User talk:Soundofmusicals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Those Magnificent Men

Copyedit from my talk page: "Aircraft" seems a little portentious for a 1910 flying machine! Given that this is after all a British subject I can't see what is drastically wrong with "aeroplane". "Aircraft" calls to mind a jumbo jet or something!! I would have reverted this if it had been most people!

The Bristol Boxkite was intended to impersonate a typical American 1910 aeroplane - at this stage the Americans were already slipping a little behind Europe in aviation technology - both the Wright and the Curtiss types still had fore elevators, for instance. Yet rather than build an example of a Wright or a Curtiss they chose a Bristol Boxkite, which had a reputation of being exceptionally easy to fly (which neither of the American types did!!) plus that all important fore elevator.

While I accept that the sentence meant to convey this quite intricate idea is a little idiomatic, your replacement seems ambiguous and ungramatical into the bargain.

Sorry if I am a bit frank here - this is why I have put these remarks here rather than in the article's "discussion" page. I am trying to be helpful rather than to score points."

Thanks for your comment. The article falls generally under the auspices of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content for recommended layout. The use of aircraft has been recommended as it is more specific and is used to substitute for "plane," "aeroplane" and "airplane." As for grammar, perhaps you can revise the article where it needs changes. FWIW, I am an editor by trade and although I have been known to be pedantic at times, I did not note any ambiguity or ungrammatical usage. Please feel free to make any revisions necessary. I agree that "aeroplane" was in vogue as a word at the turn of the 20th Century but so was "aerodrome" and other contemporary colloquialisms that have now fallen out of favour. Bzuk (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
Copyedit from my page: " Thanks for responding - I suppose we can live with "aircraft", which is certainly better than "plane" or "airplane". Although "Aeroplane" remains the usual "non-North American English" term - "aircraft" also includes balloons and airships so it decidedly less "specific". And this IS a British subject. Never mind, let it pass.

I have tweaked your wording a little - hope this makes some things clearer. The references in the "aircraft" section should refer to Wheeler, Allen H. Building Aeroplanes for "Those Magnificent Men.". London: G.T. Foulis, 1965. (incidentally (if you haven't already) - get hold of a copy of this if you can and read it!! it is really where most of the info in this section was originally drawn from.

The Lee Richards Annular biplane, like several other of the more far-fetched types was, as I understand it, NOT actually flown at all - but used as a static display, and "flown" using special effects. If you have an actual cite to the contrary (apart from it "apparently flying" in the DVD then this will need to be included.

I am a bit scratchy on how to fix the reference properly - if you know how can you do it??? Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)"

I take your point about the use of "aircraft" and perhaps "airplane" works as well. I will take it up at the project group. Miles Engineering only built one aircraft as far as I can determine. I do not have the source to which you have indicated is the primary source material; I would suggest that you add a Harvard citation to each pertinent passage from this source. The citation would look like (for example): Williams 1965, p. 15. The Lee Richards Annular biplane did fly but only in the "flying rig" which towed it into the air. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Manfred von Richthofen

Soundofmusicals: I am addressing this to you because as you were working on this article (removing "von", which I was planning on doing) - I was reading its history. A couple of things need to be corrected in the MvR info box but I hesitate to touch it for fear of doing something wrong.

(1) On 13 December 2006, the box had been vandalised/vandalized and when it was reverted to its former version, something was left out. It is the name of the location of the death of MvR. In the first version, it was Morlancourt Ridge, near the Somme River which was correct, but incomplete. It should be Morlancourt Ridge, near Vaux-sur-Somme. "Somme" being the river running by "Vaux-sur-Somme", it would not be necessary to add "near the Somme River". If you look up Vaux-sur-Somme in the French wiki, Manfred von Richthofen is the only famous person making the list while the town of Morlancourt has nothing on him.

