Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/short table debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is there a short version of the table on the main page? It seems completely pointless. If the main table needs to be cut down then it should be done on an individual case. David Newton 23:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Its just a matter of convienence, rather then having to manually remove the categories each time and for aircraft without a full listing of information. Greyengine5 00:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with David - I've removed it (twice now, from two different places on the page). With respect, Greyengine5, you don't even use these data tables - we've got a table that everyone seems reasonably happy with. Let's leave it at that or discuss and reach consensus before making changes. --Rlandmann 01:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If its that much of a problem for you even at the bottom there I'll put it on its own sub-page. I think the shortened table has merit whether or not its highly used. The short table is easly expanded to the full one, and the amount of data for the full one is often not easily available.

As for not using the current table-I have been waiting for the basic structure to be completed so variants (such as this short table) look similair to it. I was going to see what suggestions people had for this short table, and use that after a finalization.

I was not expecting such a total rejection since I based it directly off the table you suggested to me. The level of variety in aircraft, and the kind of pages for them, doesn't seemed to be served well by such a rigid adherence to exactly one table (that must be repeatedly modifed). Having a few sub-types is much more convenient and sacrifices little to the downsides of destandardization. Greyengine5 03:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cutting directly to the chase - as I see it, there is absolutely no need for this constant tinkering. I did not suggest a table to you - I merely responded to your question about if I had my way, what would I include. I am reasonably happy with the longer table, and as far as I can tell, so is everyone else. Even if it wouldn't be my personal first pick, I will continue to use the current standard - that is the nature of consensus. The suggested "short table" invites people to use it in place of the longer one, thereby eroding the "standard" nature of the table. What do you suggest are the benefits of the shorter table?

I have personally used the current table with a variety of different aircraft types, and seen it used by others on a wider variety. Based on everything I've written or read so far, I can personally assure you that the current table works well and doesn't need any more "help". The only time I had to make major modifications was for the helicopter I used it on (AgustaWestland EH101). Even then, it was just a case of swapping "wingspan" for "main rotor diameter" and "wing area" for "main rotor area".

Based on your actions to date, I now have visions of this "Other tables" page soon overflowing with numerous minor variations on the theme. In my opinion, that would be a Bad Thing.

Experience shows me that the only "Other tables" that it might be useful to have are a helicopter version (to ensure standardisation of what we translate "wingspan" and "wing area" to) and perhaps metric-first versions of the table and helicopter table (just as convenient templates).

I'm extremely tempted just to go ahead and revert your latest attempts at table proliferation, but I'll wait until someone else here chimes in so I can see whether I'm too off-base here. --Rlandmann 04:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Once again I dont understand many of these comments. Im sorry if insinuated that you officially suggested that table, but aside from that I already explained my reasons. How "a few subtypes" becomes a 'proliferation' and what I thought was a resonable suggestion becomes a 'tempting reversion target' exceeds my understanding of the current project goals. All i can say is I will continue my work on tables and offer them on the project for those who would want to use them. Greyengine5 04:56, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The only reason you've given for wanting to add another table is because you feel that some data on the longer table may be hard to find for some types. The simple solution is just to leave it out if it's too hard to find - someone else will come along later and fill it in if the information is indeed out there (and for some obscure types, it well may not be, in which case the blanks speak for themselves).

I chose the word "proliferation" because I've lost track of how many variant tables you've advocated so far - and wonder how many more are to come.

I maintain my position that the Wikiproject page is not the place to be advocating your own personal alternatives to what the consensus of contributors is already using. What table you personally choose to use for your own contributions is, of course, your own choice. --Rlandmann 05:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-Yet again I don't understand these comments. Lack of data, outright, is NOT the only reason I suggested. Having subtypes is convienent and they can be easily expanded into the larger form, not to mention the reasons you suggested yourself for subtypes. Aside from that, many minor aircraft do not need a full table- and information can be filled in later same as with the empty tables. Also, repetitious deletion of categories for every 'helicopter' page, for example, is a waste of peoples time.

