User talk:Rlandmann/archive5
Thank you for uploading Image:HMVS Cerberus.jpg. Please leave a note on that page about where you got the image because of copyright law. I see several similar requests on your talk page. If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. --Ellmist 05:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And: Image:Eugen Sanger.jpg. Note that adding copyright info is not sufficient; the image must be tagged. If you let me know the status, I'll be happy to tag it for you. – Quadell (talk) (help) 20:42, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
Also:
- Image:Me328A.jpg -- Kbh3rd 03:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Untagged images[edit]
Hello. I was image tagging, when I came across the following:
I was unable to determine the copyright status, so I tagged them as "unverified". Could you add a proper image copyright tag to it? Pictures without tags will eventually be deleted. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (help) 20:55, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Aircraft Category Templates[edit]
Hi, I stumbled across Template:Military aircraft by decade2 and have added it to most of the US military aircraft categories; I hope this was appropriate. I've also nominated Template:1930s U.S. military aircraft by type for deletion as it's now obsolete. There are a couple other templates you've made that I'm not really sure about, would you care to list them + their purpose at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft or at Wikipedia:Navigational templates? Thanks, -Lommer | talk 02:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bölcke or Boelcke[edit]
Hi Rlandmann, Given the recent umlaut crisis over Hermann Göring, I got wondering about the correct name for Oswald Boelcke. All the books I have on WWI aviation use "Boelcke" while most still use umlauts for other German aces such as Ernest Böhme and Karl-Emil Schäfer. I found this site which claims Oswald changed his name to the Latin spelling with "oe" instead of "ö". I was wondering if you had any other information on his name or, if not, whether you have an objection to me moving the article back to Boelcke.
PS. Sorry for missing the Ford Trimotor duplicate. I thought it strange we didn't already have an article but I obviously didn't look very hard. Geoff/Gsl 02:10, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad to help. Unfortunately I picked up that you were away a bit late so might have missed a few articles. Also I am probably not as well atuned to aero-article names as you -- my new article patrol is pretty simple; just search on a few keywords, which can't really be done for aircraft articles. I will move the Boelcke article back shortly when I have some time to work on it. It will need to include the explanation of the spelling to prevent it being moved in future. Geoff/Gsl 10:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
oh, thanks a lof for taking time to introduce me into local ruleset![edit]
I'm new here and not familiar with such a tool like page discussion. As well as where to answer the personal messages...
Sure, i'll try to fix those updates ASAP.
--jno 11:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
aviation.ru materials[edit]
i have an antient disclaimer here :-)
actually, i have 3 kinds of materials on the site
* my own things (usually under /jno/, but with exceptions for antient entries) * stolen from the net with sources defined * stolen from the net without any notice
the last may violate some rights.
they are here for historical reasons (as the site was created initially as a link page, then i cache something locally just because of highly unstable network here in Russia in early 1990s, then collegues presented me this domain in 1996... ;-)
not-so-owned aviation.ru materials[edit]
here is the explicit list of contributors to aviation.ru. I believe, they (1) may be asked for exact permission or (2) be satisfied by "courtesy of..." notice.
At least, I grant the explicit permission to use any my images, articles, translations, etc from aviation.ru in any non-commercial Wikipedia projects freely.
A notice pointing to the source of material should be included, if possible.
--jno 12:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Il DB-3, etc...[edit]
what should i do to "release" the pages updated by information quoted from aviation.ru? like Il DB-3, R-12, R-14, RS-2U, ...
Thanks a lot![edit]
It seems i've clashed with your work on R-5M... I'd better off for a day to let the things get aligned.
Just fot your information: indicies like 1A23B5 are mostly known as "GRAU Index" assigned by GRAU (Main Rocket and Artillery Agency of Soviet Army). Some of them are decrypted here.
--jno 12:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
wow! you are butifying my ugly postings![edit]
I've completed (except for SB-2bis) filling gaps in the list of List of military aircraft of the Soviet Union and the CIS.
Thanks a lot for the assistance!
--jno 13:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
stubs[edit]
ok. i'll add a single stub mark per article, if applicable.
--jno 12:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
posting rules[edit]
ok. i'll try to follow the rules.
But i have a question: is there (at wiki) a technological provision to create a template for an article?
