User talk:M Van Houten
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, M Van Houten, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Aircraft article assessments
Thanks for taking the time to assess aircraft-related articles. It would be a big plus if, when you do so, you also add comments (link is on the project tag in small print), as that's how us authors get an idea of what you'd like to see improved. Thanks! Akradecki 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dornier Do 335
About the assessment of the Dornier Do 335. Wouldn't it be fairer to give the aircraft a "mid" importance, instead of "low"? It is quite a famous type in aircraft circles, although only operational in small numbers.--MoRsE 12:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sopwith Dolphin
M. Van Houten, you have done a magnificent job in documenting this aircraft, congratulations! Bzuk 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Aviation Newsletter delivery
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ukrainian 1918 Flag
You've changed flag template in SPAD S.VII article from proper 
Ukraine to 
Ukraine. I'm aware that flag in first one is not displayed, but it's SVG file issue, not template. I've made revert of your edit. --Piotr Mikołajski 10:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've tweaked your solution a bit and I hope someone will repair that flag. --Piotr Mikołajski 18:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image width
Please don't set fixed width in aviation articles, we use thumbnails instead. --Piotr Mikołajski 08:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, please conform your edits to WP:MOS. You may not be aware of it, but by putting fixed image widths into the thumb coding, you are disabling the user preferences feature that allows the users to decide how big thumbs get displayed. This is a part of Wikipedia, because not everyone around the world (or in the US for that matter), have nice big hi-res monitors. I sometimes edit/read on a 800px wide monitor, and having large, fixed thumbs is a serious annoyance. That's why MOS stipulates that unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise, thumb sizing should be left to the individual to determine. If you're not familiar with how to set your thumb size preferences, go to the "my preferences" tab and select the "files" tab. Thanks! Akradecki 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if it seems like it's selective enforcement. Just because some folks are not aware of the MOS stipulations doesn't mean everyone gets to ignore them. MOS exists for a reason, to standardize things. It seems a bit presumptive for you to intentionally disable the user preferences that others decide on, and force your view of how things should look on them. I realize that you're relatively new, so that's why I wanted to give you the detailed explanation. The bottom line, though, is that you should honor the MOS and give other readers and editors the respect of not disabling the user preferences function. Akradecki 04:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you don't like the term presumptous, but what else do you call it when a person ignores what the MOS says, ignores a polite explanation of the technical reasons of why you shouldn't hard code thumb sizes, and insists that everyone should view things the way you want to see it? You are presuming to know what's best for everyone, presuming that you are exempt from our guidelines, and presuming that your view of how the images should look supersedes all others. If you want to see them that size, then set your user preferences to that size, and allow others to view them as they prefer. If you don't think this whole thing is a good idea, take your argument to the MOS talk page. In the meantime, that's our guideline. It allows some deviation for some very specific reasons, none of which apply to what you're trying to do. As for infoboxes, there has been talk about addressing them in the MOS, but meanwhile they are addressed in the Project guidelines, and images used within an infobox are generally considered exempt from the thumb sizing rule. Again, please honor the MOS. Akradecki 19:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not at all offended by your questioning me. I am disappointed, however, that you don't seem interested in conforming your edits to our guidelines, but that's about as far as it goes. I think it's rather ironic that you protest my tone, yet you use a confrontation tone in your edit summaries, and your are clearly unwilling to respect the guidlines around here. A project of this magnitude takes a lot of folks working together, and guidelines are important to make sure there's uniformity. I don't like all the guidelines, either, but what I want and what I like is irrelevent. Likewise, you may not like the way thumbs are done around here, but if you want to work as a team with everyone else, it really helps to work within the guidelines.Akradecki 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to kindly reccomend that you listen to the helpful editors above. The mos is generally drawn up to help with the ease of understanding for all parties involved, not just the editors. The above editors have work3ed on aircraft articles for quite a while, and are generally understand the manual of style pretty well. If you edit war over this, or show disruptive behavior, you may end up with a short term block. i really hope it does not come to this. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not at all offended by your questioning me. I am disappointed, however, that you don't seem interested in conforming your edits to our guidelines, but that's about as far as it goes. I think it's rather ironic that you protest my tone, yet you use a confrontation tone in your edit summaries, and your are clearly unwilling to respect the guidlines around here. A project of this magnitude takes a lot of folks working together, and guidelines are important to make sure there's uniformity. I don't like all the guidelines, either, but what I want and what I like is irrelevent. Likewise, you may not like the way thumbs are done around here, but if you want to work as a team with everyone else, it really helps to work within the guidelines.Akradecki 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you don't like the term presumptous, but what else do you call it when a person ignores what the MOS says, ignores a polite explanation of the technical reasons of why you shouldn't hard code thumb sizes, and insists that everyone should view things the way you want to see it? You are presuming to know what's best for everyone, presuming that you are exempt from our guidelines, and presuming that your view of how the images should look supersedes all others. If you want to see them that size, then set your user preferences to that size, and allow others to view them as they prefer. If you don't think this whole thing is a good idea, take your argument to the MOS talk page. In the meantime, that's our guideline. It allows some deviation for some very specific reasons, none of which apply to what you're trying to do. As for infoboxes, there has been talk about addressing them in the MOS, but meanwhile they are addressed in the Project guidelines, and images used within an infobox are generally considered exempt from the thumb sizing rule. Again, please honor the MOS. Akradecki 19:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if it seems like it's selective enforcement. Just because some folks are not aware of the MOS stipulations doesn't mean everyone gets to ignore them. MOS exists for a reason, to standardize things. It seems a bit presumptive for you to intentionally disable the user preferences that others decide on, and force your view of how things should look on them. I realize that you're relatively new, so that's why I wanted to give you the detailed explanation. The bottom line, though, is that you should honor the MOS and give other readers and editors the respect of not disabling the user preferences function. Akradecki 04:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image placement
- Copied from my talk page: "Hi Bzuk, I'm in doubt. Do I understand correctly that standard says there is no images put between {{Infobox Aircraft}} and first sections' heading? I couldn't find any reference for that, but from my point of view it's logical - it's easier to edit one section than whole article. If I'm right, could you be judge in Sopwith Dolphin article? I don't want to revert someone's revert. Regards and TIA, Piotr Mikołajski 06:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"
-
- My reply: Good question. I know when I saw that note on the Sopwith Dolphin article's edit history, I wasn't sure what the "standard" is and made a mental note to check back later. I will do that now and get back to you. BTW, fantastic work on the aircraft articles you have been editing.