Here is a map with heading Der letzte Flug Manfred von Richthofens illustrating the air combat in which the Red Baron's Fokker Dr. I was shot down, and the exact location of the crash(Absturzstelle), north of Vaux-sur-Somme. Naturally, his route is shown in red.

http://www.tao-yin.com/baron-rouge/img/photos/carte-somme.jpg

(2) In the name Luftstreitkräfte, the German WWI "Air Force", there is no mention of "army" and "service". The translation given as "Imperial German Army Air Service". should be "Air (or aerial) Combat Forces" (Luft = air; Streit = combat; Kräfte = forces). Frania W. (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Soundofmusicals: The word "service" does not sound right to me in the appellation of the German aerial combat forces that preceded the Luftwaffe. You say that "a strict translation might give an erroneous impression that the Germans already had an independent air force." Wikipedia is filled with articles where the proper words are not being used in fear of "giving the wrong impression" and that is when the wrong impression is given. I much prefer the use of "aerial combat forces", which is not "Air Force", but describes exactly what men like Richthofen were doing, "combating" in the air.
Here are two links that may help convince you (?):
n° 1 is to a German article with English translation in adjacent column:
http://www.knirim.de/a1201mod.htm
n° 2 are "selected German documents from the Records of the American Expeditionary Forces of WWI" under the heading M2087. These documents are at the National Archives & Records Administration (NARA), in Washington, DC. In the glossary of selected German terms & abbreviations, at page 11, you can see the translation for Luftstreitkräfte.
http://www.archives.gov/research/captured-german-records/microfilm/m2087.pdf
I rest my case. Frania W. (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Soundofmusicals, your answer to me: "Read your comment re. "literal vs free translation" with great interest and almost total lack of agreement - although I will not spoil either of our days with futile argument. If you feel VERY strongly about this issue I suggest you raise it in "open" discussion, as it is very large issue, which would affect many articles, not just this one."
In some cases, the literal translation happens to be the exact one and in this particular case, the three German words describe exactly a kind of force which was not a "service", while the word "services" gives it an American slant. At least, as long as the German names are kept in the article, ce n'est qu'un demi mal. Frania W. (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I had not signed in previously.


Soundofmusicals: "La nuit porte conseil", say the French, and I woke up this morning with the solution that would avoid a long sterile discussion. The sentence before last in second paragraph of Early Life, reads as follows: "Richthofen applied for a transfer to the Luftstreitkräfte ("Military Air Service")". I propose adding my three contentious (!) words between parentheses to make the sentence read as follows:

"Richthofen applied for a transfer to the Luftstreitkräfte (literally: Aerial Combat Forces), the "Imperial German Army Air Service", forerunner of the Luftwaffe." Frania W. (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Writing and style

There is a greater issue in the claims that "This is clumsy, redundant, and "bad" writing..." which you have now made twice in two articles in which I have made edits. Please be aware that there are general guidelines as to how editors collaborate. There are really only a few basic tenets that underline use of Wikipedia:

  • Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them;
  • Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations;
  • Stay cool when the editing gets hot;
  • Avoid edit wars and follow the three-revert rule;
  • Act in good faith;
  • Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point;
  • Assume good faith on the part of others, and
  • Be open and welcoming.

I can see that you are very knowledgeable about your subject and have made efforts to provide detailed and useful information. Remember, to "stay cool" and you will find friends all over the world that are willing to help and assist you in your work. I am not going to react to your comments nor go over the detailed submission you have made on my talk page, other than remind you that Wikipedia is generated by interaction and you are free to make changes, revisions and that all editors have that same recourse. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Hi again

As to the DH5, I can provide some references and add inline citations to the article, just not a priority at this point but I will get to it as I have eramarked this article for further work. BTW, "pp" or "pp." or "pps." or "pps" are not currently standard practise for use in cataloguing or providing references. Being a reference librarian for 30+ years, I do recall using the designations eons ago, but their use has long slipped into obscurity because of different interpretations, does it mean "pages" or "page" so that is why the designation "p." was standardized. Publishing houses also use these form. Check my bio, I am also an editor (and author) by trade, so I do have to keep current on the use of bibliographical references. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Churchill

