User talk:Karl Dickman/Archive 10

Subpages in Karl Dickman's namespace
Essays Existing threads Older threads Projects Sandbox Standard.css Link scheme Standard.js Airbuttons.js Tablebutton.js Talkpage archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Thread boilerplate Thread help Welcome

Archive[edit]

Archive	Start	End
Archive 1	2004-05-23	2004-12-31
Archive 2	2005-01-01	2005-06-23
Archive 3	2005-06-23	2005-09-05
Archive 4	2005-09-05	2005-12-01
Archive 5	2005-12-01	2005-02-10
Archive 6	2006-02-10	2006-04-14
Archive 7	2006-04-14	2006-07-09
Archive 8	2006-07-09	2006-11-15
Archive 9	2006-11-15	2007-01-10
Archive 10	2007-01-10	2008-03-30
Archive 11	2008-03-30	2015-09-08
Current	Current discussion

manufacturer name in infobox[edit]

I've noticed a lot of infoboxes you've placed list the manufacturer name in the infobox aircraft name field, such as de Havilland Vampire, and this isn't what it's meant for. There's clearly a manufacturer field, and the aircraft name doesn't have much space - when it goes to two lines, something is wrong, and it's probably that there's a manufacturer listed. I hope you'll consider going back to modify the existing infoboxes you've built in this way. Thanks! ericg ✈ 15:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

I've noticed you've been making some changes in aircraft articles that are contrary to WP:AIR/Page content guidelines. Yes, they are guideline, but they are there for a reason, and were created by consensus.

First, you have been taking out links to the manufacturers from the Introduction. The page content example of an introduction specifically shows the Manufacture name linked, in bold, with the aircraft name. I have no problem if the name is linked further in the Intro, such as the second or third sentence, but it needs to be linked in the Intro.

Second, the "Pop culture" section is supposed to come after, not before, the Specs. I assume the reason for this is to hide it from the rest of the article, or at least but some distance between it and the main text.

Third, it is more convenient to leave a line above and below the infobox in the code. It makes it easier to see the box within the code on a smaller screen, while not leaving any extra spaces in the text.

I am not seeking a fight, but I will be changing these to conform to the guidelines as I have time. The guidelines were made with consensus of the Project, and to my knowledge no consensus has been reached to change or disregard them. Thanks. - BillCJ 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I know you have made other clean-up changes (good ones too!) to the articles, and I am being careful not to revert those at all. - BillCJ 22:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to remember that a large amount of the WP:Air/PC was created by industrious editors who needed something done, and although it reflects consensus in most of its aspects, some minutiae were the decisions of the editors who created the page, not as a result of any kind of discussion. For example, there was no 'to link or not to link' discussion regarding the manufacturer name, nor was there any kind of discussion regarding the exact location of 'popular culture'—all we discussed there was what to include in it.

Regarding the extra line between {{wpairheader}} and the infobox, I think we discussed this before. Formerly, there would be a blank line at the top of the article when there was a carriage return between the header comment and the infobox. I checked, and it seems that this is no longer the case, probably due to a minor change in the MediaWiki rendering engine. I therefore have no objections to you reverting those edits, though I may continue to do them through sheer force of habit.

One final note: I strongly urge you to leave the pop culture sessions where I moved them. For years, the specifications have always been the second-to-last section, right before the references. It doesn't make much sense to have the pop culture between the specs and the references, considering that every other text-based portion of the article appears above the specs. As I said before, pop culture appears where it does at WP:Air/PC as the result of an historical accident, not of conscious consensus-building.

