User talk:Bangabalunga
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Write any question or suggestion you have and I will answer you back here.
However, to keep this page clean, I will delete discussions that are over a week old,
thanks
Contents |
[edit] Airlistbox on Airline pages
I've noticed someone removing the {airlistbox} template from the airline pages. Since I usually am not involved with the Airline project, I have posted a note on this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. Unless it's a personal reply, you can reply there. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why he is deleting it either. (Oh I deleted the box from here, no need for me to clutter your page with it now.) - BillCJ 19:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
From looking at his Contributions page, he seems very aggressive about his edits, but doesn't seem to really understand the rules here yet. Just my observation. - BillCJ 19:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 737
Some editor has taken an axe to large sections of the text, calling it "clean-up". Some of the fomatting changes have been good, but I think could have been better accomplished by splitting up the major versions to there own pages, rather than taking out the operators sections, etc. He is doing this unilaterally though, and I'm not sure if he's done. If he does much more, we'll definitely need to do something. - BillCJ 19:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dave Nonis
Hi. Things seems to have calmed down on their own and since that is what a temporary protect aims to do it would be inappropriate to protect it anyway. Also pages that are protected are considered harmful. Let me know if things flare up again. I'm happy to help, but I logged in about 19 hrs after your request. You may get a quicker response using Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Mark83 19:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well in that case well done for backing off - it's not always easy! I've left comments at Talk:Dave Nonis, better there to get a wider audience and promote more debate? Best regards -- Mark83 20:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 787/737
No problem. This guy used an IP address, but he edits just like Ryanmac06, the guy who cut up the 737 article last week. He's actually a good editor per se, knows how to restate things very precisely, but he throws out way too much of the text in the process. I readded some of his deleted material to the 737 today, and redid the variants section somewhat also. Feel free to tweak it. - BillCJ 03:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] modern day Iran
There are a few problems with saying "Persia (modern day Iran)." The first is that it creates extra unnecessary links and ruins the aesthetics of the lead sentence. Another is it would be incorrect to link to Iran, which is the Islamic republic of Iran, so linking to Persian empire is the appropriate link. The modern nation state of Iran is a contemporary creation that didn't exist back then. Modern nationalism attaches itself to old cultures and claims divine heritage, as if a nation is eternal and permanent. And I'm aware it was always the Iranian plateau or Greater Iran, but linking to those wouldn't make much sense. The reality is that the modern state of Iran roughly corresponds with lands that were part of various empires of Persia. Baha'u'llah was from one of those empires. Cuñado 
- Talk 01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I admit that it doesn't help to associate the Baha'i Faith in the first sentence with a crazy extremist government. But in similar cases I always link to Ottoman empire instead of Turkey. In fact I think it's just wrong to say that Turkey existed before Ataturk, because in that case there is an even sharper divide between the government and geography. And I also admit that it might be useful to add brackets and say what modern day state occupies that place, but I think it looks less professional, and adds an unnecessary link. Try polling people on the talk page if you want to pursue it. This isn't the first time the issue has been brought up. Cuñado - Talk 01:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia
Because that's the only tag available for the purpose. According to the guidelines, we should not have a Trivia section period, and the information should should be incorprated into the text. Also, they tend to be cruft-magnets, even if they originally contained good information. I'm just sick of deleting cruft in so many articles, and decided to tack the tags on all at once. Hope that explains. - BillCJ 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- The tag is used to remind editors as they read the article to think about moving some of the items into the text. This will take time, unless someone want's to tackle the whole section at once. THat might be feasible for articles with smaller sections, but probably not the bigger ones. Other than that, I'm not really sure what you wanted to know. - BillCJ 21:36, 9 January 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) 15:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Need help on Categories
What would be good Categories for my article Letter to Posterity that was written by Petrarch in 1372?
[edit] 767 E-door
What you are referring to in the boeing PDF is an option that can be ordered at the time the aircraft is built. It's not something that can be added later. Akradecki 13:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
