User talk:Ingoolemo/Archive 03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussions taken place on my talk page between 2005 June and 2005 September. This Page is no longer live.

[edit] Archive

• Archive 1: 2004, from May 23 to Dec 31
• Archive 2: 2005, from Jan 01 to Jun 23
• Archive 3: 2005, from Jun 23 to Sep 05
• Archive 4: 2005, from Sep 05 to Dec 01
• Archive 5: 2005, from Dec 01 to Feb 10
• Archive 6: 2006, from Feb 10 to Apr 14
• Archive 7: 2006, from Apr 14 to Jul 09
• Archive 8: 2006, from Jul 09 to Nov 15
• Archive 9: 2006, from Nov 15 to Jan 10
• Current: current discussion

[edit] Sockpuppets

If you read that reply carefully, you can see that it's perfectly feasible for them to be separate people on the same IP because the IP is not static. They could be friends, brothers, anything. In any case, the point is that it doesn't matter who is a sockpuppet of who. It only matters what their behaviour is, and that is what needs dealing with. Grace Note 23:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you very much for your supportive vote on my RfA. I appreciate you taking the time to vote greatly. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 14:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] me too - belated thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA nearly a month ago, and congratulations on your own promotion! Unfortunately a sad event occurred at that time in my family, and I have not been able to participate in Wikipedia as much as I would like. I hope to get back to active contribution soon. Thanks again! Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 00:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for your support for my adminship. Gee, how many other contributions to Wikipedia would get such positive responses as do "support" votes in RfAs? If only it were all so easy and nice. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:25, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Threads

I've decided to start using synchronised threads as well. I've created a neat FAQ/help page at User:Ingoolemo/Thread help, if you're interested. (On that page, I cited you as the inventor of the synchronised thread. Feel free to correct it if I was wrong.)

By the way, I synchronised this comment, even though it really wasn't necessary to. Just thought it would be a good way to kick of the process. As always, click on the [edit] link to reply. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 02:58, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

I now have a nice little tool to make thread generation on user's talk pages easier - see User:Alphax/monobook.js for how I do it (look for startThread()). I didn't invent the idea - VfD has used them forever - but I may have been the first to use them on talk pages like this. I might strip the code down to something more compact, but I'll need to find out whether there is a "base" set of JS functions that are used. I believe that most of the javascripts which do this sort of thing are derived from Lupo's (I know mine is - actually, I got it from ABCD, but oh well), so it would be interesting to see if there is some kind of plugin system that has been developed. Alphax ^τεχ 28 June 2005 07:46 (UTC)

Oh, and since replying to a thread doesn't neccesarily purge the cache, or leave a notification, I'll try a null edit on your talk page. I hope no-one else does in the meantime :) Alphax ^τεχ

That's a neat method. Thanks for mentioning it. Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 June 28 08:07 (UTC)

[edit] Your sig template

You'll find that it is now fully depopulated. Just confirm that you want me to do so, and I will gladly delete it. Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 June 28 06:41 (UTC)

Yep, it's gone. Thanks - did you do that? Or did you get a bot to, or...? Anyway, you can go ahead and delete it now. Alphax ^τεχ 28 June 2005 07:27 (UTC)

I've now deleted it. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 June 28 08:05 (UTC)

[edit] Before your account

Just out of curiousity, you seemed pretty comfortable with Wikipedia when we first met. Did you edit long anonymously when before getting an account? Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 June 28 06:52 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been around a while.

P.S., your userpage is extremely elegant. I like it.

Thanks, it's not always this pompous, I try to mix the deep, the obscure, the weird and the just plain funny. (Though having a picture of me and a bio there would have all those qualities too, I fear the obscure and the weird would be disproportionately represented).

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading. After replying, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Actually, no it wasn't. Just accidentally substed or trouble with the new mediawiki version? (fixed now) --W(t) June 28, 2005 14:36 (UTC)

[edit] Your proposal

I just read your proposal regarding RFA, and I think you have a lot of good ideas. To me, it sounds like a supplement to the current RFA procedure, rather than a replacement. I disagree that it necessitates a de-adminship procedure, because if the community accepts it, it should make applying for adminship more difficult.