Cheers and good luck, Karl Dickman ^talk 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand better now. As to the Pop-culture, most of the article I work on have them below the specs, and it seem to work well there. I may try to discuss this and see if I can't get a consensus to have it below. The crufters have no problem finding it, no matter where it is. As to the links, I myself find it useful in the first line, as its right there when the page loads, and I sometimes put in a name of an aircraft whenI'm uncertain of the manufacturer, but want its article. I know its also in the infobox, but often its above or below the screen on a small monitor/small resolution. I won't seek out any articles to "fix", but I may make some changes as I edit for other things. Sorry if I was a bit abrupt, and thanks for your forebearance. - BillCJ 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I noticed ont he Grumman F4f/F6F/F8F/F9F pages: they say American before the names. Any idea why? There are hundred of American aricraft articels on Wiki, and these are the only ones I've seen like that. I took one out of the F9FPanther page b/c I thought it was an error, then saw it on the other pages. - BillCJ 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, the same editor started each article. I don't see much use for that style of phrasing. For most American aircraft, I would probably phrase the opening sentence with something along the lines of "The Grumman F9F Panther is a fighter aircraft developed for the United States Navy by the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation." This conveys the same information, but is a bit less clunky. Cheers, Karl Dickman ^talk 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I moved pop culture on Eurocopter Tiger, but that's the only one I've moved since our discussion. I've posted a note on WT:Air, so hopefully I'll be able to continue tomorrow with the blessing of WP:Air/PC. Karl Dickman ^talk 06:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussion on WT:Air continues the way it will, my moves of the pop culture section will have to be reverted. To make your life easier, User:Karl Dickman/Projects/Aircraft/Updates can be used as a laundry list of reverts: all articles that I have edited are struck out. For my part, I will also undo those changes. Cheers and good luck, Karl Dickman ^talk 17:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I do have my preference for where the section should be located, but I think the main thing is to be consistent in where we put it, either above or below. Whatever is decided, I'll abide by that. - BillCJ 17:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed category scheme update[edit]

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Hey Chris,

Seeing that it's been nearly a month and you haven't made any changes to my proposal, I'm going to go ahead and request 'ratification' of it on WT:Air within the next few days. If you'd like to make some changes of your own, let me know and I'll hold off on submitting the proposal until your done.

Cheers and good luck, Karl Dickman ^talk 06:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I have no problem with that. Sorry I forgot to follow up, i forgot to add it to a to do list and it just slipped away. overall i am fairly satisified with it. I think there may be some more categories that we overlooked but those can be added later after discussions and what not. Thanks again for the hard work, it is much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-17[edit]

Thanks for your work on the aricle, I'll keep an eye on the article to keep it from devolving. On to the next one. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armament in specs[edit]

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Please stop replacing |armament with |guns, etc. It absolutely does not matter from the template standpoint but it needlessly adds to the length of the page and at times creates formatting glitches. In addition, you have been deleting a lot of information (as in the case of F-4, for example) when doing that. I was always strongly opposed to the overcategorisation with the guns, missiles, etc. subtags and I will continue to revert them. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the universe isn't quite as orderly as I wish it could be, and you were right to tell me that I was being overzealous. I think part of the reason I'm such a prolific wikihead is that I'm a bit obsessive; the downside is, of course, that I obsessively make changes that others object to—most frequently, not even thinking carefully about whether said changes are really a good thing.

Your scolding did make me think, though: it's time for some pruning of {{aircraft specifications}}. I'll propose some pruning some day, when I'm not busy with school.

Cheers, Karl Dickman ^talk 06:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the template is very bloated. The only problem with pruning is that specs will be lost on the 3 pages that use Vne, etc. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since the template has a link to Vne, we can use Special:Whatlinkshere. When I removed the parametre for zero-fuel weight, I was able to convert the pages that used them by doing a whatlinkshere on zero-fuel weight. Karl Dickman ^talk 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to maximally simplify (we have the |more parameters for added flexibility) - basic dimensions, basic weights, basic performance. IMHO there is certainly no need for the 30 engine parameters (and the arcane code that goes with them), and so on. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007[edit]

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thumb sizings[edit]

Thanks for removing the thumb sizing on those helicopter pages today. User:Signaleer didn't like the fact that I feel a pic he uploaded shouldn't be the lead on the P-51 Mustang page because it's too dark, and this is his way of "discussing" it like an adult. I guess it means if I don't give in to hem, he'll try to make my life misearble. Unfortunatley, you were the one to have to clean up this mess. I hate giving in to this guy, becuase that's what happens every time he disagrees with someone. Giving in only makes it worse for the next person he disagrees with. Up to know, no one has been willing to challenge him enough for WIkipedia to take action against him. - BillCJ 04:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there[edit]

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Hello, Wikiman (see my username). You will be quite pleased to know that I have been editing a great deal this year. Your successors are doing their best. Would you be kind enough to comment on my new username page? I have been doing quite a bit of remodeling. Thank you! Morada 19:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Morada1356[reply]

I certainly am pleased to hear about your. However, I'm afraid I don't know who you are, having only the benefit of your pseudonym to guide me. Karl Dickman ^talk 09:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Brittany M. We knew each other in high school and hung out a bit in middle school. You know me- I'm the girl who was smart but extremley quiet (I'm much more talkative now!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morada1356 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Cat scheme[edit]

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Hey Mark,

Regarding you comments on the proposed update to the WP:AIR categorisation scheme, I want to recap a few things to make sure that I'm set to move ahead with (another) 'formal' request for ratification.

