User talk:GraemeLeggett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For previous talk see User talk:GraemeLeggett/ Archive 1

Contents 1 New discussion starts here 2 RAE article 3 CSC 4 dates 5 Major and notable motorcycle manufacturers 6 Ironclad warship 7 Span Sweep Spec 8 First Commercial airliner in Canada 9 List of naval battles 10 Bismarck Chase 11 List of Air Ministry Specifications 12 Spec for Airspeed Fleet Shadower etc 13 Battlecruiser Article 14 Vista 15 Need Help in the de Havilland Comet article 15.1 References needed 16 James C Floyd and the Concorde 17 Yank spelling vs. Brit spelling 18 Avro Arrow 19 Thanks 20 British military aircraft designation systems 21 An Invite to join Aviation WikiProject 22 Conversion of AFV template to Infobox weapon 23 New articles 24 Hawker P.V.4 25 Tornado ADV

[edit] New discussion starts here

[edit] RAE article

I wanted to insert some note about the old controversy against what was then the Royal Aicraft Factory (later the RAE) that was rife between 1915 and the early 1920s, and has coloured some aviation historian's view of some of the Royal Aicraft Factory types ever since.

I wanted this to be:

1. Free from POV 2. Fair 3. Brief (it is after all a minor by-way, not a major issue)

Since at least two of the "fact" tags that have festooned my work seem to have originated with you I am letting you know I have removed them. I have NOT supplied conventional citations in any detail - as I said in the "talk" section this would have been hard without being highly specific, and therefore blowing that section of the article up out of all proportion.

On the other hand I have mentioned a couple of sources that would make intersteing reading for anyone interested in the subject.

Does this answer your concerns about uncited work? Or do you want to insert citations for the two works mentioned in a more standard way? I must admit I am still a little hazy about how this is done, as I have not been editing wikipedia for long Soundofmusicals 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSC

In the article on CSC's, you recently edited this: "The second code, and the most cited, is CVV2 or CVC2. This CSC"

You added this phrase: "(also known as a CCID or Credit Card ID)"

I've not heard this used before.

Did you come across it in a particular part of the world or particular circumstances?

Are you able to provide any reference for its use?

Happy New Year! Gaimhreadhan 23:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Had to find it out when processing a software upgrade through Microsoft, the webpage asked for the CCID so I went searching, try terms such as CCID and credit and you get links like this and this. Note also that CCID can be a abbreviation for "Cybercash Identification" GraemeLeggett 09:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dates

Dude, could you please not wikify dates in chronological lists? It puts the day/month first and then the year (with common prefs), making it difficult to follow the order. You keep doing this on "list of naval battles". I can have it ruled on if you like. SpookyMulder 12:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major and notable motorcycle manufacturers

A contributor has just changed it, and other country duplicates, into a straight manufacturers list. He does not see the "Major and Notable" idea. Discussion is on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling#Major and Notable motorcycle marque infoboxes. I was hoping you might comment. Seasalt 11:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ironclad warship

Don't want to particpate in the discussion concerning the future of the article? Regards Gun Powder Ma 05:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Span Sweep Spec

Graeme, I note that you added the span sweep spec to the Short Sherpa but it doesn't appear in the article. I have checked the spec template and this parameter isn't catered for. I have left a comment on the spec editor's talk page re the need for additional entries for carrier aircrafts' height/width with wings folded; perhaps sweep is another field which needs to be added to the template. I'll mention this to him/her. TraceyR 00:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Must have seen it on another parameter list. Perhaps we could get it swapped out for the NACA airfoil position which I doubt exists for most of the aircraft on wikipedia - though sweep is probably available. Even better get airfoil swpaped out for some generic wing descriptor. GraemeLeggett 10:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Commercial airliner in Canada

The Avro Aircraft Ltd. Avro C102 Jetliner was the first jet-powered airliner in North America and the second to fly in the world, 13 days behind the de Havilland Comet. Although intended for use by the Trans-Canada AirLines, the airline reneged on a letter of agreement and relegated a promising design into the "also-ran" category. After a successful test program and an ambitious marketing effort to find an alternative buyer, the Jetliner languished as a company photo platform until its demise in 1956. During the Korea War, a second prototype was broken apart at the factory in the wake of government concerns that the military contracts of Avro Canada would be unduly affected.Bzuk 16:04 25 January 2007 (UTC).

I think I can edit the article appropriately - though I'll find a form of words that doesn't leave it open to confusion with a jet engined Lancastrian. GraemeLeggett 17:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of naval battles

This is what I see for many of what used to be actual links:

([[Action of 16 September 1629|details]])

The date has been linked, meaning that the "details" no longer appears as a link; instead the code for the "details" link appears with the date and year linked. For some reason they've decided it would be a good idea to nullify the link by showing the code. I can't think of a good reason for doing this. You're right. I assumed you did that change too. Anyway, I've asked for a review or whatever they call it so hopefully it'll be cleared up.

