User talk:EH101

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Email me

Since I can't email you- email me; it won't be hard to find my email address. Bzuk 22:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Mr Marcellini

Ah, the plot thickens. I don't really know enough about the development of missiles in themselves to take a look at those edits, but he seems to have wandered into maritime history, where so far he's made questionable edits. I fancy I am rather better informed about this field so I shall see what he has to say. But like it or not, he needs to provide sources, as at the moment, he is pushing POV disguised as 'recorded history', and calling my edits attempts to cover up the truth I suppose. Benea 19:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Per above, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Stefanomencarelli-Bzuk-BillCJ, whatever you views of the current dispute or preferred outcome. THnaks. - BillCJ 23:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 23:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikzilla translation

EH101, another sock-puppet of WIkizilla, this time not-so-creatively named User:NotASockPuppetOfWikzilla, has posted some "Italian" here. I'm curious as to what bad advice is being given here. FOr all his other problems, if Stefanomencarelli deceends to using socks to edit pages or harrass other editors, he won't need to complete the arbitration to have his fate decided. - BillCJ 00:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 23:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Awarded for your "above and beyond" editing efforts in getting F-4 Phantom operators editorially back on track during November 2007 Ahunt 15:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, a well-deserved recognition of your patient and reasoned approach to working in this WikyWacky world. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Barnstar

You are very welcome - you deserve the recognition for your great work! - Ahunt 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

Hey, stop being so nice and principled! I hate it when people act responsibly and show consideration for others. If you keep this up, people will start to notice. [:¬∆ FWIW , I appreciate your latest sentiment about what turned out to be a gruelling and stressful time for all involved. Bzuk (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Citations and more

Hi EH, the following is a copyedit from my talk page:"

Cappone, Max C.A.; Ferdinando D’Amico (2000). Re 2000. An online World War II aviation history magazine. Retrieved on 2007-11-26.
Henriksson, Lars (2005-06-29). Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945). avrosys.nu. Retrieved on 2007-11-26.
Cattaneo, Gianni (1967). The Reggiane Re.2000 (Aircraft in Profile Number 123), 1972, Windsor Berkshire: Profile Publications Ltd.
Mondey, David (1996). The Concise Guide to Axis Aircraft of World War II. New York: Bounty Books. ISBN 1-85152-966-7.
Punka, George (2001). Reggiane Fighters in action. Carrolton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications. ISBN 0-89747-430-9.
Taylor, John W. R. (1969). Reggiane Re.2000 Falco I (Falcon). New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. ISBN 0-425-03633-2.

What is your opinion ? May I substitute them in the article? In order to improve our knowledge on this topic, which parts of these results you do not agree with?

First of all, there is a bit of a mix of styles, dating conventions and use of reference sources, let me start by first establishing one consistent bibliographical standard. I will be using the MLA (Modern Language Association) style guides. All of these examples will be treated as a group of sources and will be ordered alphabetically according to the first entry note (Author or title). The authors' names are identified as last name, first name(s) and separated by commas in name and periods from the rest of the record. MLA places the date of publication with the item not the author. Commonly, the style that is uitlized is: Author. Title(an exact title with capitalization left as written, and series titles and language of use is placed in brackets following the italicized or underlined title, BTW, underlining is now seen as passé and redundant, if an article within an anthology or encyclopedia is given, to separate the title from the main title, the title of the article is in quotation marks and the main source in italics). Place of Publication (major city and country if the location is a minor one): Publisher, Date of publication (with the latest edition date given, and allowance for variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number although these were only established after 1965 and not in widespread use until late in the 1960s and early 1970s) and at times, page references). Bearing all of these specifications in mind, this is what the examples (I have added one other to show how a source in another language would look) would look like in MLA style.

Cappone, Max C.A. and Ferdinando, D’Amico. "'Reggiane' Falco Re-2000." Planes and Pilots of World War Two: An online World War II aviation history magazine. New York: Jordan Publishing, 2000. "Reggiane" Falco Re-2000 Access date: 26 November 2007.
Cattaneo, Gianni. The Reggiane Re.2000 (Aircraft in Profile Number 123). Windsor, Berkshire, UK: Profile Publications Ltd., 1972.
DiTerlizzi, Maurizio. Reggiane Re 2005 Sagittario, Aviolibri 4 (in Italian). Rome: IBN Editore, 2001. ISBN 88-86815-38-7.
Henriksson, Lars. Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945). Ljungskile, Sweden: Avrosys.nu,29 June 2005 J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)
Mondey, David, ed. The Hamlyn Concise Guide to Axis Aircraft of World War II. New York: Bounty Books, 2006. ISBN 1-85152-966-7.
Punka, George. Reggiane Fighters in action. Carrolton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 2001. ISBN 0-89747-430-9.
Taylor, John W. R. "Reggiane Re.2000 Falco I (Falcon)". Combat Aircraft of the World from 1909 to the Present. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1969. ISBN 0-425-03633-2.