I mean, I'd like to have an ability to use something like that:
'''[[OKB]] aircraft''' is a Russian/Soviet aircraft that first flew in 19XX.
[[Image:_file_name_.jpg|thumb|right|300px|_a/c_name_here_]]
_article_text_
{{aero|mil|bio|corp-stub}}
{{airlistbox}}
[[Category:Russian/Soviet _role_ aircraft 19xx-19xx]]
just to be sure i didn't miss something...
--jno 12:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
aviation.ru[edit]
Oh, thanks a lot!
Now, i've found one more mistake made by me :-(
I have to repost my pictures to Wiki Commons now just to make them available for multilingual versions of Wikipedia...
--jno 11:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- @ Ka-60 page: Rybinsk is a town in Russia where an engine production facility is located. Maybe, it'd be better to change the link?
- @ Ka-8 page: the aircraft was not a civil one! it was intened as observatory/communications for VMF (russian navy).
--jno 13:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please, "move" the Yak-17.jpg to, say, Yak-17_at_Prague.jpg ! I've uploaded a better shot to Commons just under the same name (and could not "move" any of them).
--jno 13:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to just drop the image Yak-17.jpg uploaded to en.wiki. It should be then automagically replaced by the Yak-17.jpg uploaded to the Commons. The first picture is just too bad to show the aircraft.
I'm now trying to keep track of the uploads at my russian wiki page
--jno 07:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
WikiWings to you to[edit]
And I must reply with a WikiWings for you too. Its for your strong leadership of WikiProject Aircraft. You've earned it times ten, man! →Iñgōlemo← talk donate 01:16, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
- Maybe my awarding you the wikiwings broke the conventions you want it to follow, but in my opinion I say take it anyway. As I said above, your are definitely a leader of WikiProject Aircraft. Whenever there is any discussion over any sort of topic, you are there. I'd give you a barnstar, but the WikiWings somehow fits better. [[User:Ingoolemo|User:Ingoolemo/Sig]] 23:51, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
Downlooad[edit]
Dear Rlandmann: Hi! I was go-ing to come to say hi recently anyways, when I got permission to add a photo to the Rafael Hernandez Airport link. The photo is an aerial view of the airport's large runway.
I dont have a computer with memory enough to transport a photo from one site to the other. I was wondering if you could do that for me. Here is the link:[1] the guy wants to be credited for the photo.
Anyways, how arfe you doing? I havent heard from you in years.
Well thats all for now. Thanks for everything, and God bless you!
Sincerely yours, your friend, "Antonio Airport Martin"
Hey Land Mann: THANK YOU! THANK YOU so much for downmloading the photo! I did what you told me to do in the image page and I tried to download it into the airport's page.
(by the way, as you saw in Airliners.net, some idiot referred to Rafael Hernandez as Raphael..LOL trust me, I dont blame you because well, you just thought thats how its spelled, but, livng in P.R. for 17 years, it's spelled Rafael..LOL)
Guess what? It worked when I downloaded it to the airport's link! Its the first time in three years that Im able to download a wikipedia image into a page. I l;earned something new and Im very happy about that too.
Once again, THANK YOU! and God bless you!
Sincerely yours, your friend, "Antonio 32 year old teen Martin"
Aviadvigatel vs Soloviev/Isotov[edit]
Hi there,
I've found that some engines were renamed as "developed by Aviadvigatel". As far as I understand, the prefix before the name of a product should designate the developer and not the manufacturer.
Here we have, say, these two engines manufactured by Perm production amalgamation "Aviadvigatel" (the term mean just "aviation engine"):
Hence, I'd prefer to designate them as Soloviev D-25V and Izotov TV2-117 just for the same ideas as for names, say, Ilyushin Il-76 vs Tashkent Aviation Production Facility named after V.P.Chkalov Il-76.
--jno 14:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Greetings. Do you remember where Image:Hohmann transfer orbit.jpg came from? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:44, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Ecuatoriana de Aviacion photo[edit]
Hi there Rand! I got permission from Marcus Jellyman to upload a photo into our Ecuatoriana page, the only thing is...my system does not have jnp. photos..you think I can get a program with that on a store?
On the other side, here is the photo's link http://www.airliners.net/open.file/287202/s I was wondering if you could please upload it into the article for me.
As always, thanks, and God bless you!