I hope you'll reconsider linking every date on the page and putting sub indents and sub sub indents. It really does look stupid and is much harder to follow. In some cases the year is first, in others the month or day are first. It makes the page a lot longer and serves no purpose. It actually HINDERS clarity. If you've got a few dates with lots of indents after eacxh one it can look fine. Lots of dates with 1 or 2 indents after each one looks stupid. The page was fine before.

SpookyMulder 09:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck Chase

I don't understand the dispute that seems to be going on over the 'disputed facts' tag, and I'd prefer to stay out of it. But I noted that in your edit to remove the disputed tag today another item was removed, perhaps inadvertently. The edit by Hossen27 that inserted the reference to the destroyer HMAS Nestor as being an Australian-commissioned and manned ship. It may not matter too much to other nationalities, but to a young nation like Australia, it probably matters a great deal that their history is acknowledged. My edition of Warships of WWII by Lenton and Colledge, pub 1964 by Ian Allen, page 113, identifies Nestor as an Australian destroyer using the prefix HMAS . Unfortunately, this source is an old one, so old that it has no ISBN number to quote you.

I have other, more generalised views about the quality of this article. I feel that a thorough clean-up would be a good thing. IMHO there are too many assertions made in it that are inadequately sourced. A notable example being the claim of an air-corridor though the Irish Republic. And the use of the Gaelic term 'Eire' seems misplaced. The correct English term is 'Ireland' with 'Eire' being the correct word in the Gaelic language. We don't after all use the term 'Roma' when in English the correct term is 'Rome'. A good place to start a clean-up might be to provide an 'External References' reading list. One I suggest is the account by a participant aboard the destroyer HMS Tartar, Ludovic Kennedy, pub 1974 by Collins, ISBN 0 00 634014 8 Pursuit - The Sinking of the Bismarck. Regards George.Hutchinson 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Air Ministry Specifications

Hi Graeme.

Actually when it comes to Air Ministry Specifications sources tend to be inconsistent, for example one of my sources says that the Spitfire was initially designed to F.5/34. I have just been adding aircraft when I can find a specific AM Spec. number. Some publications differ on the actual Spec. to which the aircraft was designed/submitted and occasionally some 'educated guesswork' has been used. I try only to use published (book/magazine form) data and regard web-sourced information as potentially unreliable, although there is some good work out there.

I don't know much about the COW gun fighter so I can't say whether the Spec. is correct or not RE: the Gauntlet, although Emmanuel's work is usually pretty good. Feel free to amend the Wiki list as necessary, my references are mostly from the 1970's/80s so may have been superseded by later, more accurate, data. Regards, Ian Dunster 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I will look into how cite web works - I've only just got the hang of < ref > thne perhaps I can add a ref to that. GraemeLeggett 15:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spec for Airspeed Fleet Shadower etc

Hi again Graeme.

Actually that was one of the references I used - the others being here: [1] and here: [2] but the AS.39 one has the Spec. as S.22/27 so I'm assuming that's a typo and they were both developed to S.23/27 - I seem to remember that the two aircraft are usually mentioned as being developed to the same spec. - BTW, the page you referenced is actually a copy of No. 1 above. Ian Dunster 20:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I have just left a message about possibly splitting the Specs. up into periods and moving them to separate pages if you want to take a look: Talk:List of Air Ministry Specifications. Regards, Ian Dunster 21:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just realised I had the S.23/27 in the wrong section - it should have been (as you correctly wrote on my talk page) S.23/37 - thought the year and OR were a bit funny - must have gotten it off the typo here: [3]. Ian Dunster 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Graeme.

Found this a while ago but forget to let you know: Profile - Flying Slow Ian Dunster 22:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battlecruiser Article

Hi there,

Thanks for cleaning up my new sections in the Battlecruiser article. I was busy working on the German section when you did it, and therein lies the problem.

I think I obliterated your work on the "the German Response" section when I saved my new work. Was there any substancial changes in there as I would be more than happy to reincorporate them into the article.

Regards Getztashida 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've run through it again so it's no big deal - mostly German style capitalization of nouns and a few typos.GraemeLeggett 14:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vista

Please restate your opinion on the Vista move on the Vista talk page. Thank you. W3stfa11/^{Talk to me} 03:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need Help in the de Havilland Comet article

[edit] References needed

In order for the de Havilland Comet article to be treated as a serious piece of research, there has to be some check on the constant reversions and revisons that have occurred in the recent history of the article. There are many reputable sources of information available and editors should qualify their commentary with appropriate references, otherwise the work comes off as a flawed, less than neutral observation. I can appreciate that the Comet represents an iconic aviation programme that has been the subject of ongoing interest, however, scholarly, balanced research should be the watchword. Bzuk 22:23 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] James C Floyd and the Concorde

Graeme, I have noted the reference source that fully details the involvement of Floyd in the HS SST program. The author, Randall Whitcomb recounts the post-Avro Canada years fully and devotes a great deal of his work on James Floyd. He had unique access to Floyd and his personal files. Bzuk 13:11 21 February (UTC).