As to the use of images, the standard would be to have a representative aircraft illustrated as the infobox image and your use of a photograph of an Italian aircraft in an article on an Italian aircraft would be perfectly fitting. FWIW, you may have to read this all in edit mode to see all my changes. Bzuk (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Translation

EH101, could you look at the Cavour (550), and see if you can help me a sentence phrase? It looks like it was badly translated from Italian, but I can't make out what it is supposed to say. THe sentence is (bad phrase in bold): Cavour can operate as LPH, with 2 eliassault from 6 EH-101 each can land all marines. Thanks. - BillCJ 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambrosini

Hi EH101 - let me think about this for a little while! Two problems that I see:

"Ambrosini SAI.xyz" seems to be the way that most English-language sources designate these aircraft, and that might influence our choice on en.wiki the way that it influences our choice on Japanese designations (ie, "Mitsubishi A6M", not the more usual Japanese designation "Mitsubishi Type 0 Carrier Fighter").

Also, in English usage, "Ambrosini SAI" is not used as a company name; the "company name" element of the designation is simply "Ambrosini". In English usage, "SAI" is a prefix to the model number, just like in "Messerschmitt Bf 109", or "Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21"; therefore "Ambrosini SAI.207 is a three-element name (manufacturer, prefix, number), not a two-element name (like Boeing 747 - manufacturer, number).

Tell me what you think... --Rlandmann (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, then, to preserve the three-element name (manufacturer-prefix-number), if we follow your suggestion, we would have to make it "SAI Ambrosini SAI.xyz", which is cumbersome, as well as being unusual (I can't remember seeing this in print anywhere...)

As I think you know, in the Messerschmitt example, the Bf prefix does come from the (old) manufacturer name: Bayerische Flugzeugwerke. But if you prefer to use another example, think of the three-element name "Messerschmitt Me 262". --Rlandmann (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The other thing to consider is that we almost never use the manufacturer's full name. For example:

"Curtiss P-40", not "Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company P-40"
"Dorner Do 17", not "Dornier Werke Do 17"
"Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15", not "OKB Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15"

Practically every manufacturer has a short form of its name that is commonly used in English sources. For "Douglas Aircraft Company", the common short form is "Douglas"; and for "SAI Ambrosini", the common short form is "Ambrosini".

This suggests to me that "Ambrosini S.7" is correctly named; but if you're right about "SAI" never being an official prefix, we might need to think about changing "Ambrosini SAI.207" to "Ambrosini 207". I'd welcome any sources you can offer that show that the "SAI" prefix was never used. I'd be surprised if this was true, because this usage is extremely widespread. If the prefix was never used, we need to find out where this usage came from. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

All that picture shows is that no prefix was painted on the fin of that particular aircraft (but was it printed, for example, on the instrument panel? Or in the pilot's manual? Or in the delivery paperwork? Or in the squadron paperwork? or in the Regia Aeronautica's accounting paperwork?)

The point is that the use of this prefix is extremely wide-spread: the majority of sources use it (including Jane's) and a quick Google shows that the prefix is common in Italian as well as in English. It must have come from somewhere, and for the purpose of our naming conventions, it really doesn't matter where it originally came from: just that it's consistently and widely used.

Do you know where using "SAI." as a prefix originated?

(PS: I note that the NASM uses "SAI" as the manufacturer and "S." as the prefix (ie, "SAI S.207", "SAI S.403"! Very strange!) --Rlandmann (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the full name of the company is "SAI Ambrosini" - that's obviously true (but irrelevant to this discussion).

The question is over the use of "SAI." as a prefix: the practice is so widespread, that I'm certain that it must have some historical basis: non c'è fumo senza arrosto.

Another important thing for you to consider is that en.wiki has a very strict policy against "Original Research". This means that we do not attempt to make scholarly judgments: we simply follow the conventions that our sources use. I understand from the various problems with User:Stefanomencarelli some months ago that it.wiki does not have similar policies in place, and it's quite OK for editors to make their own assessments and analysis of the facts.

So I ask again: if it was never used historically (as you say), where did the use of "SAI." as a prefix originate? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer your direct question (and maybe some more!) and forgetting the prefix issue for the moment:

I think that Ambrosini (aircraft manufacturer) should be renamed to SAI Ambrosini, but only because it's a more elegant disambiguation.
Based on the evidence so far, I think that the (Company) element of the aircraft names should not be changed to "SAI Ambrosini", for the same reason that we don't have Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company P-40
Based on the evidence so far, I think that Cat:Ambrosini aircraft should not be renamed to Cat:SAI Ambrosini aircraft, for the same reason that we don't have Cat:Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company aircraft.

