is the Wiki after all! Lol)
Hi Nimbus - yes - got it in one: it was a botched rollback in the process of correcting false precision errors introduced to the article, as you've already surmised. I've had a go at explaining the problem in more detail to the user concerned. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 18:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comprehensive response. Just out of curiosity, what was the other book you purchased? -- Rlandmann ( talk) 23:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, both the articles you've linked use the same infobox; it's just that there are some inputs missing in the Merlin article. Or, more precisely, the final form of the infobox supports a few more parameters than it originally did. (Remember that not every parameter supported by a template needs to be supplied in an article).
So the solution is simply to add the "missing" parameters to the Merlin article - the template reached its current version very quickly, so it's unlikely that many articles are missing the full set of parameters. The only way to fix this with automation would be to have a bot go through the articles and insert the missing parameters when it finds them; but programming the bot would probably be more labour-intensive than fixing the relatively few affected articles by hand!
Thanks for the feedback on the other issue too. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 21:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I've touched on the important points and cited refs wherever possible; however, I couldn't find a reference for the thrust values (copied from an unsourced article) of the system when driven by the F135 engine, other than the F135 itself is capable of 40,000 lb afterburner thrust (no use at all). I think this is an essential one to provide, and would rather not remove important unsourced info – any ideas? Secondly, I'm a bit undecided about the "Engineering challenges" section – the information I dug up seems to be reasonable and doesn't contain anything contentious – so I suppose the source is suitable enough?!? Thirdly, I basically padded the "Specs" section out with whatever I thought would be suitable, but it could be much better if I could find the info. I'd be grateful if you'd give it the once over and see what you can do in readiness for release, or take it from here and release it yourself – no problems either way. Cheers from a PITA! (Lol);-) -- Red Sunset 21:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Concur that this is almost certainly unfree: the way to handle such things is through
WP:PUI. The specific instructions are
here.
Wiki time is a little short this week (as you seem to have noticed!) - I've just started a fantastic new job which has come with a steep learning curve; so real life has taken its toll. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 12:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely; if we can replace a Russian source with an English-language one of the same reliability then we should do so. Shouldn't be hard for the British and American engines listed. At the same time, we should remove the link wherever we see; citing the book is OK, but since it was published in 1939, it's probably still protected by copyright... -- Rlandmann ( talk) 11:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
On the Russian web site, maybe add ( English translatation) to the reference. - Fnlayson ( talk) 01:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice work getting the Template:P&W gas turbine engines navbox started. I note that there are more engines to be added, and I'm trying to help with that as I can. I'll also try to add the group list formatting soon. I'm mainly trying to make sure we don't work at cross-purposes on the navbox, so I have a few questions. First, are you planning a separate navbox for the piston engines? Are there enough P&W piston engines to warrant a separate navbox?
Also, is it a good idea to lump the PWC engines in with the parent's engines? (Just asking on that one, as I honestly don't know.) Many of our Canadian editors like to claim that PWC is a completely separate company within UTC. While this may have been true for PWC's predecessor, United Aircraft of Canada, both the PW and PWC websites clearly list PWC as a division of PW, so having them on the same navbox makes some sense. However, if the PW navbox becomes too large, I wouldn't oppose splitting them up either.
Finally, how should we handle the military and civilian designations. There are several ways to do it, but we can discuss those on the template's talk page if you like. Thanks as always. - BillCJ ( talk) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I figured that, but just in case . . . Anyway, Template:GE aeroengines is finished and online. I ended up away from the telly with some time to play with, so there you go! - BillCJ ( talk) 19:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Gary, the Allison template was easy compared to the job for the next ones! Lycoming (turbines)/Garret/AlliedSignal/Honeywell is going to take some work. Putting the template togeter should be simple enough, but we aren't going to be able to use the company articles lists of engines, because, asside from Lycoming, there aren't any! In fact, the three non-Lycoming articles barely mention the aero engine businesses, and none give a good treatment.
The Lycoming Engines article is good enough as is, and its template should be easy to put together. Lycoming sold the turbine engine side to AlliedSignal in 1996, so listing all engines in production or under development before then should work.
