User talk:Joshbaumgartner/Archive/2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of User talk:Joshbaumgartner for threads concluded in 2006. If you wish to make a comment on an archived item please move the entry to the active talk page (or reference it at least) and add comments there.

See also User talk:Joshbaumgartner and User talk:Joshbaumgartner/Archive.
For older entries see User talk:Joshbaumgartner/Archive/2005.

Contents

[edit] List of ships of the German navies

May I ask you why you moved and then destroyed that nicely categorized list of vessels sorted by types, classes and time frames and replaced it with an alphabetical list of ship names without any discussion? - Alureiter 18:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It still exists as List of German Navy ships et al. The links are right there at the front, if you check. There is also the list of German Navy ship classes for class listings. Joshbaumgartner 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ship decommissionings in 19xx

IMHO the article titles are an 'ugly' use of English. Surely "List of ships decommissioned in 19xx" would be better? 213.105.81.183 12:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably...I wouldn't be bothered by such a refinement. Joshbaumgartner 12:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kronprinz Wilhelm

Oops, looks like we're both doing a lot of editing on the Kronprinz Wilhelm ships. Such a confusing situation with their names! Thanks for better formatting the disambiguation pages (I just made my best guess in most cases). I'll wait for a bit until it looks like you're done, and then go in and continue changing. Thanks for the great work! Elonka 22:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I just noticed it too. How odd, as I was just working my way down through the WWI battleship list for Germany, which seemed a bit neglected, hardly expected to bump into anyone this far back in the stacks... I actually just intended to make a page for the BB, I'm done with the liner page, doesn't look like there's any conflict in our edits by the history. Thanks! Joshbaumgartner 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm just taking advantage of Christmas/New Year break to update some info about family (Count Alfred Niezychowski was my great-uncle, and I'm gearing up to make a page about him). Since I had his book handy, it seemed appropriate to link to the page about the ship, but there wasn't a page about the ship, so I decided to make one, and that led me down the rabbit hole to all the *other* ships with similar names, and wheee, I'm now a naval expert, heh.  ;) By the way, you might be able to help me with something there. In Alfred's book about the Kronprinz Wilhelm, he mentioned that he was the nephew (by marriage) of the man who had been the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador to the United States for 25 years, c. 1900. I've been trying to find more info on him, but can't tell what the correct spelling of his name is: Baron Hengemüller, Baron Ladislaus de Hedevar Hengmueller, and so forth, and haven't been able to find anything other than trivial information, like that he stayed in a bed and breakfast here, or had lunch with President Taft there. Since you speak German, would you be able to find a reference page with the Ambassador's biography? I'd love to get it added to the Wikipedia! Elonka 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
You know, I had no idea what to do about the blurb I like to have about each ship's namesake, so this would make an interesting rsearch...I'll see what I can dig up. Joshbaumgartner 06:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hiya, as an update, I think I've gone as far as I can go with English-language sources that are easily available to me. I've posted what I know here, along with links to a couple places that are in other languages: Ladislaus Hengelmuller. I also added a section to the page that lists all the different variations of spelling his name that I ran across, heh. Perhaps you might be able to use these to get further? For example, I'd really love to find the name of his wife and daughter. Elonka 01:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you've also gone beyond what I'd found thus far, both about his book Hungary's Fight for National Existance and the trivial matter of his summer home. Joshbaumgartner 07:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes Camp in Portland

FYI RecentChangesCamp Tedernst | talk 22:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] El Horria, yacht

I hope you like this - but I have a diifferent spelling!!!Harrypotter 22:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Carlos_Lee_2004_Press.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carlos_Lee_2004_Press.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, contact Carnildo.

