User:GraemeLeggett: Difference between revisions

thank you for the relocation to a temp? file? i located the qualifications and thought aha! 'no original research' and no sources to cite except the Ross Rifle article itself. I have put the article test on my user page. Please mark for deletion the temp article within a week if required. Although when its gone its gone I think. Not enough people in Canada for there to be odds that the Ross Rifle bayonet is published and documented enough to pigeon hole neatly into a Wikipedia article. Fairly good odds that almost everyone in Canada saw or heard of a Ross Rifle bayonet though. Therefore... there should be one as a top search result for several related keywords? John Zdralek 11:17, 26 May 2006 (MDT)

Brit motor cycle test

Major British motorcycle marques

AJS - BSA - Matchless - Norton - Panther (Phelon & Moore) - Royal Enfield - Triumph - Velocette

edit

Help on a lot of fronts

Ian, first of all, let me thank you for all your excellent contributions to a host of articles that I have been writing, including the rather lengthy biography of aircraft designer John Frost. I intend to nominate the late John Frost for the Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame and I wanted to have a substantial piece of research available to back up the nomination.

Can you advise me how to get the John Frost article evaluated or appraised by others, such as yourself? Also, a related link article, the Avrocar (aircraft), seems to be getting quite a bit of attention from Uccp who is constantly deleting portions of my commentary. Not quite vandalism and I hope he has stopped now after I was forced to rewrite the entire article to completly reference everything I had said earlier.

Bzuk 15:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

templete play

Damaged Goods

This is in reply to something you wrote at Talk:Russell T. Davies, but as it's not really to do with that article I thought I'd write it here instead. Anyway, the Damaged Goods article is written like that because I considered the factual background to how and why the book came to be written and the critical reaction to it to be rather more valuable and encyclopedic than a long plot summary. Besides which, someone always ends up adding those to the Doctor Who articles sooner or later, so I'm sure one will turn up at some point. Angmering 17:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

dates

Well, dude is just a word. I dislike the style of putting the year on one line and the months/day on the subsequent lines. I think it looks bad, and specially so when most years only have 1 date anyway. In a list with say, a dozen dates per year it can be good, but not when it's almost 1 to 1. You can look at some of the "born in this year" type lists where each month is highlighted to see this looking good. but not in the battles list I think. It just makes the page almost twice as long and doesnt really clarify or group the dates, since 1 or 2 dates under each year is hardly a "Group". I just think it looks bad and i dont think it's easier to read than having only the years wikilinked. There's no necessity to link every date anwyay. who really cares what else happened on March 19 for instance? It won't tell you what happened on THAT march 19, just all march 19s. I don't think this is a real plus at all. It's essentially an irrelevant link. SpookyMulder 16:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

once more

You've changed the links on List of Naval Battles by putting the code into text, so that any battle linked with the word "details" now is not linked to. Is there a reason for this? You can't get to the article any more unless you manually type the address in! And if it's a red link you can't create an article by clicking on the link. Why on earth??

You do realize that this change is stupid and will be changed back by the admins? SpookyMulder 08:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Last battle of the Bismarck

Hello Graeme. Thanks for your work on the new Last battle of the battleship Bismarck article. I like the idea of moving the second para of the introduction to an Overview section; this greatly improves the flow.

I hope you don't mind if I raise a few questions.

Wikipedia convention is that an article called Foo begins with a sentence saying "Foo is (or was) ... " whatever it is or was. Your change to the opening sentence means that it no longer conforms with this convention. In fact, the first sentence is about an entirely different subject. What was your problem with the original reading?
I was surprised that you regard the outcome as indecisive. Grand Admiral Raeder, in his book Struggle for the Sea, wrote that "The loss of the Bismarck had a decisive effect on the conduct of the war at sea. Hitler's attitude now changed ... his orders circumscribed my use of heavy units" (quoted in BB Schofield, Loss of the Bismarck, p.71). In modern times, Eric Grove writes "The loss of Bismarck marked an important point in the German guerre de course ... (the Royal Navy) could now concentrate on the U-boats" (German Capital Ships and Raiders in World War II, p.xiii). Again, what was your problem with the original reading?
I don't understand why you resurrected the Merge tag? With the rescoping of the article, the rationale for a merge has completely disappeared.
Why are you putting back in the article so much stuff about the pursuit? Doesn't this belong in Operation Rheinübung? This article is about a battle.