Before blindly reverting me, please take a look at the talk page. Consensus says that the article needs a major rewrite and downsize, and we are implementing it. — DarkFalls talk 04:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been lost as you put it, all the information that was there before (together with new and more detailed information is on the new page Churchill the politician 1900-1939Backnumber1662 (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time for a user page

Look, an editor with 2,355 edits on 483 unique pages who started editing on 16 January 2007 needs a proper user page. Now get to it, how we can hang those barnstars otherwise? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] DH.6 Article

Copyedit from my talk page:"I have obtained a copy of A.J. Jackson's "De Havilland aircraft" - it is the 1987 edition and has quite a bit of new material - especially on very early (pre Airco) types - in fact the title has been changed to "since 1909" rather than "since 1915" to reflect this. I am doing a complete rewrite of the DH.6 article (!) mainly as an exercise in writing a really good "aircraft type" article that meets all the Wiki criteria. All this guff is preparatory to a question - the newer edition of Jackson's page numbers are (of course) not in synch with the old ones. In getting all the references up-to-date, I think I should synchronise all "Jackson references" to the '87 edition (locating your references in my volume)? A bit of a job - but better, I think, than leaving some references to the first edition and some to the third. What do you think? Just that I don't want to upset you by changing references you added without asking. Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)"

Sound, that is exactly the right course of action. The latest or most current edition should always predominate. Remember, no one WP:Owns any particular article and it is entirely reasonable to edit any pertinent aspects of an article. I am not or will not be offended one bit, I think writing on Wiki has actually "toughened" my hide. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Sinbad

Thanks for your note on this. Ok, I'll take the article off my watch list - that's probably the only way I can resist the impulse to clean it up. PiCo (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halberstadt D types

Actually, the article principally covers the D.II, and I recently redirected the D.III to it, since the only real change was the powerplant. The D.IV and D.V were sufficiently different to warrant their own articles when somebody gets around to it, so while they're mentioned in the D.II article for now, the article shouldn't be considered to be "about" them.

The title in the infobox reflects the types that the article deals with; at least that's how it's handled in other aircraft articles.

And no, a move to Halberstadt D-types would be awful - I've only just finished unpicking a couple of mashed-together articles like that! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richthofen's statistics

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll add something over the next few days. The conclusion of the article is a bit more general then just the observation that scientific american made about MvR's record. The summary I make should reflect that in that. And by the way, thanks for an amicable debate on the subject. Thinking through consensus is what wikipedia is all about--Work permit (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Jacobs

The article says Joseph Jacobs, not just Jacobs. Are we reading the same article? It is also clear that it is the fairy tale writer Joseph Jacobs, as the findings of the study on the Jewish children were published in the Jewish Encyclopedia which the fairy tale writer helped edit. I'll bring more sources though.

[edit] Nieuport 11

Could you pull your references on the Newport 11 page and see if you could add a couple of inline citations to perhaps finish it up? I edited the page to match my references as much as I could, but there were a few things I couldn't verify. Thanks a bunch. --Colputt (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I agree the 10/12/23 are separate types. My purpose was primarily to get the tags off the page. Since I had the references out on my desk. . . --Colputt (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Launceston

ood to see it beingworked upon - it wold be really good if you could possibly add some cites/refs for some of the info - please - thanks SatuSuro 00:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah - dont worry I am not asking for references for everything - most of the tasmanian project stubs have issues that lack sufficient WP:RS a- so dont worry about it at lonnie if you cannot find it straight off - but too much anecdotal info can invite tags from others - if you checked v closely through the stub articles in the tas project there are many articles that even one ref would help rather than none at all :) - so good work at the lonnie art - SatuSuro 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey dont feel you have to explain to me - I am just another outsider (west coaster for 2 years a long time ago is hardly a local) - who dabbles - hey any help is always worth it - cheers SatuSuro 02:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

West coast teacher crowd on friday nights in long since closed pubs had lonny SatuSuro 02:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)