Kudos for making the proposal, by the way. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 02:16, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

I can't remember if I replied to this (sorry if I didn't before now), but I have dropped the idea of a de-adminship procedure as discussions on the mailing list (and maybe the talk page for RfA) have persuaded me that de-adminship can be handled through existing routes. A supplement to the existing system is an interesting idea - I'll think a bit on it! Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 29 June 2005 13:41 (UTC)

I've been thinking more about your proposal, and I still like the idea. In its current form, I think it creates a bit too much bureaucratic complexity (one reason why I said it would work best as a supplement to current procedure). What I consider the most sensible outline for it is as follows:

1. Candidate applies for adminship on the RFA page
2. If the candidate succeeds, she is assigned three mentoring admins. One possibility is for her to ask existing admins to mentor her, but I think the best way is for bureaucrats to assign mentors at random.
3. The candidate will then be under mentorship for three weeks, during which time her mentors make weekly comments on how she's doing: what to do better, what she's doing well.
4. Naturally, this step will rarely be used. This is the step in which, if the candidate shows consistently detrimental traits, such as poor judgement, rudeness, or flagrant rule-breaking, one of her mentors can recommend that their adminship be revoked. Her application will be re-submitted to the RFA, and she can retain her adminship only if she achieves consensus again.

My system would be just as critical of candidates as the current system, but it also has the advantage of ensuring that new admins are prepared for their duties. Additionally, it doesn't significantly increase the bureaucracy involved.

In your original proposal, candidates applied for temporary adminship. Not a bad idea, but it could raise a whole new can of worms: does temporary adminship have fewer prerequesites than full adminship? If so, how much fewer? That's one reason why candidates apply for full adminship in my proposal.

Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 June 30 00:28 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this would be of benefit. I don't think it would encourage more people to become admins, in fact this would raise the threshold as I think the voting on RfA would be the same, and then the mentors would be assigned. It seems rather like taking the original system and making it worse. This seems to be an unnecessary addition to the existing system. I'm not yet convinced a supplement would be a good idea, unless the current RfA system was altered in some way also. Thanks for your comments though - I'm glad it's provoking discussion! Talrias (t | e | c) 2 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pwnage

Hi, Cuervo. Just out of curiousity, what exactly do you intend to use this template for? You might want to move it into your userspace. Thanks a lot, Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 June 30 06:27 (UTC)

• Done and done. --Jack (Cuervo) 30 June 2005 06:33 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 June 30 06:46 (UTC)

[edit] my RFA

Hello, I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for your support in my RFA! You (Talk) June 30, 2005 16:23 (UTC)

[edit] New airspecs templates

Hi Ingoolemo. I'm saddened and disappointed to see you rolling out your own version of the standard specs. If you want to change an existing and well-established standard, you really out to seek to establish consensus first. You've no doubt noticed that the project is apparently beset by a number of controversies at the moment; please be patient and see where discussion goes. If you want to advocate adding third sets of units to particular specifications, and/or linking certain units, then please add to the discussion rather than acting unilaterally. Regards, Rlandmann 2 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

Please see the WikiProject talkpage. I have reverted my changes pending the outcome of the discussion. Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 July 4 04:53 (UTC)

[edit] 5 Pillars

Got somethin' against libruls? :) Sango123 July 3, 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Libruls are fine, except when they tread on my MPOV. Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 July 4 02:53 (UTC)

I am shocked, appalled... and maybe even horrified. Sango123 July 4, 2005 03:42 (UTC)

C'mon, a little bias never hurt anyone. Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 July 4 04:49 (UTC)

Well, it sure do hurt them political pundits. ;) Sango123 July 4, 2005 16:20 (UTC)

[edit] thanks!