-The long sought after finished main table has effectively been reached, thus I started work on subtypes that may be of use to people, such as this short table. As I said earlier I hoped people would offer there suggestions and then it too would be finalized, now much easier since the 'basic structure' of the table is complete (also mentioned before).

-The idea that im advocating "personal alternatives" is totally contradictory to what i though was happening with this project. I viewed my work as part of the contribution team that has created the table, and these new ideas and extention of that. They have always been up for and part of the consensus of contributors, the same has everbody else's changes and ideas.

I will it admit to being bold and suggesting so many ideas, you 'have lost count'- but its criticism I gladly accept- becasue its benifited the project and it benifited the wiki. Greyengine5 06:31, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic of having a subtype unless there's a particular class or category of aircraft where the same data is missing, inapplicable, or hard to find. I disagree vigorously with arbitrarily suggesting that "many minor aircraft do not need a full table", if only because of the subjectivity of defining a "minor aircraft".

I'm sorry if you're offended by the suggestion that these are "personal alternatives", but when you make broad changes without any prior discussion or warning, it's hard to draw a different conclusion. --Rlandmann 07:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-I am offended by the manner and amount of work you have put into countering an idea that does not seem that unreasonable to me.

-The short table of course has its drawbacks, but serves a usefull role in standardizing the many pages where only few facts are listed. It can be expanded easily since it has a identical format. I dont think it 'erodes' the standard as is it will aid in the distrobution of the basic table code. I also do not view suggesting a specific table design as "broad change".

- The general use of subtables is already happening as people make them, and making tables that adapts to these need is a matter of convinence. The 'hard time' you have in 'drawing' correct conclusions is a confusion over the nature of wiki, as virtially all changes to the table have been made first and disccussed later, from the choice for the intial table, to the many categories that have been added, to minor coding issues.

-I am not exacly sure why this issue is so problematic after good resolutions of countless other issues, such as the kg-kgf, dates, manufacturer, table categores, etc, but I do know it must end, as this debate doesn't seem to be accomlishing such resolution.

-To this end, i propose a comprimise consiting of: a unconditional withdrawl of my support for the short table. I will use the full table and not use any abridged table, in the manner you describe. On the other hand, I will continue to create other tables and offer them for discuusion and potential use by you are anyone else interested in them. Also, creation of a standard sub-tables for helicopters or gliders should be pursued at least a matter of convience to avoid having to replace the same categories 100's of times for some of these classes.

-I hope this offers some conclusion to what has become a rather drawn out argument, and a increasingly difficult one for me to carry on. I hope this comprimise is acceptable as a comprimise between our differing views of the project. While I do not appreicate the manner in which you presented many of arguments, I do aplogize for possible offense taken from any of mine. Greyengine5 20:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Rlandmann about the proliferation of tables. There is no point having a shorter table for 'minor' aircraft. 'Minor' aircraft have the same number of performance stats as 'major' aircraft, it's just they might be a little more tricky to track down. The point about helicopters perhaps needing a separate template is well taken though I would have to say. David Newton 19:40, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 2

-I am offended by the manner and amount of work you have put into countering an idea that does not seem that unreasonable to me.

My intention has never been to offend - but to me, the ideas does seem unreasonable, in the sense that (in my experience) it is neither logical nor necessary. The work I have put in is at best only equal and opposite to what you have invested.

Subtypes are a practical reality. Standardizing a few major subtypes is not illogical. As a matter of convience I suppose it could be unecessary, but for the same reason we comprimised on a main table, other main classes deserve standarization as well.

Agreed- standardising a few major subtypes is not illogical. It's the short table I find illogical and unnecessary. Which classes do you think need standardisation?

The matter of the short table has already been decided. I thouroughly understand you didnt agree with the my reasons for the short table, and conceed the matter.