My assessment: your comments 1, 3, and 4 seem to be resolved. (Regarding 4, I think it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than be spelled out in our cat scheme.) 6 is essentially unresolvable for the moment.

Regarding 5: are you proposing that the page Learjet be moved to Bombardier Learjet, that all Learjet aircraft since '91 have their titles changed from [[Learjet <model>]] to [[Bombardier Learjet <model>]], or both?

Rgarding 2: the definition of special-purpose aircraft, it seemed from WT:AIR that the best course of action was to rename the category Category:Special mission aircraft and use it for miscellaneous ones.

Also, what do you think of my comment that the AC-130 is more of a special mission aircraft than anything else? Karl Dickman ^talk 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe issues 1 and 3 have been appropriately addressed. WRT issue 4, you're right in that it will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but I would hope you'd include the three naming convention points as the WP:Air preference, so that we'll have fewer cases to deal with in the future. Those three points were

the nation of the designer/manufacturer;
if primarily license-manufactured by a foreign customer with little or no domestic use, then that nation; and
if the main original producer is later bought by another company, the name of the former should be used.

If so, this resolves issue 5 as well. (Ditto 6 in the future, if followed.) I was not proposing a rename, but rather raising the issue of consistency. "Learjet" was an American company; if it's now to be listed as a Canadian company, then the proper title is "Bombardier Learjet". According to point #3 of my aircraft article naming convention guideline schema above, the article title would remain "Learjet" (which is what I personally prefer) and categorized as "U.S.". However, if Bombardier Learjet were to introduce a brand new model, we'd have to rethink it as the Canadian TTa producer of Learjet models in its own right.

Regarding issue 2, I'm not sure there really was a consensus. I do prefer having a "Special Missions Aircraft" (or perhaps more accurately, an "Other Special Missions Aircraft") category as a subcategory of "Military aircraft"; I'm not sure whether the "Civilian aircraft" category should have one (which would require Military/Civilian in their names to distinguish them), since most of those would fit just as well under "Experimental aircraft" (if suitably defined).

As for the AC-130, I have no problem treating it as a "Special mission aircraft" — but then so are all the other "double-letter" variants. Frankly, I still feel uncomfortable lumping attack, COIN and gunship aircraft in with bombers. The latter are strategic and the former are tactical in role. I'd prefer to separate "Attack" back out and include gunships and other COIN aircraft in it. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

What is the incessant obsession in changing dates in the infoboxes of aircraft articles- many of which I have written or heavily edited? I keep one style of historical dating: "7 June 1943" throughout as a means of standardizing dating conventions. Bzuk 18:30 28 January 2007 (UTC).

[[1943-07-07]] is a more versatile tool than [[June 7|7 June]] [[1943]], becuase it renders according to a user's preferences. 1943-07-07 looks to me like 1943 June 7, but to you it could look different. Karl Dickman ^talk 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military History elections[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actinidin[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Actinidin, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.

Dear Karl Dickman, I think actinidin shouldn't redirect to kiwifruit, because it is an ensyme. - 80.99.125.207

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007[edit]

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Avro Arrow[edit]

Hi Karl, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro CF-105 Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Extra Edit Buttons (XEB)[edit]

This is a message to a number of Wikipedians. If you wish to reply to this message please do so on my talk page.

Extra edit buttons has received a significant update today. The most significant change is the introduction of popups for some of these buttons. These are small dialog forms which float over the web page. They allow the user to specify the details of the markup code they want added to the page. For example the popup for the table button allows the user to specify things such as the number of the rows and columns in a table and whether or not there should be a header row. As well as the popups there are some extra buttons and other changes to the way the code works. The documentation for XEB will be updated over the next few days.