That was a long time ago that I uploaded that, and I have no clue as to the appropriate tag, thus I certainly can't defend against delete. In fact, I don't even disagree with a delete under the circumstances. Josh 15:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country alias

I'd already had this window open, since looking at your contributions I'd assumed it was a mistake... but I was trying to figure it out before I made an idiot out of myself! Thanks...
brenneman(t)(c) 10:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it was just my goof...no problem. Josh 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Operated by <nation>" weapon categories

Hmm, I'm not so sure we should mix categories for "designed/built by" with "operated by" in e.g. the missile categories. Instead, I'd strongly recommend we create separate "operated by" categories, so as not to confuse these two things---each of which make very interesting facts in their own right, but not nearly so much when mixed. Agree? --Wernher 07:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Good question. For ships it is by operating country, for airplanes by designing country, and for weapons its mostly by designer with some major operators also being catted. With missiles, a lot of the time many customers have some amount of development or manufacturing role, so the water can be muddy. Creating a Category:Guided missiles by operator tree could make a lot of sense. There are a couple of reasons I haven't done that however. One, I wasn't sure that I wasn't the only one to think it would work, and didn't really have much of a feel for whether I'd just see them up on CfD next week yet. Two, I figured that if it turned out that was the way to go, it would not be that difficult to go through and break out those category links. Three, most of the missile articles have pretty poor info on who actually uses them outside of their country of origin, so that was going to be a project down the road once the cats were cleaned up a bit, to go back and do the research and add that info where I could to articles, also makind a good time to start isolating the 'by operator' tree of cats if that's what was going to work.
I'm glad to hear that you think it would be worthwhile to break the operators off with their own cats, that brings me closer to moving in that direction. If you have any good sources on missile operators then maybe you could help start adding some of that data. Unfortunately my own library is embarrasingly out-of-date for missiles. I look forward to collaboration!! Josh 07:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi again and thanks for responding so quickly. I absolutely think this is a worthwile task; it would certainly make the value of the "weapons part" of WP much higher. As for reasonably up-to-date references, I was thinking of, say, the Missile.index pages---searchable on missile mission, developer country, and operator country, as well as combinations of these parameters. Go have a look! --Wernher 08:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. I'll see if I can't come up with a scheme that work for this. Josh 08:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guided missiles

I propose we should have a comprehensive categorization scheme for missiles, classifying them according to three criteria:

  1. Era
  2. Mission (air-air, air-surface, surface-air, anti-tank etc)
  3. Nation of manufacture

If you look at Category:Cold War air-to-air missiles of the United Kingdom you'll get an idea of the system I want to set up. However, it will not be possible to set up this as an automatic template until all the nationality naming is standardized.

And by the way, answering your question on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, what I really mean by "modern missiles" is "missiles still in service with major armed forces in the present day", so perhaps some pre-1990 weapons still in use would belong to both Cold War and Modern categories. GCarty 20:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty much what we have for ships and it works all right. On the other hand, aircraft are categorized chronologically by first flight. I think this doesn't work as well for a number of reasons, and thus I prefer the era categories. Unfortunately, with missiles, really there is only Cold War and post-Cold War, with a few World War II ones, so this isn't as useful as categorizing by conflict, which allows a little more granularity. Plus, the WWII and Cold War cats can remain as well. The only odd ball out is modern, but I don't know that this is really that much of a bad thing. Instead, maybe having sub cats in the operator cats with the added suffix 'in service' to identify those still in service would work. Trying to keep them accurate would involve some maintenance, but for someone driven to make it work, I can't see why it wouldn't. Josh 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not just replace the prefix "modern" with "current"? GCarty 18:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I've gotten opposition to that in the past, but I don't think they preferred modern either. I think the key was how to maintain the cats. Sometimes it can be difficult to determine whether or not a missile, particularly one made outside of the US/W.Europe, is still in production. But regardless, I don't have a problem with an 'in production' tree. Josh 04:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ship CFDs

Please reconsider your vote for the three class categories or at least state some reasons why they should be kept. Currently I have the impression that you think categories are valuable in themselves. --Yooden

Submission made. Josh 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cavour (C552)