Sincerely yours, "Antonio Wingman Martin"
where did You take this foto?--Emes 16:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar[edit]
Hey Rland: Just wanted to let you know I gave you a barnstar for your dedication to aviation, and as a way to thank you for all the things you've done for me. I downloaded the site you sent me. Thanks for that too. Let's see now if it works in my computer.
THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS YOU SO MUCH!!!
Sincerely yours, your friend, "Antonio Imagination with Wings Martin'
Thanks for the followup edit. If you have some pointers for things you'd like to see in articles typical of this one, please let me know. I've been adding a lot of them as I go through military nodes and find things missing. M101A1 and CH-21 Shawnee being examples of such. Avriette 17:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Westland Lysander.jpg listed for deletion[edit]
Various aircraft categories[edit]
Sorry, I could tell it was well-structured but couldn't see documentation (perhaps try dropping links to it in a few of the talk pages?). Please feel free to revert away if I broke any policy / there was some grand plan against which my edits militated. This is especially so since my changes ended up inconsistent (it stopped accepting my edits due to technical problems of some sort... I planned to go back to it and remedy this, but thought it might be better to wait and see if anybody picked up on it and disagreed with me). However, I don't think everything I did was completely awful.
- The good things I did: categories of the type "British bombers of the 1930s" etc are now using the appropriate template - previously the template contained all these categories but clicking on them often brought you to a category not using the template (especially if you strayed off the U.S. aircraft) but which ought to. This seems to have been a long-standing problem and I hope that I have corrected it.
- The bad things: inconsistently messed up the tree structure. Sorry. I'd at least have been consistent if the edits didn't stop being accepted. One of the things I did prefer was having e.g. "British military aircraft by type" and "British military aircraft by decade" subcategories rather than putting them all onto the same "British military aircraft" page (it looked a bit cluttered - although this could be solved by other means, such as reordering the contents), then having additional categories like "Planes of the [decade] by nationality", although I can see why others may prefer not having extra subcategories (essentially it's something that templates can do much better, information may be less clicks away if it's not broken down into so many subcats, and it also cuts down on category-inflation - I was specifically thinking of what happened to the categories like (1) "[nationality] [military aircraft type]" and (2) "[nationality] [military aircraft type] of the 19[decade]s" if the nationality wasn't significant enough to be used on in the template - it seemed nice to have appropriate supercategories - in case (1), "[Military aircraft type] by nationality" and (2) "[Military aircraft type]s of the 19[decade]s by nationality" and "[Nationality] [military aircraft type]s by decade" - for all such categories to fit into, whether template-worthy or not. That was my reasoning, but it seems I messed up something that others like so I apologise.)
- Things you might want to consider: To get the aforementioned template working fully, you'd need to change a lot of the "Czechoslovak [military aircraft type] of the 19[decade]s" into "Czech and Czechoslovak..." which seems silly but justifiable in decades when the Czech Republic was not independent. Also there seemed to be some dual use of "Russian and Soviet" and "Soviet and Russian", although the latter was clearly preferred, if I remember correctly. (I guess it might make sense to have consistency in historical order in successor-state categories e.g. both "Czech and Czechoslovak" and "Russian and Soviet"; or "Czechoslovak and Czech" and "Soviet and Russian", but it's not really a massive deal. I wonder if there is some policy on this somewhere?)