Where only a few facts are listed, leave blanks. It doesn't get much easier than that. It also doesn't contribute anything to standardisation unless there is some particular category of aircraft where a large majority of types vary from the standard table in the same way. We seem to be getting a general agreement that helicopters are an example of this. Maybe gliders are too - I haven't explored this yet, and haven't researched which figures reference works on gliders commonly quote.

I have already explanined my reasons for the subtypes many times now. As for the short table, I thought a comprimise had been reached. Since as part of the comprimise I have withdrawn support for the short table, I will not re-say or try and defend its merits. Im glad to see that you understand the usefullness of other types, and have ideas for them.

Glad we can agree. Other than helicopters and gliders - any other ideas?

Perhaps dirgables or balloons, though these dont have very many entries to warrant it really.

True - they're also different enough from heavier-than-air machines that they probably warrant their own WikiProject.

"not very many entries" hence not enough for a project.

I had been thinkning about doing a standardized comparision table that looks simiar to the look/format of the main table, which might be handy.

Where would this go?

In the places where comparision tables are currently and wherever somone though they were needed.

A specialized table for a specific airforce's planes, perhaps with a flag like the boats pages had been on the back of my mind too.

The practice at WikiProject Ships is to create a new page for a vessel when it changes hands. On the other hand, we have types here that are operated by dozens of airlines or airforces simultaneously. While attractive, I don't know how practical that idea is…

I said for a specific air forces plane, obviously this cant be used for a page on gneral type in service with many nations.

Yes - people are adapting the table as required to fit the particular aircraft they are writing about - which is precisely why we don't need a cut-down version of the table.

This issue has already been covered serveral times now. Once again, this adapting to the same types over and over is "precisely" why subtypes are usefull.

They're useful if and only if the table in question is one that's likely to be useful across a broad range of aircraft. I don't think that anyone's disputing that...

In the beggining I thought you were disputing the more general 'proliferation' of tables as well as the short table. I geared my response to that understanding of things. Its now a moot point as support for the short table has been withdrawn, and having other subtypes does not seem so controversial now.

I was and I am disputing a proliferation of tables - I think that the fewer we can get away with, the better. On the other hand, when experience demonstrates that a particular variant is useful for a particular class of aircraft, it makes no sense to not develop that variant.

My stance on support for the cut-down table had already been mentioned, and I'v conceded the matter. Accepting the stance that people can create there own cut-down table was from the main when if they choose was a part of this compromise.

Anyone's free to use whatever table they want any time they want - a WikiProject is just a suggested guideline. If you don't want to use it, you don't have to.

I totally agree. This was one of the main reasons why I thought it was ok to offer the short table in the first place.

Yes, but a WikiProject is about creating standards for the presentation of information. Any user can use whatever table she/he likes, or no table at all. The WikiProject, on the other hand, advocates a standard and asks for people's voluntary compliance with that standard. It's a form of self-regulation.

Yes i created a presentation format that i though other people might find usefull, and could also be standardized, thus, I offered to be part of the project.

As I pointed out to you on your talk page, "being bold" works well most of the time, since in most of the articles we contribute, we're working alone. But when you're trying to make changes to areas that other people are working in, actually discussing things is not only a good idea, it's good manners too.

The debate over this is the actual discussion, neither you or nor I nor anyone else discusses things very much before they do them, and this practice is totally inline with wiki rules. As for weather this is "good manners" I do think its in inline with 'wikietiquette' if thats what you mean, and I think you've been around wiki long enough to agree.

And this discussion is taking place after the fact. I never said that you were breaking any "rules" - there are practically no rules. I wasn't referring to any wikietiquette - I'm referring to common courtesy. But that's just a subjective opinion.

The only common courtesy thats being broken, is by a debate thats continued long after I offered a comprimise, through your continued comments and my responses to them. All you had to do was say yes to compromise thats happened anyway and this could have been over awhile ago.