-
-
- M Van Houten, I am not sure about the answer to the question posed above by Piotr Mikołajski. Is there a "standard" as to placement of images in MOS? Bzuk 11:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
-
[edit] Copyedits
Copyedit from my talk page: "We are both apparently copyedit fiends. I have to say, though, I'm not aware of any convention to e serial numbers. It's not in the WP style manual, and I don't see that in any of the books on World War I aviation, where referring to aircraft by serial number is fairly common. Maybe for civil aviation codes, e.g., G-FDFE, but I have no opinion on that. As for the word "frontline," that's in the dictionary. Send me a note, let me know what you think M Van Houten (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"
No, I am just a pedantic fool, but as to italicizing serial numbers, it is invariably one of the "editor's choice" decisions as it serves to identify an individual aircraft, but I am not wedded to any particular convention regarding this type of edit. As for the word "frontline," it's a modern spelling convention that allows for both spelling derivations. If you read this text in edit mode, you will also notice that Mozilla Firefox which has an active spelling dictionary, identifies the word as misspelled, which is what happened when I read the original text in Sopwith Triplane; making a correction to "front line", and the word reverts to "correctly spelled." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Sopwith Triplane production
Copyedit from my talk page: "Bzuk, could I trouble you to look in your Windsock Datafile and see what Bruce lists as the production number? I have only his very old Profile from the 60's, where he says 147 to 150. Actually, I would lobby for the number 152. M Van Houten (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)." I have varying figures but Winchester uses "150" in total with prototypes. I'll check my local sources at the library in the next two days to get a definitive answer. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
Every source I have come up with lists "150" as the total produced, although Bruce Robertson's Sopwith- The Man and His Aircraft (1970) actually lists all the contracts and manufacturers of every Sopwith product. Here is the breakdown of Sopwith Triplane manufacturing: Sopwith production: N500 Prototype (110 hp Clerget), N504 Prototype (130 hp Clerget), Contract (1 October 1916) CP125849/16 for 75 aircraft, N5420-N5494, Contract CP138323/16 for 20 aircraft, N6290-NN6309, Contract for French government, for four aircraft, N524-N541. Sub-contacting to Clayton & Shuttleworth Ltd. (2 December 1916), Contract for 40 aircraft, N5350-N5389, Contract for six aircraft with twin Vickers armament, N533-N538, Contract for 106 aircraft (A9813-A9918) cancelled with allocation unused.
Totals:
- Sopwith production: 3 Prototypes, 95 production aircraft
- Clayton & Shuttleworth Ltd. production: 46 production aircraft
- Oakley & Co. Ltd.: 3 production aircraft
- Final total: 147 Sopwith Triplanes
Now where do the missing three aircraft come from? Sopwith had proposed three "project fighters" based on the Sopwith Triplane including two single-seaters powered by 150 hp and 200 hp Hispano engines along with a three-seat reconnaissance version powered by a 250 hp Rolls-Royce engine. As far as I can determine, none of these three projects proceeded beyond a "paper" proposal. All other modified or "special" Sopwith Triplane aircraft were obtained from available stocks. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC).
I will accept that Oakley may have completed three aircraft but that is still a debatable point. FWIW "150" probably is safe. Bzuk (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC).
After referring to a number of different sources, Peter M. Bowers and Ernest R. McDowell's Triplanes: A Pictorial History of the World's Triplanes and Multiplanes (1993) has the most authoritative listing of all production contracts and emphatically declares there were only 147 Triplanes built. FWIW, I have changed the article to reflect the actual production totals. Bzuk (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Dates and such
Hi M, here is the pertinent section on dating: Longer periods Months are expressed as whole words (February, not 2), except in the ISO 8601 format. Abbreviations such as Feb are used only where space is extremely limited, such as in tables and infoboxes. Do not insert of between a month and a year (April 2000, not April of 2000). WP:SEASON Seasons. Because the seasons are not simply reversed in each hemisphere—and areas near the equator tend to have just wet and dry seasons—neutral wording may be preferable (in early 1990, in the second quarter of 2003, around September). Use a date or month rather than a season name, unless there is a logical connection (the autumn harvest). Seasons are normally spelled with a lower-case initial. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC).
-
- Again reading into the MOS guide, it simply is a guide but a recommendation for a simple form rather than then more complex leads you to "summer 1917" rather than "summer of 1917" which brings you back to how you recognize years. Bzuk (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC).
- Putting the issue into simpler terms: choose the more effective phrase below:
- Again reading into the MOS guide, it simply is a guide but a recommendation for a simple form rather than then more complex leads you to "summer 1917" rather than "summer of 1917" which brings you back to how you recognize years. Bzuk (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC).