If you have any problems with the new version, or suggestions for XEB then please contact me via my talk page. -- Mark S (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Newsletter delivery[edit]

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ending formulas with a full stop[edit]

In response to your recent edits at linear independence: the full stops (periods) are included at the end of the formulas because they indicate the end of the sentence. I'm pretty sure that this is advocated in the style guides for mathematics that I'm aware of. It's definitely mentioned in our own style guide: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Punctuation. I hope that clarifies the matter. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales in Portland[edit]

Jimmy Wales will be speaking at Reed College in Portland, OR this Monday, April 2, at 7 pm in the Vollum lecture hall. The lecture is titled "Wikia Search and the Future of the Internet". The event is open to the public, and it would be great to see you there. Please forward this message to anyone you know who may be interested. :-) Dmcdevit·t 08:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007[edit]

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

WikiProject Rocketry - Space WikiProjects reorganisation proposal[edit]

It has been proposed that WikiProject Launch Vehicles, of which you are a member, be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry per a proposal to reorganise space-related WikiProjects. The proposal will serve to clarify and expand the scope of the project.
Please post comments and support/oppose votes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation. Thanks --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airnt template[edit]

I've changed the template slightly - using the ucfirst function - so that the last parameter (Type) is now redundant (i.e. everything works as it should with or without it). Not really an improvement, just a bit more elegant. You might want to mention in the template talk page that the last parameter is now deprecated... GregorB 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)[edit]

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Badnavbars.PNG)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Badnavbars.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You friends[edit]

Erin and your other friends are not active. do they still know about wikipedia or did they decide to leave? Thnsk. --(You rang?) 17:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:An-148.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:An-148.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Yearcat1[edit]

Template:Yearcat1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)[edit]

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Bicon[edit]

I was just going across a bunch of seemingly unused templates, and I came across {{Bicon}}. I was just curious as to what exactly this did, and was it being used anymore? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, {{Boolhadder}}, I forgot to mention it as well. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)[edit]

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Bureaucratship again[edit]

Hello! In September 2005 you indicated your desire to be notified if and when I was nominated for bureaucratship again. As per your comment, I'm letting you know that I'm up for bureaucratship for the third and final time at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan3, and your opinion would be welcome. It has been a while, so if you're no longer interested, I apologize and understand. Cheers, Andre (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Administration, Asimov's Imperium[edit]

A template you created, Template:Administration, Asimov's Imperium, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airfooter[edit]

A template you created, Template:Airfooter, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template cleanup[edit]

A few templates you created, Template:Aircraft specifications-all, Template:Airtemp-all, Template:Aircraft specification-all, and Template:Aircraft specifications/all, have been marked for deletion as deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there have been no objections, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objections here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the templates. If you feel the deletions are appropriate, no further action is necessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)[edit]

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

XA-14 moved to YA-14?[edit]

Karl, what is your source for a YA-14? My sources show that when the Curtiss Model 76 design reached service test it became the Model 76A, ~~Y1A-15~~ Y1A-18. I'm going to leave it for now, but all the references I'm about to add to the article will pretty much force its move back to XA-14. --Colputt 23:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger[edit]

I want to merge the Northrop YA-13, Northrop XA-16 and Northrop A-33 into the Northrop A-17 article. At the same time I plan to update it with at least two other sources. And I plan to leave redirects in the old article's places. I fully expect the final article to meet B-class criteria. Please give a pro or con on the talk page. Thanks --Colputt 15:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)[edit]

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Tribosphenic.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Tribosphenic.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 23:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)[edit]

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)[edit]

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)[edit]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)

Project news

The Intelligence task force has been created.
The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries.
Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome!
{{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.

Articles of note

New featured articles:

New A-Class articles:

Current proposals and discussions

A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.

Awards and honors

Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.

Tag & Assess 2007

Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:

1. Bedford — 7,600

2. TomStar81 — 5,500

3. Parsival74 — 5,200

4. FayssalF — 3,500

5. Roger Davies — 3,000

6. Ouro — 2600

7. Kateshortforbob — 2250

8. Cromdog — 2,200

9. BrokenSphere — 2000

9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000

9. Maralia — 2,000

12. MBK004 — 1,340

13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250

14. Sniperz11 — 1100

15. Burzmali — 1000

15. Cplakidas — 1000

15. Gimme danger — 1000

15. Raoulduke471000

15. TicketMan — 1000

15. Welsh — 1000

15. Blnguyen — 1000

Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.

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

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)[edit]

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:MiG Russian airliners[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:MiG Russian airliners requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.