I'm not disputing the source - it seeems to me that the JCF's wikiarticle needs editing to match that. The bio at avroArrow.org [4] indicates a pre and post concorde flight participation which gets glossed over in the text. GraemeLeggett 15:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Graeme,the information presented elaborates on the Hawker Siddeley Aviation (HSA) supersonic airliner studies from the Hawker Siddeley Advanced Projects Group headed by James C. Floyd post 1959. The HSA.1000 was the final submission to the Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee (STAC) which along with the Bristol Aircraft proposal was for an advanced Mach 2.2 design. The STA dictated a joint SST feasibility study in 1959 wherein the two competing design teams could collaborate, this being the only point at which Floyd influenced the ultimate Concorde layout. The HSA.1000 had similarities to the Bristol (later BAC) studies although the HSA design had a blended wing-fuselage with underslung jet engines in nacelles situated at the rear of the wing and the Bristol design was based on a delta wing planform (with an initial above-wing engine configuration). After the Concorde contract was given to the BAC/Sud Aviation collaboration, the HSA SST team continued to develop advanced SST projects but found no interest by either European or American manufacturers with design studies concluded in 1967. I will include this information in both the Avro Arrow and James C Floyd articles. Bzuk 22:59 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Yank spelling vs. Brit spelling

G'day Graeme. As you can probably tell from the HMS Electra article, I'm a Yank and spell as such. I'm not against Brit spelling (and often favour it, actually), but I ask... could you either point me towards, or create, a list of words that fall under the "Yanks spell it this way, Brits spell it this way, and they're both right!" topic? Words like signalled, refuelled, etc. (which, at this moment, Firefox is denoting as misspelled). Thank you kindly -- HawkeAnyone 16:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, I'd suggest turning off Firefox spellchecker (if such a thing is possible) unless you want to engage British English spelling. otherwise you should try reading through American and British English differences and American_and_British_English_spelling_differences, altered roots addresses the double single "l" topic. Hope that helps. GraemeLeggett 09:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avro Arrow

Hi Graeme, Thanks for your help on all the aircraft projects to which I have submitted my pittance of knowledge. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks

N'abend Graeme, just wanted to thank you for showing me yet another possibility for disambiguating "Elector". I really wasn't sure how to handle these Electors in the Warhammer universe, as I have no idea of it. Good job! -Bundesamt 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British military aircraft designation systems

Hi Graeme.

Actually, it looks like you (or someone else) already found it - Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle - GT = General Transport - LOL! Ian Dunster 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is Glider Tug is just as, if not more plausible, and is consistent with TT = target tug. The equipment needed to make a plane into a tug rather rules out it being a "general" transport. GraemeLeggett 09:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember the Albemarle being designated as a 'transport' later on in the war - a number where supplied to Russia as-such, with the dorsal gun position faired-over. However you may be right and 'Glider Tug' could be what is meant, but I have never heard of the GT standing for Glider Tug though. I think General Transport is probably the correct meaning. Ian Dunster 12:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Invite to join Aviation WikiProject

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) 11:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion of AFV template to Infobox weapon

Hey, I've just been following the conversion instructions here. If those instructions aren't complete, you might want to mention it to Kirill Lokshin, so he (or you, or someone else) can make sure that anyone converting the templates (including myself) has the correct instructions. At any rate, I'll hold off on the conversions until the instructions are complete. Carom 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the simple expedient of making those additional fields optional; the conversion should now work correctly without adding anything new. Kirill Lokshin 12:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

Hi Graeme.

Just thought I'd let you know I've started a couple of new articles that might interest you.

• NIVO
• Turbinlite

They're a bit sparse ATM so if you have anything to add feel free. Regards, Ian Dunster 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hawker P.V.4

Graeme- do you have a photo of this "one-off?" Bzuk 17:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Fraid not. Perhaps Tony Buttler will do a book pre 1935 and we'll get to see one. GraemeLeggett 08:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Found one and posted it. Bzuk 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Tornado ADV

Hi. Do you think you should revise "Since the fuselage was being built by the UK, this was far easier to achieve than using a modifed wing (built in Germany) or if the fuselage had been built by the German part of the consortium."? It is my understanding that the centre fuselage was built in Germany. The way you have written it seems to suggest that the entire fuselage was built by BAe? I didn't change it because I'm not 100% sure. Best regards. Mark83 17:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

I'll check, presumably as the germans built the wings, they also built the section of the fuselage that they fit into - the pivoting business being more complex than simply bolting a pair of wings onto another structure. I'll go and reread Tony Buttler's Bombers etcGraemeLeggett 08:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember when that company damaged F3s (Airwork??) undergoing maintainence the RAF had to return some of the fuselages to Germany as they could only be fixed in the original jig. Mark83 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)