The Garrett Systems article covers everything from the founding of Garrett AiResearch in the 1930s to the current company under Honeywell. Garrett AiResearch is currently a redirect to Garrett Systems, so I'd like to pull out most of the pre-Honeywell merger info for Garrett, and put it on the Garrett AiResearch page, with the focus on the aircraft engine line.
The next step will require more work, since there is no content on the turbine business in the AlliedSignal or Honeywell articles. I'd like to create the Honeywell Aerospace page to cover the tubine and other aerospace activities of Honeywell, and AlliedSignal to some extent. That will have to start out as a stub with an engine list, but hopefully it can be improved. Gunston's 2006 edition of his Aeroengines book does give enough info to make a good start.
Any thoughts, comments, corrections, or other options? - BillCJ ( talk) 18:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
No Problem, mon! This is WP - no deadlines! I'm not that up on the history of British engines, so it all balances out. I'll start on the Lycoming template next, then work on the Garrett/AlliedSignal/Honeywell engines on one template. I'm not sure those will be big enough to split up on there own, but we'll see how it looks when it's done. Take care! - BillCJ ( talk) 05:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Good work on this article! It looks a lot better than it did! - Ahunt ( talk) 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi again: no problem - that was just me trying to be over-precise!
If you are curious as to which aircraft we have owned I have a photo gallery of all six. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice going taking that photo of a Lycoming O-360! I have been looking for the opportunity to get a photo of one for a while! - Ahunt ( talk) 21:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Gary, as far as I can tell, there is no navbox for Snecma engines. Since you created Template:Turbomeca aeroengines, I thought I'd touch base (wicket?) with you before jumping in. Snecma has not had a lot of engines, so the template will be a bit short. An option is to combine it with another manufacturer, of which two come to mind. Since Tubomeca is now part of Snecma, that is an option. The other is to combine the Gnome et Rhône engines with Snecma, since Snecma was created by nationalizing Gnome et Rhône in 1945. However, Gnome et Rhône primarily made piston engines, while Snecma has generally made gas tubines, and I'd rather keep them separate at the moment.
I know next-to-nothing about Gnome et Rhône engines, so I'd rather not do that template. I can do the Snecma template, and we can see what it looks like, and then decide if merging it with one of the others is a good option, or if we should keep them all separate. Any thoughts? - BillCJ ( talk) 02:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Template:Snecma aeroengines is done!
Gnome et Rhône is next, and I hope to get on it in the next couple days. All I know about it is what is in the article, ans I'll take the engines lists from there. Hopefully it's accurate and comprehensive! Are there any major US companies I've left out? Westinghouse, perhaps, but I haven't found an article with a product list, and there are several subisiaries with articles, and I don't know which is the right one! Not sure where to go after this - any suggestions? - BillCJ ( talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, almost forgot Curtiss-Wright's Wright engines. Not alot of them, but it will make a neat navbox. And there is a list at Curtiss-Wright! - BillCJ ( talk) 22:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, Wright is done. Westinghouse should be fairly short also. It might take some research, but Williams shouldn't be very long either. I'm not sure what I'll do next, as I'm about finished with the engines I'm familiar with. I need to ask Ahunt about Canadian engine manufacturers. PWC is on the PW navbox, and the only other one I know of is Orenda. As you mentioned, the German and Russian companies need to be done, and the Japanese also. I'm more comfortable with the English-language companies, simply because all the major sources will be in English. but as you said, this is fun for me too, and a learning experiance. Not surpring far a guy who read encyclopedias as casual reading at age 14!
