User talk:TraceyR/Archive 1

Deleting a page

When you're the author and only significant editor of a page, you may request its deletion easily. Just edit the page and put the following at the top:

{{db-author}}

It's a code for "author requests deletion". Hope this helps. Fan-1967 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Sorry for not replying sooner here! Thanks for your help - the 'offending' page has now been expunged from Wikipedia.

Aircraft articles

Thank you for your contributions to WP:Air. A couple of reminders:

1. Please cite your sources (read WP:CITE and WP:FOOT for a how-to)
2. Please use the aircraft specifications template instead of plain text (read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Aircraft specifications)

Thank you for contributing and have a happy New Year! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Articles (2)

Thank you for the tips, Emt147. I have started to apply the aircraft specifications template to the existing (new) pages.

Short Bros

The list was confusing mixing names and numbers so I though I would go for it!

I have no idea what the official format should be I just took a guess using the reference books I have. Thanks for you work on Shorts, I have added to your original Shetland page and will help when I can. MilborneOne 16:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I have changed the list again - I think it is easier to find aircraft now, since the individual decades appear in the Table of Contents (which I hadn't realised would happen!). TraceyR 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Effect

The definition of ground effect that is most often used is that it is the apparent increase in lift that occurs when a surface or airfoil is near the ground. In its first uses, the phenomenon was referred to as "ground cushion" or "ground cushion effect" and it is the same concept that underlies the flight of a hovercraft which essentially stays in the ground effect but does rise slightly above the ground. Pilots experience the effect in landing and I remember in training, piloting a small aircraft and noticing the sensation that the aircraft was "floating" just before touchdown. An entire series of Russian aircraft exploits the WIG (wing in the ground effect). A number of Soviet experimental design bureaus have designed, constructed and experimented with WIG vehicles that take advantage of an additional lift provided by the cushion of dense air trapped between a large wing of the aircraft and the surface. Induced drag (drag due to the lift) of wing is considerably reduced if the altitude of the aircraft is similar to the chord of the wing. Ground effect provides a significant fuel economy and increase of range than conventional flight. A WIG can operate over water, flat surfaces (shallows and wetlands), ice and snow. The major application of WIGs is anti-submarine warfare (ASW), search and rescue, sealift, amphibious assault and coastal defense. This class of vehicles is commonly known as "ekranoplanes" in Russia.

As for your Shorts articles, I find your work unique and interesting and it has also spurred me to research and post an article on one of the most unusual Shorts aircraft, the ill-fated Short Sturgeon. Keep up the good work. Bzuk 13:50 15 January 2007 (UTC).

The Sturgeon

Isn't that a wonderful story! I will post some more about the tumultuous life of this program and thank you for those great photographs of the SB3. Could there be a more awkward looking aircraft? I would recommend it as one of the ugliest, whoops forget that, there's always the Seamew! Just kidding there are many aircraft that have been ungainly, ill-conceived and downright goofy-looking. Bzuk 12:11 19 January 2007 (UTC).

specs template

Thanks for your concerns! I, unfortunatley, am not the person overall to adderss them, and in all honsety, it will probably need to be discussed by the people at wiki project aricraft. I have posted your concerns on the projects talk page. Hope this helps! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Bill, Could you explain why you changed the reference to the Putnam book by Barnes/James in the Short Sherpa article (a) replacing the book citation template with plain text

The information in the MLA style is more complete, places date with edition not author and is the world's most recognizable style for citing references.

and (b) by citing a different edition of the book?

The most recent reference source is always given unless there are reasons to use both.

My understanding is that citation templates are the preferred citation method.

No- just a guide for those who cannot catalog on their own. The MLA style which I use is the world's most common citation style and is as simple as: Author (last name first),first name. Title (in italics or quotation marks- better to use italics especially if there is an article within an article or book, then the book is italicised and the main title is in quotation marks). Place of publishing (city and seometimes country if the city is not well known): Publisher, Date of publication. (ISBN- optional but often quoted in order to retrieve through the "International Standard Book Number" system.) pages (if required).

