User talk:Ericg/archives/2004/July-Oct

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Contents 1 Hawker Sea Fury 2 Air footer 3 New sports planes 4 Murphy Moose 5 Scaled Composites Proteus 5.1 Rutan Quickie

[edit] Hawker Sea Fury

Can you indicate the licenses for the images you uploaded? At the very least, it would be polite to credit Mr Leeuwen for Image:Seafury_2.jpg. And some of the text is still a bit close to http://www.laahs.com/art20.htm, not enough to be a copyright violation perhaps but if I can find the source, it's probably too close. Finally, it would have been nicer to fill out the tables rather than delete them. Sorry if I'm being a bit critical. If you need any help resolving these issues, just ask me or try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Geoff/Gsl 03:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for crediting the images. If you want to indicate your photo is released under the Creative Commons License, there are a number of templates you can use (depending on which version you want to use):

• {{cc-by-sa}} (see Template:Cc-by-sa)
• {{cc-by-nd}} (see Template:Cc-by-nd)
• {{cc-nd}} (see Template:Cc-nd)
• {{cc-sa}} (see Template:Cc-sa)
• {{cc-nc}} (see Template:Cc-nc)
• {{cc-nc-sa}} (see Template:Cc-nc-sa)

See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the rest. If you know an image is public domain, use the {{PD}} template. Another useful one is if you know it is free for non-commercial use, use {{noncommercial}}.

As for the rest, my plagiarism fears are allayed (thank you). I was aware you deleted an empty data table but my thinking was that an empty table would prompt someone to fill in the fields. Thanks again and apologies for the criticism. Geoff/Gsl 03:57, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Glad to be of help with the image tags. Thanks very much for contributing your excellent photos. As for use of the standard data table, there is no obligation to use it. On the other hand, someone who does like it may come along and reinstate it. Such is life on WP. However, I think the "Related content" footer-table should be restored. It provides a concise, standardised way to navigate from the article rather than having a list of "See also" links. Geoff/Gsl 05:09, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS. Another tip (which you can ignore at will). There is a series of "years in aviation" articles that are for aviation-related events which don't merit a place in the main year article. Typically you would link to 2003 in aviation using [[2003 in aviation|2003]] which then appears as just 2003. Most years are starved for content so feel free to add details of aviation events, etc. Geoff/Gsl 05:16, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Air footer

Hi eric - yes, the footer is problematic. It was originally designed for a different "skin" from the one that the 'pedia is now using. I put forward a suggestion that it needs attention on the Wikiproject Aircraft talk page a few days ago, but with little response so far. I might have a go at it myself (although table design isn't something I claim to have any particular talents in!) If you think you can come up with something, please suggest it for discussion. Cheers --Rlandmann 04:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm very impressed! Thank goodness for the benefit of fresh eyes. I'd definitely support a suggestion of a change in this direction --Rlandmann 05:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New sports planes

Hi eric! Your two latest entries take our September new articles tally past August's :) Yay! --Rlandmann 23:26, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Murphy Moose

I also got the metric specs from Murphy's site, but was curious to see that they also list imperial first. Up to now, I've been relying on the fact that Canada's been officially metric since 1970, but doing a little digging, it seems that the process is far from complete (with at least two deadlines for complete metrification lapsing in the 1990s) and has plenty of zealots on both sides of the fence :) Thanks for the heads-up.

I still think metric-first for Canadian aircraft makes more sense (if that's the direction that the country is headed), but maybe we need a Canadian to clue us up! --Rlandmann 05:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly, the page I referenced above contains this entry:

Maximum Range (NM/SM/KM) 1000 / 1150 / 2130

Which can't possibly be true. The nm to sm calculation is correct, but the conversion to km is way out. Shades of the Gimli Glider? ;) --Rlandmann 02:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Scaled Composites Proteus

I'm pretty sure I got it from Aviation Week, though I'd have to dig back to find the specific article. In any event, it's mainly in reference to the wing design. You can see that they are clearly derived. I clarified the page just a bit. -Joseph (Talk) 19:24, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

[edit] Rutan Quickie

I handily admit that I might be off on that one. The older aircraft are harder to find info on, and my expertise really lies in newer Rutan aircraft. In this case, it did say "Rutan" before I got there, and gave no indication of the Quickie company. Also, Rutan/Scaled seem to use that model nomenclature often, but if this was offered by another company, it would be an exception in the same vein as the Starship, V-Jet II, etc. Also, in that case, the name of the article itself was wrong. -Joseph (Talk) 06:03, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

The Aerofiles link at the bottom of our own Scaled page is one of them. But it looks like you're right. I'll adjust the article some. [1] -Joseph (Talk) 14:18, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)