Hi Ingoolemo, thanks for your support of my RfA. I appreciate the vote of confidence, and I intend to do my best to take my new responsibilities seriously. See you around! --Spangineer (háblame) July 4, 2005 03:52 (UTC)

[edit] Broken redirects

Your redirects from GAM-63 and XGAM-63 to XGAM-63 Rascal are showing up on the Special:BrokenRedirects report. Are you planning to write an article? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 4 July 2005 10:05 (UTC)

I was planning to write an article, but as you can see, the redirects were created on the 23rd of May, and I won't be getting around to it any time soon. Personally, I don't think that they're doing any harm, as they aren't linked to from any article. However, current policy is to delete such redirects on site, so I will do so. Thanks for alerting me. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 July 5 17:58 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your vote on Talrias' RFA

Thanks for your supporting vote! Talrias (t | e | c) 9 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ATP space-filling image.jpg

RedWolf 05:01, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviation of knots

Hi,

I notice that you said Haven't seen kt as an abbreviation very frequently.. Perhaps you have not had cause to look at aviation weather forecasts. The official abbreviation as used by ICAO and member states in METAR and TAF etc has no 's' for the plural. Would you be prepared to reconsider your vote? Thanks. Bobblewik 13:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft specifications format

You're probably already aware of the close vote on the specs survey between infobox and list formats. I've already mentioned the following to James C, and I'm bringing it up with you - if we were to regress to an infobox table layout, do you think most (or any) of that style's supporters would find a bottom-of-the-page location for it acceptable? The top-right sidebar placement is probably 80% of the infobox's disaster, and if we could make a slick bottom-placed table it might be a better compromise.

Anyway, I'm pretty dead-set against returning to the sidebar infobox. Hopefully it doesn't come to that. If you can think up some other options, or manage to convince some of the infobox votes, let me know. Have a good one. -eric ✈ 02:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that it's possible to develop an infobox that could be very similar to the current list, relatively unobtrusive (with no colour, for example), and fit neatly in a subsection without making everything else go screwy. Fortunately, since the option to move the specs into a template is winning, implementing format changes should be a lot easier in the future. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:22, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

I think that a reasonable table format would look something like this (I've used the specs from my pet aircraft, the Convair B-36). To simplify things, I've eliminated the powerplant field temporarily, and limited it to total thrust and total power.

Though I hate the original blue one, I don't really care between this version and the current version. The main reason is that it is visually almost identical to the current bulleted list, and doesn't interfere with text width or with pictures.

So now I'm not allowed to express an opinion on a discussion page?

Nice to see the "lets make wiki as bland as possible" campaign has another victory. Why keep a simple overview infobox when you can convert it to plain text and bury all the info somewhere at the bottom of the article? 11:57, 26 July

I... uh, I'm not really sure who's talking here. As far as layout goes this is a good start. I'm thinking we should make it flexible and wide in an attempt to get rid of the occasional multiple lines that plagued older tables.

To be honest, though, I actually prefer the unaligned inline format. The table's alignment of fields makes it difficult to read across - the large white space tends to make the eye lose track; this is why 'ergonomic' applications like iTunes use an alternating faded background. The current non-table format makes this less of an issue, although it's still present.

Anyway, to respond to Mr. Anonymous here, if you view aircraft as purely specifications, then wikipedia is the wrong reference for you. Specifications are secondary to the aircraft's history and development. Because they use wikicode, the current layout makes it possible to use a table of contents to click directly to the specs regardless. Finally, the colors look like ass. -eric ✈ 05:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I suspect non-registered users vastly outnumber registered ones. My view is that most of the registered ones, especially in technology entries, seem far more interested in formatting and editing others work than contributing anything new. I like the fact that different users have different styles and resent the ability of the few registered users to have closed votes that dictate rules to everyone else. Don't stifle creativity, some colour and variety is nice. 15:52, 27 Jul 05

I guess I sound pretty "square" to say this, but I don't think any reference work, especially encyclopedias, should endorse any "creative" formatting. Such media should inform the reader as efficiently and concisely as possible, not entertain the reader's aesthetic side. If the reader wants to see clever web design he can go to any other of the 10 billion webpages. Wikipedia is for information, not showing lame formatting "art". Yes, I want a blander Wikipedia, because it would be a clearer one. ✈ James C. 17:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm kind of offended that you think all Ingoolemo and I do is reformat existing articles. I'm not sure what the number is, but I've made over 700 major and minor edits to articles and created probably a few hundred aviation-related articles. Ingoolemo, Rlandmann, James C, and the rest of the wikiproject are equally or even more prolific. Just because we want the wikipedia to look like a resource work doesn't mean we're assholes who don't contribute. -eric ✈ 17:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Specifications (B-36H)