The way we name things (not just aircraft) on en:wiki is based first and foremost on how English-language reference works (ie - secondary sources, not primary sources!) name that thing. I maintain that in English-language reference works, this manufacturer is consistently (almost universally) called simply "Ambrosini", and its products are also named accordingly. En:wiki is bound to follow that convention. For en:Wiki the "reliability rank" is #1 English-language books and #2 reliable English-language websites. I am making another trip to the library today to investigate further.

As I pointed out once before, if we accepted the logic that you have suggested, we would have to rename the Mitsubishi A6M to Mitsubishi Type 0 Carrier Fighter, which as I think you know, is its proper and correct designation from the Japanese government and Japanese Navy. We should also probably rename Messerschmitt Me 262 to simply 8-262, since that's how the Reichsluftfahrtministerium actually designated this plane.

One extra thing you should consider: practically all of the aircraft names we use (Company)-(Prefix)-(Number) are artificial names created by the publishing industry and not by governments or manufacturers.

So, where now? Basically, to have these aircraft renamed, you need to prove either:

that English-language reference works (aviation encyclopedias, monographs, reliable websites) mostly use "SAI Ambrosini" as the (Company) element of the names of these aircraft or:
that there is no consistency whatsoever amongst English-language reference works (aviation encyclopedias, monographs, reliable websites) about the (Company) element of the names of these aircraft; in which case we would need to look at what reference works in other languages (principally, of course, Italian) do. Of course, that still might not mean that "SAI Ambrosini" would be chosen for the (Company) element...

Over to you! :) --Rlandmann (talk)

Yes - the situation is very much like the Florentine church that you describe: en.wiki's naming policies are intended to locate information where it will be most familiar for native English speakers and most consistent with English-language sources.

It's interesting that you say that Italians will use "SIAI SF-260" with SIAI as the short form of the (Company) element; English language sources do not tend to do this - in English, this manufacturer is practically always "SIAI-Marchetti" (with no short form). So different languages behave differently.

Question: do any of your Italian sources directly mention this anomaly? I mean, do any of your books contain a phrase like "The SAI Ambrosini 207 (commonly but incorrectly called the Ambrosini SAI.207)"? There are certainly ways we could acknowledge this. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; didn't the S.S.4 also use a prefix?

There's no problem using the full name of the company in the infobox (or indeed for the article about the company).

Another question: what do you know about the Ambrosini company before it purchased SAI in 1934? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I promptly rerouted these questions to it.wiki aviation project. In the same time I will look up or buy some sources. Stay tuned. --EH101 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fiat BR.20

Hi EH (a little late but Happy New Year), I've just been looking at the BR.20 article and wondered if you might be able to clear something up for me: in the article it states that the prefix BR comes from "Bombardiere Rosatelli" after the name of its designer, but I have a ref that says "Bombardamento Rosatelli". Do you know which is correct? Cheers. --Red Sunset 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply EH101. I take your point about citing wrongly-translated or interpreted references; it does present a bit of a dilemma and I agree with all of your suggestions and comments. In the case of the BR.20 article it seems that the source used gives the correct (as you have kindly confirmed) "Bombardiere" explanation of the prefix; i.e. the original Italian version as applied to an Italian subject. However, if a widely-accepted but wrong or poor interpretation had been used ("Bombardamento"), I would place an additional footnote next to the first reference point to provide the correct interpretion of the originator's intended meaning. I admit that I should have consulted it.wiki on this occasion; even though I have no understanding of the Italian language I might have been able to pick out what I wanted to know.

In response to your comment about fostering an international approach to topics; the collaboration of even more minds should in theory lead to better-informed and more-complete articles, but it seems that other language wikis don't all adhere to precisely the same guidelines, which IMHO would unfortunately lead to problems in creating internationally-accepted articles, although each wiki could adapt each one to its own standards. I also sympathise with you regarding being able to understand accepted en.wiki practises and philosophies, it's not always easy for us native English speakers to do so and I still have a lot to learn myself! Thanks again. --Red Sunset 21:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here: but this is actually quite a separate issue from the one we're discussing above. Naming is a tricky thing, and has its own conventions, but for straight statements of fact such as the meaning of the letters "B.R.",there's no problem, and en.wiki will happily follow the most reliable sources available, in whatever language it's published in. It's not a question of verifiability or even "correctness", only a question of convention.

The connection that you need to break in your mind is that "en.wiki article name"="official name" or ="original name". It isn't necessarily anything like that: only "en.wiki article name"="most familiar name for English-speakers".

This is not just about aircraft, it's also how we name countries (Germany, Japan, Italy - not Deutschland, Nippon, Italia) cities (Rome, Milan, Naples - not Roma, Milano, Napoli) and people (Bill Gates, Pliny the Younger, Confucius - not William Gates III, Gaius Plinius Caecilius, and K'ung-fu-tzu). You can read the relevant policy and its rationale here. I notice that it.wiki does the same thing, at least for people and places (Confucio, Londra, Germania). There have been some really horrible fights about this over the years - the one I best remember is whether we name the article Danzig or Gdansk?