And why is it necessary to replace the book originally referred to by another of the same revision date but by a different publisher?

The most recent edition (or revision) is cited first.

Did you check that the pages referred to in the original citation were still correct?

No, if there is an obvious error in pages, then go with the first or known source.

I'm puzzled!

Don't be- explanation to follow.

Is it "good style" to have a period after the page number cited? TraceyR 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Cataloguing rules dictate that all entries must be completed (it's an old protocol that stems from the "tyewriter" age but still prevails).

Reply

Hi Tracey. One thing at a time- IMHO, the Wikipedia template is a template for those who cannot "scratch" catalog on their own and is based on the (American Psychological Association) APA use for psychology, education, nursing and other social sciences. The APA style is typically used in colleges and universities as a "short" guide to references for research students. One thing that is introduced is that the date of publication is placed within the author note and not with the publication which is a bit awkward.

The style that I employed is based on the MLA (Modern Language Association) use for literature, arts and humanities which is the "standard" reference and citaiton guide for the majority of written work. Almost all publishing houses use this style with a variation called the "Chicago style."

I did a cursory check of the source to find there were two editions; in the case of two reference sources with an update or revision, the more recent or modern version is cited. For example, if there is a lengthy list of publishing editions, the "newest" one is always given. Since you had referred to the 1989 edition, this source has to be given first. Without the books at hand, I have no way of finding out if there are repaginating in the two sources. If the only source or guide you have is the "Barnes" edition, then it is appropriate to drop the "James" revision entirely, therefore, the reference would then be rewritten (you notice I said "writtten" since cataloguing also is a way of defining the source and the MLA guide which Wikipedia does not provide in template form is the more complete guide, I tend to stick with that). The Wikipedia Manual of Style provides the templates but does not insist on their use and has not made it an issue as to which guide should be used- whether APA, MLA or one of the many other guides.

Now as to the last point or "stop" which is the way I was taught in cataloguing courses (in my other life, I was a librarian for 30+ years). You must always end a note with a period (once it was a comma but conventions do change). This is to indicate, in cataloguing, the end of a statement. There is still some debate about the placement of the page number and its style but the "p. 345." and p. 345-347, 355." is usually acceptable to all. Bzuk 12:11 30 January 2007 (UTC). (FYI, you will notice that I have pointedly also used the "historical" dating system employed now for history articles and research (but not universally, especially not in the United States) and I have ended even my UTC transmission with a period or "full stop" the way it was used in the first coded transmissions such as telegrams and telegraph notes– just a habit I still use.) Oh, and by-the-bye, I really enjoy our "electronic" conversations, you seem to be one really smart "cookie" (not the the kind dropped by the Short Stirling)!

Barnes & James reference: ISBN

The ISBN of Barnes' and James' "Shorts Aircraft since 1900", published in 1989 by Putnam Aeronautical Books with "new material (C) from Derek James 1989" has the ISBN 0-85177-819-6, which differs from that currently contained in the reference. I think that the ISBN should be consistent. Any objections?

BTW the "British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data" includes the reference 629.133'34.

Reply

I asssume this coment is from TraceyR but nonetheless, the ISBN should be the accurate one in the source and since it does change according to editions and publisher, use the one that is given in your book. An American version, for example, may be the exact same book but will not be obtainable from the publisher via a different ISBN.

As for the code: "629.133'34" this is part of the CIP (Cataloguing in Progress or Publication) information for libraries as to placement of the book in their collection. It is a Dewey Decimal number that identifies it (this is from memory now, so beware, I may make a mistake) as 6- Applied Science 2- Engineering 9- Other branches of engineering 1- Aviation 3- by type (and the numbers after the "stroke" are there for larger libraires in order to more precisely locate the book). This number is then followed usually by the authors last name so it could typically be seen the spine of a book as a label indicating "629.133 Bar" and would then be arranged with other books on the same topic or on related topics.