[edit] urgent! aircontent template

I've added "has relations=yes/no" to the template as well, since we're revising. Any changes you've made should be made again (sorry! ;) so that we can now control pretty much everything except similar aircraft, which should very nearly always exist. -eric ✈ 18:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes at PBY Catalina

That was quite a bit of work that you did to un-FUBAR my jury-rigged footnote scheme. I am in your debt. --Fernando Rizo T/C 20:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Airtemp

This is a transcluded copy of User:Ingoolemo/Threads/05/8/18a

Seeing your work on Template:Airtemp-test, you may be interested in a version I developed, User:Ingoolemo/Airtemp. The main differences:

1. The toggling parametres are phrased as questions:
   • {{{include 'capacity' field?}}} vs. {{{cargo or passengers}}}
   • {{{plane or copter?}}} vs. {{{helicopter}}}
   • {{{jet or prop?}}} vs. {{{jet}}}
   • {{{has armament?}}} vs. {{{military}}}
2. To make the parametres as unambiguous as possible, I used {{{empty weight}}}, {{{loaded weight}}}, and {{{maximum takeoff weight}}} rather than {{{empty}}}, {{{loaded}}}, and {{{mtow}}}. The rationale: for a new user, it will be more obvious to what these fields refer.
3. By giving the editor the option of answering 'jet', 'prop', 'both', or 'neither' to the {{{jet or prop?}}} field, it is possible to use more carefully tailored {{{thrust/weight}}} and {{{power/weight}}} fields, rather than a {{{performance etc}}} field.

#1 is just a question of what the parametres should be named. I think that you'll agree that #2 is a pretty sensible recommendation. #3 is a larger question regarding how the template should be structured. As noted above, it covers all the possiblilities excellently, with the possible exception of your {{{mixmaster}}} field (the purpose of which I'm not yet sure).

Hope to here back from you soon. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 17:42, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

I have just perfected a very different approach to the units with User:Ingoolemo/Airspec-imp. (Apart from the units, the templates are identical.) Rather than having {{{ main}}} and {{{ alt}}} fields, the units are specified thus: {{{empty weight-lb}}}, {{{empty weight-kg}}}, {{{power-shp}}}, {{{power-kW}}} etc. The editor types in a unitless number, which is converted to a unit value by the template. Though we will need two sets of templates, {{Airspec-imp}} and {{Airspec-met}}, this approach gives us even more flexibility to change our standards retroactively. If, for example, we decide that we don't want to link the units in the table, editing the Airspec-imp template will unlink all units in all aircraft articles. If we chose to change the standard with {{Airtemp-test}}, however, the unlinking would need to be done manually. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:17, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

Nice work on the revisions. "Mixmaster" was to be my version of a composite powerplant for testing purposes, but your jet/prop/both solution is superior. My issue with predetermined units (which I initially used as well) is this: what if the aircraft uses nonstandard units? Say it's german, so engine hp is actually measured in PS? or a rocket with kgf source values? This brings us back to that discussion and the results of the survey, which have yet to be compiled and put into WP 'standards'. Anyway: predetermined units limit us to those two units. The whole mph/knots issue causes some problems here too, as it's otherwise the same units. We'll have to bring this up again with the project and Rlandmann.