In a different direction, the US piston engines also need to be done. To my knowledge, the system started aout as an Army-Navy one, but it seemed to catch on pretty quickly with US companies, since it was easy to determine displacment,and then stick the correct letter in front of it. I don't think any organization supervises the system today, it just keeps on going. I'll probably do it next, since I still have the US companies fresh in my mind. I don't think we'll have the room for every potential displacement number, so we'll have to limit it to engines we know actually existed, though redlinks should be fine. The V, R, and O engine types should be the largest sections, and I plan on following the basic format used by the USDOD Gas Turbine navbox. The PW, Continental, and Lycoming templates, along with some of the others, should already contain the bulk of the engine types, at least the major ones and ones with articles. After that, it should contine to grow as others add to it, and new articles are written. Good luck on your reading - not too many people understand curling up with a reference book! Or encyclopedia volume! - BillCJ ( talk) 06:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Gary, I noticed that you have been adding redlinks for the Rolls-Royce RB162, as I did last night. I was planning on asking you about the RB162 anyway. Do you have any info on the engine, and are you planning on working on an article near-term? Just asking, as I really don't have anything other than the Gunston encyclopedia. also, the RB193 appears to be a variant of the Spey, so we could probably add some info there, and create a redirect from Rolls-Royce RB193. - BillCJ ( talk) 17:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm about to split the Dassault Balzac V off of the Dassault Mirage IIIV page. I don't think this should be a problem, as de:Dassault Balzac V and ja:Dassault Balzac V are separate from their Mirage IIIV pages. Any thoughts? - BillCJ ( talk) 17:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking over the new Dassault Balzac V page. I got all the specs I could from the German page, as I've not been able to find them anywhere else. Have you looked at the German article? I skimmed though it with a translator, but some of the words didn't translate. I don't know if there is anything useful there or not. - BillCJ ( talk) 01:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Your driving safely is far more important than any WP article! Ah, the perks of no deadlines! - BillCJ ( talk) 09:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I just put the list of aircraft into alphabetical order (rather than article order) as it looked daft with a mixture of US designations and manufacturers name jumbled up. Do we have a naming convention for lists? I will go and ask. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I will clog my talk page not yours! Here goes:
A neat list using unpiped article names.
Now alphabetically arranged by manufacturer but the numbers are out of order.
A partial application list from the current Pratt & Whitney J57 article, a mixture of article titles with non-piped manufacturers, does not look good IMO. It can be corrected easily to:
Or not so easily (more typing) to:
Even here the manufacturers are in order but the numbers are out of order and two aircraft don't have names (not much we can do about that). I agree that sometimes there is no easy or right way of doing it but a general convention guideline would be useful. I was basically annoyed that my edit was followed just 11 minutes later by a 'correction' also indicating that my edits that night were being closely monitored, I really don't like that behaviour but have to live with it. I hope that you agree that I add constructive content to WP, do not under any circumstances become uncivil with other editors and above all retain an open and unbiased mind. I have just purchased another set of books for the project and hoped to use them to fill more gaps, barring any 'style' distractions and nit-picking. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
They have changed the template which has made a mess of your user page! MilborneOne ( talk) 09:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Eek-enheimer! Gary, I just had a look at the BMW page while looking at German aeroengine companies. What a messen! (Forgive the faux-German - my one-quarter German blood can't help it!) The article itself is quite a mess, but beyond my scope or desire to attempt to clean it up. For our purposes, it barely even mentions the aeroengines at all. I did happen to find Category:BMW Aircraft engines, which lists all (I hope) of BMW's aircraft engines. Could you look at the cat, and see if there are any engines left out? Thanks. The Junkers page wasn't too bad, and it has both an aircraft and engine list. However, the Daimler-Benz page has a one-sentence mention of aircraft, tank and submarine engines! And the article seems quite short for such a storied company. Again, that one is beyond my scope. - BillCJ ( talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks good! I've been trying to inmprove company articles as I go along, such as with the Garret AIResearch page. I/m not good at writing prose from scratch tho, which is why I haven't tackled Honeywell Aerospace yet. On "Variants and applications", I assume you mean to combine the sections when one or both are relatively small. Another section is "Derivitives", which could be a list, a text section, or the article could need both. As I'm sure you've noticed, there are alot of dervived engines that are not variants per se, but still do not have their own articles, and some are not lonly ikely to either. An example is the JTFD12 engine derived from the JT12. It's only application is the CH-54/S-64, and there's really not enough info on it to cover it on its own. Anyway, I'll try to start out on the DB engines tonight/tomorrow, if I can. - BillCJ ( talk) 02:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I generally try to look at the interwikis also, especially the German, then French or Italian, pages, and also the relevant interwiki for aircraft from non-English aircraft/engines. The German articles can be supringly good or bad, as you probably know. Often their more comprehensive than English Wiki, even on aircraft from ENglish speaking countries, and sometimes they even have article we don't. However,the German WIki also has huge gaps in their coverage, even of German types! I do try to add any interwiki articles I find, and I even add some of our articles, esp. the new ones, to the relevant non-Engilsh pages of the more-important types. I find some good pics that way too. - BillCJ ( talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
An RLM engine designations template sounds good.