After all that, don't cite or quote the Dewey number. Bzuk 12:36 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Short Sherpa

Nicely done on the "nested" quotations! Bzuk 23:51 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Orphaned fair use image (Image:SB5 frontleft.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:SB5 frontleft.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Short SB5 ETPS.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Short SB5 ETPS.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing article references

I'm sorry, but I do have an objection. Regardless of whether or not a page has gone offline, it was used as a reference for material in the article. It can be designated as no longer active or a working link to it or similar content can be found, but references should never simply be removed. Please see the guidelines on dead links for a more detailed explanation. Shell ^babelfish 13:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Plus

Please don't give up.  :) I have found your comments interesting, and the fact that you have a history of editing many Wikipedia articles, instead of just one, gives your comments a bit more weight. If I can offer a gentle suggestion though, it's that I think it'll help if you spend less time worrying about the personalities involved, and more on actually changing the article.  :) Yes, often times there are people on Wikipedia with an agenda, or with less-than-perfect civility. However, this problem is not limited to the JP article, it's something that's unfortunately rife throughout the Wikipedia. So, it is worthwhile to gain skills to deal with the tendentious editors, even if such skill is simply to get really really good at ignoring them.  ;)

Regarding the issue of criticism and controversy, in my opinion, the strongest articles on Wikipedia are those that represent all sides of an issue, even the negative stuff. Or think of it this way -- Suppose someone is reading a Consumer Reports article about Juice Plus, and it says something negative about the product. It's very possible that such a person may then come to the Wikipedia article, to get a non-Consumer Reports view of the subject. In that case, our article might most benefit from something like, "In 2004, Consumer Reports said xxx about Juice Plus. The response from the JP distributors was that the CR article was (biased/incomplete/etc)". This would assist readers greatly. If, however, a reader came to Wikipedia and saw just an article that was just a rosy picture of JP without anything negative, then that would make the article look weak, like a "sweep stuff under the rug" piece. The best way to deal with criticism, in my opinion, is to include the solidly-sourced stuff, but also include the solidly-sourced reactions to the criticism.

Hope you decide to stick around, Elonka 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:SB5 frontleft.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:SB5 frontleft.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Short SB5 ETPS.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Short SB5 ETPS.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these images are being used. Look at the article, it hasn't been edited in February and they're not on it. The "What links here" on the images say no article is using them. I'm confused as to how you think these are being used in the article? --MECU≈talk 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've have just looked at both articles (the Short SB5 and my gallery page) and they both reference these pictures. Is there a confusion between Wikipedia and Commons? I think that these were uploaded to Wikipedia and not Commons. Where does the bot check? Puzzled. TraceyR 21:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked a little more closely: the orphaned images have no underlines in their names; the images referred to by the pages have underlines. Sorry for the confusion. TraceyR 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent aircraft codes