I hope this helps to clarify the issue a little! --Rlandmann (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No problems Rlandmann, butt in as much as you want; I'm always happy to be pointed in the right direction. I hadn't previously read your discussion with EH, but having now done so and taken in your latest comments, I think I have a better idea of the intricacies of wiki naming conventions. Cheers. --Red Sunset 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good! Before doing bad moves, I thought it was better to double check correct rules interpretation. The field is quite mined, but with a good guideline we can come out. In fact, everything started when I asked for the better way to agree a naming standard. As Rlandmann suspected, in it.wiki too there are some standards agreed in naming and sources quoting. We there used the aviation project talk page for making consensus driven decisions on these topics. Here I see standards are more stable due to older age, but I think an improvement margin is still possible in some very specific matters. Thank you all for the support. --EH101 (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation request

EH, could you look at http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia, and see if there is anything translatable that we could use? I've restored the old Aeritalia stub in preparation for expanding the article. As a company that existed for 20 years, I think it ought to have its own page. Thanks for whatever you can do here. - BillCJ (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've created Fiat Aviazione from material on the Fiat page. Anything you can do here would be appreciated too. - BillCJ (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one, if you're able: it:Aeritalia G-91Y, to go in User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Aeritalia G.91Y for now. If you aren't able to do these now, do you know of another English/Italian-speaking editor that could help me? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXVI (April 2008)

Project news

Tag & Assess 2008 launched on 24 April and will run until 4 July. We have around 60,000 articles to check, so all assistance is very welcome. As usual, there are barnstars galore and service awards for contributing editors.
The project scope has been amended to include specific reference to historically accurate video games. Songs and music with long military associations are also now included.
The Contest department has completed its thirteenth month of competition, which saw 27 entries. The top scorer this month is Ed! with 37 points, followed by Cam with 22 points. Woody, Howard C. Berkowitz, Redmarkviolinist, Nousernamesleft and Outdawg also fielded entries. Blnguyen remains the overall leader, with 188 points in total. You are encouraged to submit articles you're working on as entries.
The coordinators have "adopted" task forces to act as prime point of contact. A list of which coordinators have adopted which task forces is here.

Articles of note

New featured articles:

New featured lists:

New featured portals:

Portal:American Civil War

New A-Class articles:

Current proposals and discussions

An interesting proposal to set up teams to deal with specific tasks, like taking the Top Ten most frequently read military history articles to featured articles status is here.
The coordinators are exploring ways of developing and improving our fifty or so task forces. More information is here.
All editors are invited to contribute to a discussion about the naming of military operations in an endeavor to reach consensus.

Awards and honors

Congratulations and kudos to the four top-performing editors in BCAD: CAM (1st); Legotech (2nd); Harland1 (3rd) and Smsarmad (4th). They helped assess 4303 B-class Milhist articles. Well done!
To belatedly commemorate the first anniversary of the Contest department, the overall annual winner, Blnguyen, has been awarded the Chevrons and the March monthly winner, Woody, and runner-up, Dreamafter, each receive the Writer's Barnstar.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXVII (May 2008)

Project news

Editors needed for Tag & Assess 2008. To coincide with the summer holidays, it will be gearing up from 15 June. As usual, barnstars galore!
Partner peer reviews: for a thirty-day trial period, we'll be running joint peer reviews with Wikiproject Video Games. The idea is simple: we help with their reviews; they help with ours. This way both wikiprojects benefit from new reviewers and new ideas!
We're notable: A new book, Simon Fowler's 2007 Guide to Military History on the Internet (UK:Pen & Sword, ISBN 9781844156061) rates Wikipedia as "the best general resource" for military research (p. 7). Of the military pages, he says: "The results are largely accurate and generally free of bias" (he also suggests people join the wikiproject). When rating WP as the No. 1 military site (p. 201) he says "Wikipedia is often criticised for its inaccuracy and bias, but in my experience the military history articles are spot on."
A-Class reviews: the usual four-day review period may now be extended by up to three days (ie seven days in total) in the following circumstances:

the article has no opposes but has insufficient support for promotion or
the article's nominator requests more time to resolve matters arising during the review.

The full text is here.

The special projects department has opened. It will focus on specific ad-hoc high-priority tasks and implement them with informal, short-term groups of editors.
The Contest department has completed its fourteenth month of competition, which saw 16 entries. The top scorer this month is Cam with 21 points, followed by Redmarkviolinist with 11 points. Woody, Dreamafter, Kyriakos, Nousernamesleft and Outdawg also fielded entries. Blnguyen remains the overall leader, with 188 points in total. You are encouraged to submit articles you're working on as entries.

Articles of note