Very sorry for any extra work created, I hope the observations that I did make will be in some way useful! --VivaEmilyDavies 14:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and I should also say that if my tree structure suggestions are not disagreeable, I would be more than happy to do the follow-up work and make other categories consistent. --VivaEmilyDavies 14:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You are quite correct, and if the template worked properly then the extra categorisation levels become pretty pointless anyway. Therefore, I will soon revert those tree edits which are problematic (I'd rather commit some time to it to make sure I do it thoroughly, so it might take a few days before I can find the time to do it in one sitting). The template does need some work put into it, I may direct some effort into that as well. Can categories redirect? If so, then one plausible solution for some of the problems is to split successor states on the template (so Czech and Czechoslovak appear as separate links), with clicking on either "Czechoslovak"- or "Czech xxxx of the 1990s" resulting in a redirect to "Czech and Czechoslovak xxxx of the 1990s" and so on. You are right, "Soviet and Russian airliners 2000-2009" is just not on! (A second irritant of the template: once you are in National Type of the Decade, you can't easily get back up to National Type - clicking on any National Type2 takes you to National Type2 of the Decade, and clicking on National2 takes you to National2 Type of the Decade - so some workaround for down-tree navigation might be handy). Again, sorry for creating the fuss. Incidentally, because I like to think in cross-branch terms, I visualised the original breakdown you gave as:
- Supermarine Spitfire
- cat British fighter aircraft 1930-1939
- cat British fighter aircraft OR cat Fighter aircraft 1930-1939
- (cat British military aircraft OR cat Fighter aircraft) OR (cat Fighter aircraft OR ?cat Military aircraft 1930-1939 by type)
- cat Military aircraft (perhaps with ?cat Aircraft 1930-1939 by role for ?cat Military aircraft 1930-1939 by type)
- cat Aircraft
- cat Military aircraft (perhaps with ?cat Aircraft 1930-1939 by role for ?cat Military aircraft 1930-1939 by type)
- (cat British military aircraft OR cat Fighter aircraft) OR (cat Fighter aircraft OR ?cat Military aircraft 1930-1939 by type)
- cat British fighter aircraft OR cat Fighter aircraft 1930-1939
- cat British fighter aircraft 1930-1939
- Supermarine Spitfire
Thinking like that lets me see how a user might try to get between e.g. Supermarine Spitfire and Messerschmitt Bf 109, which seems in some respects as important as the speed from getting from bottom to top of tree, but it also looks unnecessarily complicated when written down! However, I suspect that having this kind of thing in mind helps slightly when considering the template. --VivaEmilyDavies 16:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why this punctuation? RickK 00:09, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Standardizing of Williams X-Jet article[edit]
Thank you for the changes and additions (esp. the metric conversions -- I was not looking forward to doing that!) you made to the Williams X-Jet article. And thanks for the Template:Did you know nomination! --JimCollaborator 22:45, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused by the image description page of Image:Avia S-199.jpg. First it says unknown, then public domain, then fair use. ---Ellmist 03:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Aerosonde[edit]
Thank you for your tips on standardization of the Aerosonde (Insitu Aerosonde) article. I want to add further information, but need some advice. Would you please respond to my questions on the Talk:Insitu Aerosonde page? Greatly appreciated! --JimCollaborator 02:10, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Australian law stubs[edit]
Thanks, yes I had intended to build up the List of High Court of Australia cases in layers (citation stubs for everything in the list first, then go back and flesh out the articles), but if, as you say, those stubs are vulnerable to speedy deletion at the moment, I'll do them in more substantial chunks. Thanks. --SilasM 04:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
X-Planes pages layout[edit]
Hey, thanks for the message Rlandmann! I don't suppose there is a reason the switch has been made from the nicely laid out tables, to the relatively bland bullet points and lists for the specs and footers parts of the x-plane pages? The only reason I could think of was to make the page look less like a website and more like a book article or something, which is understandable. Was there some sort of discussion on this i can read somewhere?
Also, is there some sort of tag we can use to automatically format the data in the currently preferred way, so if that changes again in the future the data can be instantly changed to the new preferred layout, like CSS does for HTML?
Thanks for your help, glad to see some people are out there proofreading, I was always horrible at that! Fxer 16:40, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and explanation, I did notice that messing with all the tables was tiresome to edit after doing a couple dozen ;) The simplified layout does seem superior now that I work with it. I've updated the X-1 and Hiller X-18 pages, hopefully conforming to the new standard, I was hoping you would take a look at them and let me know if there are some more things that could/should be changed before I continue updating other x-planes pages. Thanks again!
-Justin Fxer 21:48, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for all the tips on the layout of aircraft pages! Also thanks for cleaning up the articles, things that I missed or screwed up :) I've been working on getting some old USAF images too, a number of the x-planes didn't have pictures like the Bell X-9. Also I added the Lockheed X-17 page, and will be trying to make at least stubs for the remaining few x-planes that have no representation on wikipedia :) Again, thanks a lot for your guidence and touch-ups!
Fxer 18:02, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
While I appreciate your efforts in updating this page, I'd like to ask you to to take the items you add from the bottom of The archive section at Template talk:Did you know to avoid a number of items being skipped (which your edit did). Happy editing! 131.211.210.16 11:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Replies to MacGyverMagic, please!