Also, I'll be on the road for the next three or four days, and probably incommunicado for the duration. I think before we take the templates any further we should iron out the units issue, and whether to do it in the template or in the editor's fields. -eric ✈ 03:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I heartily agree on the call for further discussion. We can't afford to make any mistakes with the initial creation of the templates. Ingoolemo ^talk 15:13, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

[edit] Image:B-26 Marauder.jpg

This image is lacking information on its source.  If you could provide the 
source, it would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks, Ingoolemo talk 18:17, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

I'd forgotten where I got it from, but I was pretty sure it was a google images search. "site:.mil B-26 Marauder" yielded the source: http://www.ascho.wpafb.af.mil/REMARKABLE/PG-181.HTM. —Morven 18:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Award

Hello Ingoolemo, I am SWD316. I am here to discuss my displeasure towards your awards section on your user page. I saw you gave YOURSELF award. I would like to advise you to remove it. Just a fair warning, someone I know who continued to give himself barnstars and other awards is considered a vandal now and his page is now up for deletion. I don't want that to happen to you. So in conclusion, please just remove your self-reward. SWD316 (talk to me)

Thank you for your concern, but I don't think the award will be a large problem. For one thing, my award is not actually a barnstar or anything like that, but a featured article star, the same one used in {{FA}} and {{FAC}}. All it's doing is keeping track of the articles I've helped get featured. Admittedly, my methodology is somewhat unorthodox, but I don't think that choosing to phrase it as a 'self-award' harms anything. In the case of the vandal you mentioned, the reason for their self-awards was attention-getting, and it was part of a larger problem. Thanks very much for your input. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 01:47, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

[edit] Table namespace

User:Omegatron/Tablenamespacespam — Omegatron 01:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I have just requested a bugzilla account, and will be voicing my opinions in a few days. Good luck, and your spam is forgiven. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:40, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

At least I'm honest. :-)

This thread synchronizing should just be built into the software, too. — Omegatron 02:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft specs template

While working on my airspec templates, I discovered some rather wacky things about the effect of <h3> </h3> and === === on the TOC box and [edit] links. Specifically, the ability to edit any section after the first or second was lost completely. Also, [edit] links would appear next to the armament and avionics subsections, but not the general characteristics and performance subsections. To remedy this, I have replaced the <h3> </h3> format with <font size=3>''' '''</font>. This will make no change in appearence, but will eliminate the problems I noticed. I have also implemented this on Template:Airtemp-test. Hope you don't mind. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 06:23, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

Actually, I think was using <h3><h3> tags - note the lack of closing /. This is an actual H3, but without the edit link. Using the FONT tag is depreciated HTML and nonstandard. My template, as implemented, avoided the recognized issues with editing, headers, and templates. -ericg ✈ 06:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a weird method; usually the lack of a closing / tends to screw things up. Thanks for mentioning it, because it eliminates the problems I've been noticing. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:15, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

If you agree, I'd like to implement the jet/prop/both powerplant parametre on Template:Airtemp-test. I'll take care of all the logistics involved, so don't worry about that. When that's finished, I'll contact you to discuss further developments that may need to be made in preparation for presenting the complete template to the WikiProject. Ingoolemo ^talk 06:16, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Sounds good - go right ahead. Do keep in mind that I used it for (I think) a pair of real articles - Grumman Ag Cat is one, and Honda MH02 should be the only other. Probably best to just comment them out for now. -ericg ✈ 16:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

In order to successfully introduce the my scheme, I'm going to need to differentiate between the jet parametres and prop parametres, so every template will need to include both {{{jet type}}}, {{{prop type}}}, {{{thrust}}}, and {{{power}}}. I can see from the way you designed your template that you would prefer not to have blank parametres. Perhaps the best solution is to provide the data manually for the mixmasters, by inserting another (similar to your alternate powerplant for the Typhoon). Your thoughts? Ingoolemo ^talk 19:12, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

actually, templates straight up don't work with blank parameters. that's what the fuss was about a while back. doing a manual addition is probably the only possible way. -ericg ✈ 20:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that blank parametres are an issue (you can see some examples at User:Ingoolemo/Airspec demo. My phrasing was a little vague, so I may have caused you to misunderstand what I mean by a blank parametre: if {{foo}} has parametres {{{silly}}} and {{{quack}}}, leaving {{{quack}}} blank means {{foo|silly=murfle|quack=}}, not {{foo|silly=murfle}}. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:05, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

yeah, but try leaving some blank. they'll show up in the article as "label: {{{foo}}}". ericg ✈ 06:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

To ensure proper communication: valueless parametre = {{foo|silly=murfle|quack=}}; blank parametre = {{foo|silly=murfle}}.