Two reasons. First, I think the idea is bad to begin with (in the sense of illogical and un-necessary). Second, I see it as part of a general pattern of bloat. We will never have a single table that fits every aircraft equally well for every reader. But we can (and do) hold up an agreed "ideal" table, which in practice we all know many individual articles will deviate from to a greater or lesser degree.

The self-contradictory nature of this statement offers a better explantion I think. How can all the 'deviant articles' be acceptable for the sake of maintaining the ideal, yet attempts and standardizing a few common deviations be 'illogical and un-necessary'. Of course we cannot have a standard table that suits every circumstance, such is the value of haveing some subtypes.

Once again, if a table variant is one that will carry over into a broad range, then it's perfectly logical and useful thing. But that's not where this discussion started, nor what I was commenting on (ie, the "short table").

It was a debate over the short table and over the usefullness of variant tables from the beggining, as well expanding into a more thorough examination of other tables and some other more general issues. I did not see the short table or the other ideas as 'bloat'. If you were just talking about the short table then many of the comments do not apply of course and result from a misinterpretaion. Regardless the issue is resolved now, both with this short table and the merit of the subtypes in general.

As I see it, the central, bottom line issue here is that you are advocating solutions to problems that apparently only you see. I would suggest that instead of creating more and more and more tables, you either go out there and actually write some articles and find out what does and doesn't work, or at the very least, talk to the people who are doing that. If you had asked "do we need a shorter version of the table", people would have had a chance to say "no" straight away. Alternatively, if you had been using the current table in articles, you would probably have found this to be the case for yourself.

I have spelled out my reasons for subtypes many times now. Since you have mentioned yourself that there could be value in creating a subtable I think I have at least some company in my views here. As part of the comprimise I have withdrawn support for the short subtable. Ironically, working on articles was one of the primary reasons for the short table- a inablity to find enough info and as well as articles with blank tables.

Can you be specific - Where have the problems been? And what do you think the advantage is of just eliminating the categories rather than leaving them blank for someone else to fill in?

I'v decribed my reasons for creation of the table before. As a further explanation, I did not view the difference between having to add a row versus having to fill in data to be fundementally different. It was a calculated disadvantge weighed agaist the benifits of increased standardizaion of small tables and potential for increased distrobution of the basic table coding.

The main disadvantage of the short table, as I see it, was that blanks invite people to fill them in, whereas the provision of the cut-down template invites laziness. I note that you didn't answer the question about specifically where the problems have been? (What aircraft, if I wasn't clear)

I told you this was a "calcualted disadvanatge". I new this when i made it. The aircraft are ones that have little data or are all blank, and you can go find them yourself.

I dont think your qualified to speak for other people either as to what there views on the short table are.

I'm not, and have not claimed to. I've been careful to frame my opinions as my opinions. Others have spoken for themselves.

I would prefer my paragraphs not be split as out of context as meaning can shift, as in this case. I did not intend this as a criticism of your writing style. In the paragraph it was meant as a response to "If you had asked "do we need a shorter version of the table", people would have had a chance to say "no" straight away.". Its meant more to mean that some people might say 'yes' straight away, and rejection was not a forgone conclusion. This is now a non-issue as to be in line with the comprimise I now say 'no' to the short as well here(the project).

Sorry - I find it much more convenient to respond to specific points this way. I apologise for the shift in meaning. Sure - people could have said "yes" straight away, but all three people who actually commented on the short table all commented in the negative. In fairness, I should have said "yes or no".

If you sorry why are still splitting my comments up? Thanks for including more information on a issue thats no longer supported.

In any case, I have withdrawn support for its general use (the short table) in the project as a concession to you. As for my record of table use, I made my stance on the issue of my use of the table clear at the begging, when you brought up a similar argument.

Yes, you did. I still feel, however, that you'll be better equipped to know what works and doesn't work after having done the hard yards yourself.

Once again the idea that the merit of these suggestions is somehow dependent on working on tables more is incorrect. Not only have I worked on tables and pages, not only have many succsefull changes been made people through predictions, but the table design orginated from actual pages. I have been waiting for the full table to be essentaily finsihed( as there's no use in spreading a design that will have to be redone).