Hi. I would like to know why you moved the page Italian aircraft carrier Cavour to Cavour (C552) (without an explanation and marking it as "minor change"). Are you going to move also all the other ships bearing the same name scheme?--Panairjdde 18:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I should have moved it to Italian aircraft carrier Cavour (C552), and no, it wasn't an attempt at a systemic change. I was only attempting to add the pennant to the name. Unless you feel that the (C552) should be omitted, I'll fix this one. Josh 18:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
None of the articles about Italian ships bears the pennant in the name. It would be better to avoid it, according to me. However, all the articles should conform to the same format, so, if you do not plan to modify also the other articles, revert the Cavour. --Panairjdde 18:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Move is reverted for now. Josh 19:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 0% for major edits and 57% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear inpolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:RPG-29 Display.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RPG-29 Display.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Night Gyr 16:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


The image was tagged PD, but Rosoboronexport claims copyright on all content of its website, so it needs a fairuse claim. Night Gyr 16:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this image qualifies under a fair use license based on the description of fair use as I read it, so this image may need to be deleted. Josh 16:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the navy templates

Hello, Josh. Actually, the only changes that I have made to the navy templates are:

  • Renaming "Template:Navy CHN" as "Template:Navy PRC"
  • Renaming "Template:Navy TWN" as "Template:Navy ROC"

Upon renaming the templates, the old names are directed to the new names. There shouldn't have been any broken links. Anyway, I have fixed the broken links in List of naval ship classes in service. Thanks for your reminder. - Alanmak 04:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Image:HMS Illustrious.jpg

The CC template is very poorly worded and I'm pressing to have it changed. It appears to suggest that Crown Copyright = available for use free of charge in any format or medium provided. In fact each government website has its own copyright notice some of which allow use under these terms but some of which expressly prohibit any non-personal use without specific permission. A partial list is available at Template talk:CrownCopyright regarding useable/non-useable websites. The Royal Navy/MOD does not allow use on Wikipedia. As such I've listed the image for deletion.Mark83 18:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me. The way the CC tag was written it sounded different, but if what you are saying is correct, then the image would not be appropriate and should be deleted. Thanks for informing me that our tag was bad though! Josh 18:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ballistic missiles

This category is very heavily subdivided by country and type, and that's getting in the way as I try to find the corresponding missiles for List of nuclear weapons. Most of the subcategories only have a handful of entries; US IRBMs and SRBMs have about two entries each. Wouldn't it make more sense to just merge all of the entries into broader groupings to make them easier to navigate? I'm asking you because you're the one who created this category structure in the first place. Night Gyr 23:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to, to be honest. I don't necessarily know that it is necessary to break down each individual range band into its own category like there is now. Perhaps a more simplistic delineation between shorter range battlefield ballistic missiles and longer-range strategic weapons would work better? Not sure where the dividing line should be however. To add to the problem, the vast majority end up in the US and USSR/Russia trees, which maybe have enough to warrant more sub-division. However, for India or Pakistan, they don't have enough variety to need so much breakdown. If you have a proposal for a simpler organization, I'd probably support it. Josh 16:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

How about just dividing them up into "Ballistic missiles of Country X"? I doubt any category is going to end up with more than 50 entries, and it's a pretty unambiguous classification. The range division seems unnecessary since every article should specify in the first line what kind of missile it is, and we can also include that info in a List of ballistic missiles. Night Gyr 17:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. Do you want to make the proposal on WP:CfD? Josh 18:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ship decommissionings by year