Hi, I notice on your user page you question the inconsistent codes used by Shorts. I believe these were "SBAC" (Society of British Aircraft Companies) codes, Ray Williams refers to them in "Fly Navy, Aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm since 1945". I can't find much about them, but Blackburn had a number of models given "YB" or "YA" codes, when the company usually used "B-" and a number. I thought perhaps the first letter might be the manufacturer (e.g S for Shorts, BY for Blackburn) and the second might be some sort of designator. Anyway, thought you might be interested in this lead. Emoscopes ^Talk 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this, Andy. The codes Sx, SAx, SBx, SCx are genuine Shorts codes, which appear in different guises in different places! For example, a Shorts' publication in my possession refers to the experimental aircraft built to test the Lightning wingform as the "SB/5", whereas Barnes & James (Putnam) consistently uses the format "S.B.5" for all aircraft throughout; it is also often referred to elsewhere as the "SB.5". I have also seen the form "SB-6" for the Seamew in a newspaper article. Normally I would go with Barnes & James, but really the company's own designations should take precendence. The issue is complicated by the fact that, once an aircraft had been give a name, the number was usually dropped. Perhaps Shorts itself was inconsistent! I have a contact in Belfast who has offered help with images, so perhaps he can shed some light here. Thanks again for your input. TraceyR 10:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little input here: I have found an interesting page called the RAF Museum Aircraft Thesaurus. There they have listed their aircraft naming guidelines. I have found this quite helpful when creating aircraft articles, see for instance their entry on Short. There are also separate entries for Short-Bristow, Short-Kawanishi, Short-Mayo and Short-Wright. --MoRsE 10:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MoRsE. The RAF Museum Aircraft Thesaurus is also an interesting source, but it adds another layer of confusion, e.g. it prefers "S.42 Sperrin" to the "SA/4 Sperrin" as used by Shorts; according to Barnes & James "S.42" was (perhaps) a spare land fuselage for the RNAS "S.41" tractor biplane which first flew in 1912! TraceyR 11:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was another "S"-series in use, so S.42 may indeed have been the SA/4! Weird. TraceyR 19:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short Brothers

Sorry TraceyR, I cut into your editing of this article. Can you check it over to see I hadn't inadvertently eliminated anything you were working on. My apologies. Bzuk 19:32 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Concerning /CTPs

You seem to have made a mistake, which is perfectly fine given your relative newness and inexperience at Wikipedia. Now, I assume you wanted to create a "subpage" of Short Brothers here. Subpages are not allowed in article namespace. In this case, you should add that info into Short Brothers and put {{db-author}} on the /CTPs page. If the info isn't even neccesary in the article, don't even bother merging the information back into the main article. I hope I have typed clearly and that you know understand what to do. Thank you. Your talk page will be on my watchlist, so if you have a reply or any more questions you may type it here. →EdGl 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me about this - I wasn't aware of the rule about sub-pages in articles. As a matter of interest, how can one find out what is and isn't allowed? TraceyR 23:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can get to any policy or guideline from here.

By the way, in the article, you put {{tl|db-author}} instead of just plain old {{db-author}} (I fixed it for you). I shouldn't have gotten all fancy used that "tl" thing. Just to clarify that little mixup. =) It's deleted now. →EdGl 00:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avro Arrow

Hi TraceyR, Thanks for your help on all the aircraft projects to which I have submitted my pittance of knowledge. BTW, 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).

Hi, I spent some time reading the article (and make a few minor changes!). IMHO the first 2/3 are excellent - well-written and informative. Towards the end the tone becomes less "encyclopaedic", i.e. less factual and objective, more emotional ("Trouble arising", "Black Friday", "Creation of a Myth" etc). I haven't checked the development of the article, though. Your course of action (getting an editor/arbitrator to investigate) seems the right way to go. Minor point: in the section "Trouble arising" I did notice a few in-line references which should ideally be footnotes. Sorry I can't be of more help. TraceyR 10:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Newsletter delivery

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) 17:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SB4 Sherpa

If you could email me that SB4 drawing you have I could get to work on turning it into a commons-suitable drawing. You can email me through Wikipedia. Emoscopes ^Talk 17:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions

Hi there! Following up on your previous request, I created {{ft in to m}}, which works like this: {{ft in to m|30|8|abbr=yes}}→30 ft 8 in (9.35 m). All other usual options (spelling, precision, etc.) are also available. I announced it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Conversion templates, but I think it got buried in the flurry of posts to more recent sections, so I'm dubbing it here, as you seem to be the person most interested in this template. Please let me know if it can be further improved in any other way; I'll certainly look into it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing my attention to the new version - I hadn't seen that it was available. It will be very useful!