I find this last comment highly ironic coming from someone who has made numerous unannounced changes to tables while other people are using them… To me, that seems very much like putting the cart before the horse, but that is, of course, your prerogative.

Others have made unannounced changes and you have not engaged in such intense discussion. Others have made changes the full table and you ahve not engaged in such a drawn out debate, and in this case I wasn't making a change to a table that anyone was using! The short tables and subtables were placed to be standardized. Its not "my perogative" its how wiki works- everything from the footer, to new catgories, to coding, to article development in general.

However, I often was lacking enough information to fill in a full table, and seeing a number of tables with empty catgories I decided to make the short table.

Which aircraft?

Take your pick, there are several. You'v worked on enough pages to know what Im talking about, however your welcome to spend your own time looking for them. Once again I thought this debate was already over.

The idea being it to could be standardized, and that it might be of use to other people- factored into its presentation it on the project page. This also seemed inline with the goal of standardized other tables as a extension of the work on the main table (now that it was complete) and the footer. Practical experience no doubt aids knowing what 'works and what doesn't', but it is not prerequisite for it, nor is it largely applicable in this sititaion.

We have to agree to differ on that point. --Rlandmann 08:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

These are the same reasons for footer development, so I cant understand how you can disagree. Its not applicable here beacause practical experience was the reason for my ideas. Also, for example having a good knowledge of airplanes does not require, but is certainly aided by, flying them. I dont see how its possible to differ here.

I don't want this to be a personal feud of any kind - I just find it frustrating to be confronted with solutions to problems that don't actually exist. --Rlandmann 22:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't consider the debate over the usefullness of subtables to be a fued, but rather a objective discussion over it and related forms of it. It has been both benificial to both my understanding of the matter and, ultimately, the quality of the wiki. Whats personal about is that we are the two people that happen to be debating it, any arguments in the debate that are used that are conditional to a individual, and the manner in which ideas are presented. Subtables can solve problems that do exist, the use of modifidied tables already is a testament to that. Some standardizing will aid in that solution- just the same as it did for the main table. Greyengine5 01:13, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Subtables can solve those problems only if and when the problems arise on account of a general category or class that the aircraft belongs to, rather than an idiosyncracy of the aircraft itself. It could well be that the modifications made by a number of people "in the field" result in a good idea that can be incorporated into the template, but I'm far more confident in such changes when they result from actually having done the work than when they result from speculation as to what problems might possibly exist at some point in the future. --Rlandmann 02:57, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Even without a explict acceptance of the comprimise it seems to have already become a reality. I certainly underestimated the importance of the short tables faults, and will end promoting it in its current form here. The idea of subtypes, such as mentioned for helicopters, seem to be recogized as having some merit. The primary matters have certainly been resolved to my satisfaction-both the subtable and the short table discussion.
The debates subservant to the main issues within the debate, as well as arguments tied the specifity of me our you being the ones engaged in this debate are largely concluded. I prefer not spending time pursuing these sub-debates as indepent issues now that the larger one is done, unless it is so desired.
In the future I would prefer my paragraphs are not split when you reply. I often have sentences that are not meant to be stand alone thoughts and many times can be connected or refer to eachthother.
Finally, I do not regret putting effort in to resolving this matter. There is always much to be learned from reconciling differences of opinion, and this case was no different. I have certainly advanced my understanding of the whole matter and know I will benifit from what I have learned from reconciling of the matter, and wiki will to. It(wiki) will no doubt benifit from being spared the short table and enjoy whatever benifits come from other standardized tables, even beyond the full table and the footer designs. However, carrying on the debate as drained both my enthusaim for working this stuff and the wiki in general. Combined with pressures from renewed time demands, I shall be going on a hiatus from wiki for some time. I have enjoyed working on the team, and the project. I have learned a great deal from you especially RL, both from your articles and our various debates. I will attempt to keep some tabs on developments and will try answer talk. Goodbye morven, newton, and rl - till next time! Greyengine5 07:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See you later. I can't say I'll miss a reprieve from this bickering over standards, which is not to say that I don't value your contributions. I only wish that both of us could have put this time and energy into articles instead. --Rlandmann 08:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I hopefully wont be gone to long, so dont be to overjoyed. My hope is that you will let up on this bickering that you engage in, which i find most unenjoyable despite what things I learn from it. Looking back at other changes, it apperent you tended argue especially with my changes. Perhaps some changes have warrented it, such as the color thing, but many have recived undue debate. A new row one person puts recieves no argument, but mine requires a drawn out debate to allow it to exist. Unannouced changes by some people are no problem, yet mine are somehow 'bad manners'. And with this debate, we'v continuned long after I offered a compromise thats alrady happened. If you want to spend more time writing articles, I reccomend you give upon fighting minor issues so fiercely. I make no aplogizes supporting my ideas and resolving these issues with you, as I both learn from it and defending things you believe in important. However it has been thoroughly unpleasant doing this, and its a shame it has to happen as its not very much fun to wiki when it is. I cant resist working on airplanes if I work in wiki, and as result being a part of the project is required too, and as result I feel obligated to share ideas as a part of this team- and of course this has lead me into constant conflict with you, which I dont like at all(the conflicts not you individually, i still think your ok despite these issues). I know well your stance on many of my changes, but I dont understand them since they dont seem that different from you or anyone else's work. As for this debate, which as we both recognize has gone on far to long, I would much prefer if we can identfy what issues remain and 'table' them as Im not especially interested in continuing branches of the original arguments now that the core issues have been decided. If you want to continue, regardless, I will do my best to find time to resolve these issues with you though Im not sure what this will accomplish. Finally I reccomend we move this debate to its own sub-page, though I'll leave this to you. Greyengine5 19:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 3