Date format in aircraft articles[edit]
Hi Rlandmann, Following up my "objection" to the B-36 article, I looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and there is an approved way of doing dates in year-month-day but only in ISO 8601 format (2005-03-30). Done in this way, a user's preferences can convert it to another format (30 March 2005 or even 2005 March 30). Unfortunately the Aircraft project's use of "years in aviation" doesn't produce valid, convertible dates. I know piping years is frowned upon and while I like it for "first flight" and "entered service" dates, perhaps it should now be removed as an instruction for aircraft articles and its use deprecated. What do you think? Geoff/Gsl 23:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I noticed Gdr used the ISO format, and given he's an editor I greatly respect that made me think twice about my objection to Ingoolemo's practice. I didn't have a date format preference set so reading articles using the ISO format was even more difficult than Ingoolemo's style. Geoff/Gsl 02:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
X-plane Format Goof[edit]
Rlandmann, sorry about the format goof on the X-28 and X-27 articles. I will use the proper format in future articles and update my previous articles to the current format. Thanks for the information on the update.Rapier Shade 16:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Rlandmann, thank you for the continued assistance on the x-plane articles I am currently working on. I am very new to the wikipdeia community and it is helpful to have people who are willing to assit a newbie in this way. I am sure that there are many of us who find that we have not quite gotten an article to the point it needs to be and the editting of others makes for a more correct and useful article. My thanks again. Rapier Shade 11:40, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Category redirection[edit]
I have discovered that it is possible to set up a category as a redirect page to another category (I wanted to move Cat:People of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian people in line with almost all other members of Category:People by nationality, but was surprised to find that that my suggested new name appeared in blue - and even more surprised when clicking on it brought me back to my own cfr notice!). This will hopefully provide a solution to some of the "Czech and Czechoslovak..." and "Soviet and Russian..." quandaries. For example, the template can be used to get to "Soviet and Russian bombers of the 1940s" but that category could simply redirect to "Soviet bombers of the 1940s". --VivaEmilyDavies 02:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Good spot. I'd hate to see what would happen if double redirects started happening in the category trees! I can see the developers playing around with this for some time to come! --VivaEmilyDavies 03:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Aircraft layout, are these depreciated tables?[edit]
Often when I am updating aircraft pages to the new 2005 standard (specifications and related content areas mostly) I run into these tables linking to other aircraft. Should they be left on the page, or is their use depreciated? I would think that there would be a template like the airlistbox link at the bottom of every aircraft page that would make adding a table like these much much easier and more maintainable, if they were still desired at all. Thanks for your help!
| Modern USAF Series | Miscellaneous | |
| Attack--OA/A-10,AC-130H/U | RC-135V/W | |
| B-1B Lancer | Bomber--B-52,-2,-1B,F-117A | OC-135B |
| B-2 Spirit | Fighter--F-15/E ,F-16 | KC-10,-135 |
| B-52 Stratofortress | Electronic--E-3,-4B,-8C EC-130E/J,H | HC-130P/N |
| F-117A Nighthawk | Transport--C-5,-17,-141B, -20,-21 | MC-130E/H/P |
| C-22B, -32, -130, -37A, -40B/C | MH-53J/M | |
| Trainers--T-1, -37, -38, -43, -6 | HH-60G | |
| Weather--WC-130, -135 | UH-1N | |
| UAV--RQ-1/MQ-1 UAV, Global Hawk | U-2S/TU-2S | |
| VC-25 |
|
Current USAF aircraft - Bombers | |
|---|---|
|
B-1B Lancer - B-2 Spirit - B-52 Stratofortress - F-117A Nighthawk | |
==Aston DB9==[edit]
Right now DB9 is a redirect for a miniature electronics connector, and almost certainly not relevant to the automobile. Can someone amplify on the car and get rid of this redirect? --Wtshymanski 02:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
==List of Aircraft engines==[edit]
Thanks for all the aero engine stuf. As a relative newbie I've some questions. Articles in category "Aircraft piston engines" updates automatically. The List of Aircraft Engines does not. Is the latter obseleted by the categories ? Also, any chance of a template for engine specifications ? PeterGrecian 13:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)