I have a suggestion for a possible improvement: If a dimension is a whole number of feet (i.e. there are no fractions of a foot to be expressed in inches) I usually omit the inches. It might be useful for the conversion template to do the same (or provide an option to do this), e.g. compare

• length main= 110 ft (33.53 m)
  (normal appearance, specified manually)

• 110 ft (33.53 m)
  using conversion template: {{ft in to m|110|0|abbr=yes|precision=2}}

I tried omitting the inches parameter, but (as you know!) this provokes an explanatory error message.TraceyR 07:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, actually I don't know what error message you are referring to. The only explanation that comes to mind is that you tried to pass a null parameter for inches, instead of omitting it altogether. Did you write {{ft in to m|110||abbr=yes|precision=2}} (note the double pipes) when the error message was generated? If so, you need to write {{ft in to m|110|abbr=yes|precision=2}} instead, which produces 110 ft (33.53 m). If that's not the error you found, could you, please, give me an example of what you did, so I could fix it?

Anyway, as you see, "0 in" shows up even when no inches are specified (because inches default to 0). My idea was that if people wanted to convert just feet with no inches, they could use plain {{ft to m}} instead. I could probably add another parameter, "show0inches" or something along those lines, and supress 0 inches by default, but I don't know if that's really going to be of much use at all. Any reasons why you absolutely must use {{ft in to m}} instead of {{ft to m}} to convert just feet? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right on both! I did present a null parameter (two pipes) when I got the message and (because I just copied/pasted the template) I didn't even notice (doh!) the different name! Everything is fine. Thanks for your help. TraceyR 07:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad I don't have to fix anything :) One other thing I wanted to ask is if a template for reverse conversion ({{m to ft in}}) would be useful. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not for me personally, since most of my 'work' involves British aircraft, but there may well be others who would find it v. useful. There is a conversion website (www.convertunits.com) which provides two fields (e.g. one for feet, the other for meters), and checks which one has a value entered, providing the other - so that might be an interesting challenge! TraceyR 13:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airplane's silhouette

At moment I'm little busy... If I will have time I'd like to exapand Lightning article... but for the future I want to do more drawing I can... so I think that I will work on Short SB.5 too. Bye.  ELBorgo (sms) 13:39, 14 Apr 2007 (UTC)

Do 26

I'm trying to do my best only ;o) Piotr Mikołajski 05:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red

It looks like we're going to have to go to the next step, a User Conduct RfC. Would you like to start one and then I'll certify? Or would you like me to start it, and then you can certify? --Elonka 22:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link you want is here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. As for procedure, the main things that you can do to help are: (1) Stay excruciatingly calm and civil; (2) Participate at the talkpage, to prove where the consensus is; (3) Continue editing the article, in line with talkpage consensus. The goal here is consensus, consensus, consensus. It's one of the strongest words on Wikipedia, when it comes to disputes. --Elonka 15:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

The mediation request has been filed, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Juice Plus. Please go the page when you can, and indicate your agreement at the bottom of the page, thanks.  :) --Elonka 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short Bros aircraft

Hi TraceyR - I've seen the "stirling" (sorry!) work you've done on this manufacturer's aircraft, and was wondering if you'd care to take a look at the gaps on the missing aircraft list with a view to maybe filling some of them? (Lots of other flying boats there as well...) Cheers --Rlandmann 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking an interest! According to the Jane's volume that the lists were compiled from, the Short 74 was a World War I floatplane, 18 of which were used by the RNAS. Some online sources mention this as one of the types used in the Cuxhaven Raid from HMS Riviera. The British Aircraft Directory groups it with the Short 41 under "Short Early Seaplanes" - maybe Barnes does something similar (since the directory gives Barnes as a source)? --Rlandmann 21:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Misnomer - fascinating stuff! One of the great things that makes working here great :) Good luck with the search - I'm afraid I have nothing more to offer on the subject at the moment but to note the discrepancy in the numbers - Jane's says there were 18 of the "Type 74", BAD numbers 20 machines amongst the various "Early Seaplanes" of which only 7 were "Type 74". The Jane's book clearly is simple extracts from "All the World's Aircraft" over the years - I'm planning to visit our State Library soon to look for info on another mystery aircraft in the original Jane's volume, so I'll look up this "Type 74" as well - should be in the 1914 or 15 edition. --Rlandmann 01:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Just got back from the Library. The British section of the 1914 Jane's is very scanty and doesn't mention the Type 74; the Library doesn't have the 1915 edition (if it ever existed) and I didn't have the foresight to look any later than that (I had to pre-order these from storage). Next time! --Rlandmann 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again TraceyR - today I purchased Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War I, which evidently reprints material from various JAWAs of the period (apparently there was indeed no 1915 edition). In this, there are multiple references to the 'Short "folder" seaplane', including this passage that manages to muddy the water further (presumably originally from the 1919 JAWA):