Specific air force's plane - So are you suggesting using one table when an aircraft is used by only one operator, and another when an aircraft has been used by more than one operator?

If such a table were to be made, by its very nature it would only apply to aicraft of a single airforce, or the primary user of such an aircraft. For example the Sptifire could have the either uk flag or alternantively just the dot ingsignia of the raf. If you serious about working on this we could flesh out the details later.

No - I was just curious about what you meant. Personally, I would oppose any such move for two reasons - firstly, the disparity between "single user" tables and "multiple user" tables and secondly, the subjectivity of defining "primary user" in many cases. The examples that leap out are aircraft originally produced for one user, but which achieved greater success in the hands of another. Immediate examples that spring to mind would be the P-39 Airacobra, F2A Buffalo, Dassault Ouragan, DFS 346 - I'm sure there are many many others. Even with the Spitfire, while the overwhelming majority were RAF machines, "badging" the type exclusively with that marking seems to me to belittle the contributions of the hundreds (thousands?) of other Commonwealth and Allied airmen and crews who operated them.

I don think it belittles anything, especially since non-primary users could evenetauly get there own page. Such as the US F-18 and the canadian CF1-18. The country of orgin is not that subjective for many, many airplanes and have seen the practice done in some books. To your ceredit, some books list small flags of all the countries it served with ( usally not more then several). I dont think the fact that certain planes were widely used (these could be excluded from such a format) discounts it entirely as just as many did not, especially for pages development types. Finally, the whole idea of pages custimized pages for specific airforces was a casual idea and I do not want to examine these intracises any further without making an example of it for a aircraft it would apply to. Since I want to work on other ideas first, this will have to wait, and I highly reccomend we table this. If you wish to pursue it further I reccomend you develop a appilicable table and consider other ideas about it within yourself. Lets see how this idea would actually work in the 'hard yards' (to borrow a expression) after its implmented before to much theorizing about its pro's and cons is done (a concept I apprecieate much more after the early disccussion).

