User talk:DonFB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your edit history, you don't appear to be given to vandalism, but I'm puzzled by your recent deletion of six paragraphs of the Wright brothers article, with an edit summary that fails to explain. Would you care to offer an explanation, or was this done in error? TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 15:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a mistake. Thanks for fixing. - Don

No problem-- I've done the same sort of thing more than once. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:14bis-test.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Help!

For the Wright Flying School, do you think we should list the people from the exhibition team at that article also? Do you have a comprehensive list of people from the school? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure if all the Team members were actually "enrolled" in the school. Perhaps the article could just mention their training, with a Wiki-link to the Team article. I have never seen a comprehensive list of Flight School trainees, but one of the books I've read says Orville compiled a list of about 115 people who trained there. It might require some "original research" to find that list. Below is a paragraph I've been planning to add to the Wright Brothers article. It could be used in the School article, maybe with a few wording changes just for variety:

Between 1910 and 1916 the Wright Company flying school, with instruction almost exclusively by Orville, trained 115 pilots, several of whom became famous, including Henry "Hap" Arnold, who rose to Five-Star General and commanded U.S. Army Air Forces in World War II and later served as first head of the newly-created U.S. Air Force; Calbaith Perry Rogers, who made the first coast-to-coast flight in 1911 (with many stops and crashes) in a Wright Model EX named the "Vin Fiz" after the sponsor's soft drink; and Eddie Stinson, founder of Stinson Aircraft. DonFB 20:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think its "original research" because it would be reproducable, it would be "research from a primary source". Wikipedia uses tertiary sources. I prefer primary and secondary sources. I love using the US Census to get info on parents and siblings as a primary source, except people keep deleting the census images I upload. I also love making the bibliographies from the New York Times and the Washington Post with the free first paragraph you get in the archive. I dont post them anymore to Wikipedia since people tend to delete them too, Now I add them to pages.google.com and add a link: http://richard.arthur.norton.googlepages.com/bertacostabibliography. Have you also looked through Corbis? Lots of great images there on early aviators.

[edit] Wright Flyer Model B

Do you know anything about the Wright Flyer Model B? There is no entry for it, and now there are 5 references to it.

The Model B was their follow-on to the original canard design. The elevator was in the tail, and the plane had wheels. I recall reading it was their most "popular" plane. They began making them in mid-1910. I followed a link, possibly from the Beachey article (I'm not sure anymore) and found two items of interest: beautiful color images of an advertisement for the Model B, with specs; and the list of 100-plus aviators who trained at the Wright School. The website is: EarlyAviators.com. The Model B ad is at http://www.earlyaviators.com/ewrico02.htm The list of Flight School trainees is at http://www.earlyaviators.com/ewbfplak.htm The website is quite good; plenty more browsing to do.

[edit] Wright Brothers

The table does have useful information, but it is not directly relevant to the Wright Brothers. That's why I moved it to the Wright Glider article, as it is directly applicable there. The WB article is very long, and need to be more focused. Dhaluza 04:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't favor cutting content. If you can cut out useless words without changing the meaning, fine. Otherwise, try to find a home for the content in a shorter related article. Please remove the table as it is now redundant. Dhaluza 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought I moved the table to the Wright Glider article, but now I see it's not there. Anyway, that is where it belongs. The WB article is a biographical, so the quantitative aspects of their work is really not relevant. It's enough to say the 1902 glider had longer wings than the 1901, it does not matter exactly how much--that can be covered in detail in the the WG article, which really needs expansion. So I suggest moving the table there.Dhaluza 02:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)