Now that I won't have to worry about botching my statements, here's what I've been trying to say: I get the impression, from the way that you structured the template, that you'd rather make the inclusion of valueless parametres unnecessary. If I misunderstood your intentions, and you don't care if some parametres are valueless, I should be able to finish implementing my jet/prop/both scheme.

something must have changed in the last month or so in how templates are handled, then. previously, leaving a parameter valueless would leave you with {{{name}}} of the parameter sitting there in the article looking retarded. since that no longer happens, go ahead. ericg ✈ 13:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The conversion is complete. Unfortunately, {{Airtemp-engine-both}} is behaving pretty bizarrely (see User:Ericg/template test3). Now that we have that cleared up, {{{performance etc}}} should be replaced with separate parametres for {{{wing loading}}}, {{{thrust/weight}}}, and {{{power/mass}}}. Ingoolemo ^talk 18:46, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Okay, I have {{Airtemp-engine-both}} working now! You can see it at User:Ericg/template test3. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:11, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Looks good! I'm glad you decided on including units in the parameters, it'll make unplanned lines and things like that much easier to add. ericg ✈ 19:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I have altered Template:Airtemp-test to make it distinguish between helicopters and planes. See User:Ericg/experimental/template/test iv for an example of a helicopter. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:55, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

And now, I have replaced {{{performance etc}}} with individual parametres for wing/disc loading, thrust/weight, and power/mass. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:53, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

Looking good. Since we're not using hardcoded units, we should have a "swap order of units?=" parameter too - sometimes an aircraft has specs filled out for the wrong nationality etc, and it'd be handy to swap metric with imperial for the main unit. ericg ✈ 16:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Good idea: it'll really simplify things if the specs units are in the wrong order. I'm going to leave the job to you for the moment, though, because I've a fair bit of homework I need to do. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:28, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

There's something I'd like to suggest now, because it will be harder to implement after setting up the 'swap order of units' parametre: {{{empty}}}, {{{loaded}}}, and {{{mtow}}} should be renamed {{{empty weight}}}, {{{loaded weight}}}, and {{{maximum takeoff weight}}}. That way, when editing an article, it will be more clear exactly what the parametre is asking for. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:31, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, you might be interested in this: it's the difference between my template and yours. Notably, they only differ in the names of the parametres. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:30, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

Okay, the switch option is in place. You can see an example of switched versus unswitched units at User:Ericg/experimental/template/test v. Ingoolemo ^talk 03:20, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Looking good. I've been super busy flying and studying lately - sorry that I've not been able to contribute at all. -ericg ✈ 05:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There is one last thing that I'd like to have happen before we present the template to WP:Air. It is: {{{military}}} should be renamed {{{include 'armament' field?}}} and {{{cargo or passengers}}} should be renames {{{include 'capacity' field?}}}. These changes should make it more obvious to editors what the parametres are asking. Ingoolemo ^talk 22:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I've made some redirects in case the initial questions aren't filled in properly. You can see the results at User:Ericg/experimental/template/test vi. Ingoolemo ^talk 08:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think that the ² in ft²/m² should be included in the templates, because it makes it rather confusing for the editor, who will probably click on the javascript to insert the characters, only to discover that the use of the javascript results in ft²² and m²².

Another thing I thought of: by specifying |engine=neither, we can make the template work for gliders as well. Before we do that, though, I need to know what a glider has that other planes don't. I believe that in the glider specs we can eliminate:

• Engines (duh)
• Maximum speed, and maybe cruise speed as well
• Service ceiling
• Rate of climb
• Thrust/weight and power/mass

Anything else? Ingoolemo ^talk 23:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I would eliminate ceiling, rate of climb, and engine-related stuff for pure gliders, and I suppose we can count motorgliders as prop. -ericg ✈ 18:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucratship

Hi, Ingoolemo. Thank you so much for your support on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:29, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CCW

Thou shalt not edit that page(eth) unless thou is parteth of the members. ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)