"Important wartime aircraft were the company's S.38 types for coastal patrol training (1914-16); Folder seaplanes (two used in the Christmas Day 1914 RNAS raid on Cuxhaven); Admiralty Type 74 patrol seaplane; Admiralty Types 166, 827 and 830 torpedo attack seaplanes (used from 1915); Admiralty Type 184 torpedo-bomber seaplane; S.310 seaplane trainer; Bomber; and 320 torpedo and patrol seaplane, Lesser types included the T.5 trainer (S.36 type). Late wartime designs included the experimental N.2A and N.2B."

I'm not sure if that helps or makes things worse! I guess the important points are that a period source identifies "Type 74" as an Admiralty designation, and that it also distinguishes this from the type used on the Cuxhaven raid, contra to other sources. I'll keep my eyes open; Cheers --Rlandmann 06:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Juice Plus. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Fairey FB-1 Gyrodyne

Copyedit from my page: Fairey Gyrodyne: I note that you are writing an article about this aircraft. In case you are not aware of this reference, have a look at Test Flying memorial site for details of a fatal crash of the Gyrodyne in 1949. TraceyR 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)|}

This message delivered: 08:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Tracey. I will look at the site. It happens that one of my publishers had a warehouse sale and I picked up Taylor's Fairey Aircraft since 1915 which is a quite comprehensive review of all the Fairey products. Like yourself, I gravitate to the little-known and obscure topics such as the Fairey Gyrodyne. BTW, I also picked up a video on the Short Stirling; would it be inappropriate to offer you a DVD copy of this item? It seems to be a wartime production. If you are interested, you can write back to me and I will give you my email address to go further; if not, no problem. BTB, I look forward to your many contributions to the Short Brothers story, you certainly have a passion for the subject! FWIW {:0}) Bzuk 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Short Admiralty Type 74

Delighted to see that you solved the mystery! I'd combed every Jane's from 1913 to 1919 without any further success. What was the breakthrough? --Rlandmann 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a beautiful thing when it all comes together, isn't it? Thanks for sharing the tale with me! --Rlandmann 00:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short Sturgeon

Tracey, check the article, it appears that some busybody has erased one of your photos. I can't find it in the Wiki Commons so you may have to resurrect the image from your files. Make sure you clearly identify its provenance as that usually keeps the image wolves at bay. Bzuk 21:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

List of aircraft of the Royal Flying Corps

Thanks for your edits to the List of aircraft of the Royal Flying Corps, I had split it from List of aircraft of the Royal Air Force but have not had time to do any work on it. MilborneOne 19:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S/L W.J. Runciman

I think it's about time to have an article about S/L W.J. Runciman. Know anyone who would be able to do a good job on it? FWIW Bzuk 23:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Tracey, you start the piece and I will help in any way I can. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

SB/5

Send me anything that you think is worthwhile and I'll have a shot at it. Do you still have my address? If not, you can email me through the profile. Emoscopes ^Talk 13:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! I finally got round to doing this on my list of orthographs. Only took 5 months!! hehe. Please find the finished article here. Regards, Emoscopes ^Talk 22:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]