On an unrelated issue, I was looking over the MTU Aero Engines article to see if it was worth making a template, as all the engines listed are collaborations with other companies. Anyway, it stated it was partly formed by MAN AG, so I read through the article. The is a somewhat-confusing MAN AG#Electrodynamic moving-off element section. which does not in any way define what a "moving-off element" is, though it uses the term several times. By context, this might be a transmission output shaft, perhaps a literally-translated term from German. The section is unclear, and de:MAN page does not seem to have a similar section, but perhaps there are links to a relevant article there. Any thoughts on this matter? Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 03:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, torque converter makes more sense. I've tagged the section for refs and clarity, so hopefeully it can be cleared up soon. - BillCJ ( talk) 04:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow glider pilot. I notice your offer of assistance in the discussion in the glider/sailplane debate. Looking through some of his previous talk pages, Wolfkeeper seems to be both misguided and determined, perhaps even bombastic. I am unsure how to deal with him but a start might be for you to support with Rlandmann's proposal on both the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Talk:Glider. Thanks JMcC ( talk) 19:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep - that's how to "un-redirect" a page! -- Rlandmann ( talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Gary, the Packard V-1650 has been created, but I've not done any makor work on it yet. (It's copied whole from the Merlin page.) I'll be working on the Eurocopter Ecureuil split for the next few hours, so feel free to work on the V-1650 page, even tho I have an {{ Inuse}} tag on the page. Thanks much! - BillCJ ( talk) 18:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
You know, I've just had it up to here with your insistence on using real facts and being polite in dealing with others in Wikipedia!! With that in mind, and, on behalf of others that have noted your stubborn belief in following rules and being compliant, versatile and well-meaning, hang this on your principles. BTW, your work has progressed remarkably quickly from a first submission to a DYK and you have shown some talent in writing while maintaining rigid adherence to high standards in research.
FWIW Bzuk 15:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
Thanks very much, I'm blushing now!! The system works if you follow the rules (although I don't know all of them yet). I will wear my 'Wikiwings' with pride. Nimbus227 15:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Gidday Nimbus! Welcome to '09. I hope you had a good Christmas and have some time for pursuing your favourite activities. Maybe you've been able to add to your library? Anyway Cheers from the other side of the (now) very small globe! Minorhistorian ( talk) 00:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the initial assessment of the above article. As the original contributor I do feel that your assessment is a bit harsh.
The "Start Class" summary states: "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources". It goes on to say:
The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
I have no experience in article assessment, so I bow to your knowledge here, but I would like you to have another look in the light of the following:
Thanks for your time - I look forward to hearing from you. -- TraceyR ( talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The template is coded to require the use of the B-class checklist for C- or B-class ratings. If the checklist isn't filled out the template shows it as Start-class, and categorizes it accordingly. I've done this for several reasons. According to Template:Grading scheme, in order for an article to be B-class, it needs to satisfy 6 criteria (Our requirement was developed earlier, and is for just the first 5). If any one of the five are "no", for example if it was not suitably referenced (#1), then at best it is a C-class article. If it only meets 2 or less (or none if the checklist isn't done) of the five then it is automatically assessed as start-Class. By using the checklist the article is placed in a number of maintenance categories. If you say "no" to criteria #1, it goes in Category:Aviation articles needing attention to referencing and citation, #2 is Category:Aviation articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy, etc. I've put instructions to this effect at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Project banner, but if more explicit warnings are required, I suppose I could add code to the template to have a warning pop up, how about "You have assessed this article as (C- or B)-Class. Until you complete the B-class Checklist, is will be assessed as Start-Class."