These need to be consolidated into one as there aren't enough to neccessitate a different article for each year. I'm in the process of adding all of the listings into one article which I have yet to create. The title needs to be reworded to List of ships decommissioned. Your thoughts? Pepsidrinka 20:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out with this project, but I must ask you, please DO NOT consolidate as yet. This is an ongoing project, and clearly the vast majority of entries have yet to be made. I have every confidence that when more ships are added to the list, it will indeed be enough per year to warrant individual pages for each year, at least covering the last 100 or so years. Previous years may need to be grouped, but for that reason I haven't created. That said, I think a List of decommissioned ships is a fine idea, but the ship events by year pages (including ship launches, ship commissionings, ship decommissionings, and shipwrecks) are intended to be a purely chronological listing, thus the reason why I set the name to focus on the event which happened at a specific time, versus the ship. Thus a listing of all decom'd ships by name or some such would also be a useful tool. My recommendation would be to retain the yearly event pages, at least for long enough to give them a chance to have sufficient entries made. Josh 22:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but you can't leave permament incomplete lists, lists that only include one or two entries. The 1988 page hasn't been edited since Jan 7 and the Jan 29 page hasn't been edited since 1989. Unless you plan on working on them in the near future, they will be deleted until sufficient progress has been made on a list to merit a division by year. Right now there are no more than 25 or so ships about 12-15 articles. That is bordering on ridiculous. Pepsidrinka 22:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I do plan on personally adding more entries. It is part of a lot of work going into ships in general and as I work on a ship article, I add its appropriate entries to the lists. Josh 22:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you just make a single list ordered and sectioned by year? If it gets too big, we can split it later. Night Gyr 18:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've merged them all into List of decommissioned ships by year. The whole thing isn't that long, so I don't see the need for individual year items yet. One big list makes for easier navigation. Night Gyr 18:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I really wish you would have given more opportunity to discuss this or get input from others. I understand your position, but don't see why it is so urgent to do without giving some time for discussion, especially as it is obvious that there is not consensus yet. I certainly don't mind people wanting to improve things, but I do object when hours of work spent building a structure, and then work done on beginning the rather long process of creating the entries and adding the links to appropriate ship pages, not to mention research to verify dates and other information, is suddenly bulldozed by (in my opinion) over-eager streamlining. I already stressed that these lists WILL be long enough to warrant being individual pages, and that I set them up with the structure from the beginning as my intent. Having to split them up later adds several steps to the process and adds in other problems as well. I must urge you to please revert your compression and wait for a reasonable period of time for discussion and input by more than just one or two people before bulldozing the efforts of someone else. Josh 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that the original lists still exist as is, so I have modified my statement above accordingly. As I am in the process of adding entries, these lists will become disjoined from the new one you created. I'm not sure how to rectify this. Josh 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Dodge Ramcharger x2.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Dodge Ramcharger x2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cultural references

Putting the Axis and Allies link on all the pages opens us up for alot of junk, and frankly its not needed on the pages. Oberiko 15:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point...I've seen it on some pages and not on others. I have no problem not having the links. Josh 15:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan flags

During some Olympics cleanup, I found that a couple of the Afghanistan flags had been deleted as redundant, and I wanted to bring it to your attention because you were using those flags at your countryref page. Image:Afghanistan Flag 1997 to 2001.JPG is the same as Image:Flag of Afghanistan 1992.png and Image:Afghanistan Flag 1992 to 1996 and 2001.jpg is the same as Image:Flag of Taliban.svg.

I would have fixed it myself, but I couldn't figure out how to change it from your coding at Template:AFG-1992 and Template:AFG-1997. Could you let me know how those work, so I'll know for the future?

Thanks for your time. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, was on a little Wiki-vacation for the last week. As for the flag templates, the one's I've created are an extension on an existing set of templates for flags based on the Template:Country and Template:Country_flagcountry templates. They use a pointer to the actual flag name, with a name such as Template:Country flag alias AFG-1992 which simply contains the name of the flag image. To change an image name, simply edit for example Template:AFG-1992 and below the edit window, where it lists the templates used by the page, select the Template:Country flag alias AFG-1992 and edit that file. Change the listed image name to the new one, and it is fixed. If you want to know more, let me know. It took me a while to figure out how the system had been set up, and it seems like a lot of steps just to put up a little flag and link (i.e. Flag of United States United States) but it does work. Thanks! Josh 18:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catheads

I noticed one of the Template:Cathead...s in a category and traced it down. It turns out if a category is included in a template, and the category name is not parameterized, the template gets included in the category listed. The workaround for this is to use the <includeonly> tag:

<includeonly>[[Category:Whatever|{{{1}}}]]</includeonly>

This isn't necessary when the category name itself is parameterized -- in that case, there's no category name that exists yet during the save of the category (MediaWiki is smart enough to figure that out). But if just the sort name is parameterized, it'll add it as-is, with a curlybrace as the sort character. Gross. I've been walking through the Template:Cathead...s you've created so far and doing this, but I don't know how much longer my wrists are going to hold out. I'd submit it as a bot request, but I'm not sure how many more there are... and I'm astounded, as it seems you've created about a hundred. You're a man on a mission, I can see. You're doing a great job with your articles, particularly around categorization (a topic close to my heart). Cheers, Cleduc 03:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I will keep that in mind and I don't mind putting those tags in as well as I see them. When initially creating them it was somewhat useful to see where they existed, and what still needed them. There is more to do in the ship cats, and I've been doing other work on ships besides cats for a bit now. I probably need to jump back over there and do some more stuff. I've got to finish the Wickes class destroyer entries though first before I can do anything else. Thanks again for the help! Josh 18:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interest in ships

I can see you are interested in ships. You may find interesting information in the articles Framnæs shipyard and List of ships built at Framnæs shipyard. Contributions in the area are also most welcome. Nordby73 09:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Josh 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 18:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Modern American air-to-ground rockets

I've put Category:Modern American air-to-ground rockets up for deletion since it currently does not currently contain any articles and in my opinion never will contain more than one or two articles (currently the only one I cant think of is Hydra 70). Just wanted to let you know since it's history shows you are the creator. - Dammit 20:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine... Josh 01:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Modern American intercontinental ballistic missiles

I've put Category:Modern American intercontinental ballistic missiles up for deletion since it currently does not currently contain any articles and in my opinion never will contain more than one or two articles. Just wanted to let you know since it's history shows you were going to cfd it. --Cat out 15:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine as well...Thanks. Josh 15:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking airports

Hi, I noticed you added a wikilink to Belfast City on the Edinburgh Airport article - the WP:AIRPORTS standard/guideline is to not link to the destinations. Thanks/wangi 21:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Noted...will fix...Josh 21:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Erm, Belfast International Airport connections isn't the way to go... The destinations and airlines format in the airport articles was devised after a fair bit of discussion amid claims that this info was listcruft and non-encyclopedic information. Might be good if you start up a discussion on the WP:AIRPORTS talk page about why you think this article is neccessary / good? Thanks/wangi 21:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
It's on its own page...there should be no issue. Josh 21:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
If i put it up for WP:AFD it's an easy bet it'll be deleted - it is redundant information which isn't really encyclopedic. If it were, we'd simply have this info on each airport article, rather than the standard format. I'll post a question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports asking for other's opinions. Thanks/wangi 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually not opposed... Josh 21:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Additional articles listing airlines and destinations, thanks/wangi 22:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "modern" as a time frame

Why are you using "modern" in category names - it means nothing. 15th century weapons were "modern" when they were first deployed. Riddley 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I've moved this down here...as with most people, you will note my page is new additions at the bottom. As for the whole 'modern' issue, it is way overblown in my opinion. There have been long discussions on the matter already, during which at least some form of concensus was reached. I'm not really a fan of 'modern' but I don't have any real good alternatives either. If you are asking me why I use it, it is because it ispart of the system and I don't have the initiative to change that right now. If you want to argue for or against it, please do it elsewhere, as I have noted before, I don't really care one way or the other. I don't think its a big deal. We're not in the 15th century, so your point about that is meaningless. When we reach another time period in the future, we can assign what is now under 'modern' to a defined period. Since that isn't exactly going to happen tomorrow, I don't see the big deal. I think there's a lot more valuable work to be done than to hash about this thing again. Josh 08:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/s/User_talk%7EJoshbaumgartner_Archive_2006_2dab.html"