Which aircraft? - You continue to studiously avoid this question, while insisting that some class of aircraft exists that you think (or thought) benefits from the short table. Perhaps despite appearances, I'm not harping on and on over this simply for its own sake - I want to be able to test my belief that the short table is not necessary.

I have 'studiously avoided' this question beacause I utterly refuse spend time gathering pages just so you can further satiate an issue thats been dead in the water for days now. Nobody else has had to give such and account, nor would i ask this of you, nor does it accomplish anything as I already conceded that matter as a part of a comprimise that you seem to not care about. I have thoroughly explained my reasons over and over for the short table, and understand its drawbacks, which is why I though it was ok to withdraw support.

However-(in contradiction of this)- If you are actually not harping on this as some sort of misguided vendetta agaist me(not that you are), I would, however be willing to work on different (perhaps less flawed) short table design with you and, as part of that I would be willing to find and show you specific examples of what pages would be helped, though i woudl expect the same of you. I honestly believed that the short could usefull, though as I mentioned earlier, I underestimated the importance of its drawbacks. If you were honestly interested in the idea and its potential use then we could work on it together. I am of course cautious, as I would not want this to be used as some way of draggin this debate on any further.

I was only trying to offer you the benefit of the doubt - in the chance that your experiences "in the field" had differed from mine. I may be pig-headed, but I certainly don't claim omniscience...

Fair enough, I will try to you show at some point then. It shall be some time though as Im not in mood to work on this stuff anymore right now.

Your changes vs everyone else's changes - the central fact is that no-one has made as many changes, as frequent changes, or as broad changes as you have. In fact, until you started tinkering, the impression I have is that people were generally happy using the old, green table. I'll be the first to admit that what we've ended up with is better though (while also pointing out that it's also a good sight better than some of the more far-out things you've wanted implemented). It may be instructive to compare the relatively trouble-free footer design and implementation - where three of us all collaborated on something and beat it into shape before incorporating it into the project. Again, it's nothing personal - I would have (and would again) respond as strenuously to the same type of actions - regardless of who they come from. I'm not singling you out. --Rlandmann 00:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well perhaps its simply beacasue I'v made more changes, I have received more criticsm in due kind. The footer was indeed a fine example of our cooperative work, as was albeit more unrealted the rlm page. Once again, I dont apologize at my attempts at advancement- as I was not satisfied with even the quite reasonable original table- such is the case witha all changes done to it (someone see a chance at imporvement). I err on the side of openess with my suggestions so it can be hit or mess, and its certinaly better that some were filtered out. I will certainly try and change my menthods more to the footer schema- as the projects become much more formal from the early days from which these methods are largely a carry over. (i.e. no need for such formal discussion beacue there nobody to discuss with) In any case I reconginze I must adapt to the developlement of this project, and, as I said will try to suggest things to be more in line with these changes. I would ask however that you make a change as well, and that is -that you respond less strenuously. This whole affair is most unpleasant(for both of us i think)- and since working on wiki is activty that takes liesure time I would prefer it not be so intense, and I would place a priority on us resolving these things with less difficulty. I can respect your un-waivering adherence to your ideals, but I think we can resolve these things much more effiecently. Honestly, over half this debate took place after I offered my comprmise, and on issues that branched out quite far. I highly reccomend you make changes to you style of debate that take some of the stress out of this stuff, after all this should be fun, not draining. On my part I hope changes I can make to my methods will cause less trouble with people such as yourself- while maintaing the same benifits I can gleam for much more drawn out affair such as this beacame (as it was witht the footer dev). Certainly 'change is difficult'- not for me, not for you, and certainly not for project-but if its for the better its ok, and i think thats something we both can agree on.- Greyengine5 05:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said here. Let's work together rather than against each other... --Rlandmann 07:46, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed! Greyengine5 18:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Aircraft_short_table_debate_708e.html"

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/short table debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 2

[edit] 3

Views

Navigation

Search