Overall I had hoped this system would enforce proper assessing of articles and the use of maintenance categories for better editing. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input at peer review. At the top of the Peer Review page it says "How to respond to a request ... If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not use level 1–3 section headings, and do not link your username, unless you preceed it with "Comments by" or a similar expression. Also please do not add horizontal rules to peer reviews." If you look at the chronological listing of peer reviews the numerical order of the Table of Contents gets messed up by headers higher than level four. I already do lots of peer reviews, mostly for requests who have not yet gotten any feedback at all, so I will pass on your kind invitation (and thank you again for your help there). Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi please can you look at Advance Motor Manufacturing Company sometime and advise on Aviation categories and any internal links? It started off as a simple bike manufacturer but ended up taking me on a couple of crash landings - and to the South Pole with Captain Scott.... Thanks Thruxton ( talk) 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you read through your last entry to check that it was what you really meant to say and to whom it was directed. JMcC ( talk) 15:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind remarks, Nimbus, re my modest article on this fine museum. Thanks also for 'facelifting' the article's presentation. I'm relatively inexperienced and inexpert at contributing to Wikipedia. In particular, I'm hopeless at 'clever' formats etc. I just don't know how to put forward to 'DYK'! Very happy for you to do so, if you wish! I looked at 'your' article on the XF-104 - very interesting - it puts Kbely in the shade. I've pleasant memories of seeing Dutch and other NATO 104's performing their extraordinary sharp turns - never could make out how such a small-winged aircraft could do that! RuthAS ( talk) 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your 10,000th Wikipedia edit! - Ahunt ( talk) 12:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 16:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Casting your considered eye over the elliptical wing section, does this look better? I've trimmed some of the extras and described the flaps which, as Binkersternet pointed out, were conspicuous by their absence. Amazing how such oversights still slip through even the most observant of editors! Minorhistorian ( talk) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
G'day from Oz. Nice work with regard to the Jacobs engine articles! YSSYguy ( talk) 20:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK that on 28 May 1931, a Bellanca CH-300 fitted with a Packard DR-980 diesel engine set a 55-year record for staying aloft for 84 hours and 33 minutes without being refueled?
Slow down, I can't keep up with you! You must be built for speed – ever thought about becoming User:Nimble (Lol)?! The Spit looks very good but spotted a few edit opportunities nevertheless; however, Spar (aviation) doesn't seem to gel somehow – not knowledgeable enough to do much about it though. -- Red Sunset 13:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
File:22+35 left side.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:F-104G 22+35 LashamGB.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:F-104G 22+35 LashamGB.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Bitter and changeable sums up the weather here today; still, it served to curtail the shopping ordeal (every cloud has a silver lining!).
I noticed that the main text gives the power output as 230 hp (covered by the Gunston ref at the end of the section I presume), but the specs state 250 hp (Jane's) – a bit confusing. Perhaps one or the other should be changed to match and re-reffed accordingly? I was going to transfer the displacement figure to the specs table before thinking that Jane's may differ on that as well (and I calculate it to be marginally less anyway); however, I was still a bit naughty and gave the bore and stroke values Imperial primary units since the metric ones do match. Any thoughts on these points?
I recall a discussion started by BillCJ some time ago over the confusion of radial and rotary engines, and "radial rotary" was a suggested way of distinguishing the radially-configured reciprocating piston type from the Wankel type rotary, but I hadn't realised that "radial" was only applied to the conventional rotating crankshaft type – oops! As a result, I've reinstated the radial wl in the later section. ;-) -- Red Sunset 19:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice work; yeah, only metric values from Jane's and a mixture of Imperial and metric in the specs table just looked plain odd to me! Enjoy your 'consistification' time! :-)) -- Red Sunset 20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass 07:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic idea! Thanks for thinking of it! AKRadecki Speaketh 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Armstrong Whitworth AW 23.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. During the move I changed the name of the image to better reflect Naming Conventions policy, the article that contained the image has been updated to reflect the new name as it exists now on Commons. Cheers! -- Captain-tucker ( talk) 20:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nimbus, I have a new suggestion up at Talk:Glider#Arbitrary_beak. All suggestions and comments are very welcome. Regards, AKAF ( talk) 12:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry guys but I've had enough, sayonara Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)