User talk:Ericg/archives/2006/Sept-Oct

Go-around image

Hi.

I just upload your image of Go-around operation to the commons. You can find it here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Go-around.png

thanks for publishing it into Public Domain

--195.76.0.233 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preserved C-130s

Thanx for your input - I feel that a Preserved C-130 category is entirely appropriate as this a historical airframe, various models of which have been placed in display situation. It is only laziness on my part that the only two examples I cited in opening the category were AC-130 models... I shall correct that, forthwith...

Mark Sublette Falls Church, Virginia

Hurricane bibliographic record

Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most authors. As an author and a 30year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available) for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/legacylib/mlahcc.html>

Bzuk 19:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Re: The format I used is a standard across wikipedia. Bring it up with WP:CITE, not me. ericg ✈ 01:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Since you mention it- here is the quote you need: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is not excluded in Wikipedia.[reply]

Bzuk 22:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

747-8

You think having incidents opens it up to vandalism in the future? I think having it makes it similar to other plane articles. What do you think? Have a great day! --Bangabalunga 23:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

787 specs

Eric, On Boeing 787 you write why we have specs on 8 different aircraft. I also believe we should remove all of them. Have a nice 3 table specification chart on the 787-3 787-8 787-9 and thats it. We can even bring the 3-way cross section of the 787 right next to this spec chart. I belive articles need to be stand alone and comparing it to everything diminishes this. Why not add Ilyushin il-96 here too then? Or many other aircaft. The 787 article is very very poorly done. Its not an encyclopedic entry. Its simply a collection of newsbits. As soon as a story comes out, somebody writes a paragraph there. I have been doing some updates and I want to know if you agree. Take care --Bangabalunga 23:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

787

Hi Eric

I spent a while cleaning it up last night till this morning. What do you think? I think its much better. Now people can write all the speculation on orders they want on the 787 order page and leave the integrity of the main article alone. Thanks for fixing punctuation and spelling stuff. I couldn't think by the end of it anymore. --Bangabalunga 18:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table

Ok, if you oppose me puting a table on the english wikipedia, I will be doing it on the Russian, French and Spanish versions of it. I dont see anything on wikiproject aircraft opposing that.--Bangabalunga 21:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In service

Hey ericg, Im getting tired of these people puting planes in service in aircraft articles. Like Ardfern. Or other guys that just added all the planes at boeing 737. What do you think of deleting them all? There is already a list of 737 operators. These people can put their info there.--Bangabalunga 05:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]