I'm concerned that your changes seem to be blurring the boundaries of the article, whereas my aim in recreating the article was to sharpen then. I'm not sure whether I have failed to communicate my intentions, or whether you actually disagree with them. Either way, I'm happy to talk the issues through, either here (I have added this page to my watchlist) or on the article's talk page. The latter would, I think, be the better forum if there is really a substantive disagreement on what we are trying to achieve. Regards, John Moore 309 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re (some of) your comments.

The changing from "Decisive victory" to just "victory" and the merge tag are the work of User:Kurt Leyman. The merge is something he feels strongly about. GraemeLeggett 09:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake, and thanks for your courtesy. Regards, John Moore 309 10:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Glider template business

Specification (model)

}}

manufacturer	{{{manufacturer}}}
designer	{{{designer}}}
crew	{{{crew}}}
engine	† {{{engine}}}
span	{{{span}}}
wing area	† {{{area}}}
aspect ratio	† {{{aspect-ratio}}}
length of fuselage	† {{{length}}}
width at cockpit	† {{{width}}}
height at tail	† {{{height}}}
wing profile	{{{profile}}}
max. load	† {{{g-load}}}
empty weight	† {{{mass}}}
water ballast	† {{{ballast}}}
max. t/o weight	† {{{mtow}}}
max. load front seat	{{{pilot}}}
max. load rear seat	{{{copilot}}}
V_ne	{{{vne}}}
V_s	{{{vmin}}}
V_ra	{{{vra}}}
minimum sink rate	{{{minsink}}}
best glide ratio	{{{glideangle}}}

This Template is a first draft for a Infobox Glider.

Optional parameters are marked by a " †" in the right column. Parameters, which are left blank, will not be shown in the infobox.

This is an example, of a finished Infobox.

{{Infobox Glider|
 | name =  <Name>
 | image = † <Image>
 | manufacturer = <Manufacturer>
 | designer = <designer>
 | crew = <single / dual>
 | engine = <retractable>
 | span =  <span>
 | area = † <wing area>
 | aspect-ratio = † <aspect ratio>
 | length = † <length of fuselage>
 | width = † <width of fuselage at cockpit>
 | height = † <heiht at the tail>
 | profile = <wing profile>
 | g-load = † <max load>
 | mass = † <empty weight>
 | ballast = † <water balast in liter>
 | mtow = † <max. t/o weight>
 | pilot = <max load front seat>
 | copilot = <max load rear seat>
 | vne = <Vne>
 | vmin = <Vmin>
 | vra = <V rough air>
 | minsink = <minimum sink rate>
 | glideangle = <best glide ratio>
}}

Air specs template code

Data from from here

General characteristics

Crew: 2 (pilot and navigator)
Length: 83 ft 6 in (25.5 m)
Wingspan: 51 ft 7 in (15.7 m)
Height: 21 ft 8 in (6. 6m)
Aspect ratio: 5 to 1
Empty weight: 54,700 lb (24,810 kg)
Loaded weight: 97,000 lb (43,990 kg)
Powerplant:
- 2 × de Havilland Gyron P.S.52 afterburning turbojet, 25,000 lb (5.6 kN) each
- 4 × de Havilland developed Spectre 5 rocket, 10,000 lb (2.25 kN) each

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.5
Range: 260 nm (480 km)
Endurance: 15 minutes
Service ceiling: 76,000 ft (23,000 m)
sink rate: 25 m/s ()
Glide ratio: 15:1

Armament
OR 3101 (2 radar- and 2 infrared-guided missiles)

QF 4.5 inch Howitzer

Hello Graeme, I see you've added the really nifty

. It has 4.5 inch Howitzer but the actual page name is QF 4.5 inch Howitzer. Also, 60 pounder was not QF, it was BL. Really needs to be changed. cheers Rcbutcher 13:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the template with QF 4.5 inch Howitzer and BL 60 pounder Gun ... hope that's OK, let me know if I'm screwing up here cheers Rcbutcher 13:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

New aircraft specs experimental area

we want to be able to see the afterburning specs

was close at here

SR.187

Always learning

No further action was planned on "Empire Gull"...just thought it was odd to have a disambiguation page where one of the only two links didn't lead to anything.WQUlrich (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

List of B-24 Liberator survivors

Have you looked at what a table looks like using someone elses computer you end up with information crunched together and makes it almost impossible to read easily

things like

B-24D

-5CO

41-234

567

(c/n:

1234

5).

(N120

03)

and thats just the first column

I have tried tables many many years ago, if I could get the information to stack correctly (as in Word format) I would use it (believe me I would) (I really hate Wiki's processor and its limitations on, and its almost useless tables). I had to go to this format to get legigiblity - right now, am experimenting with a new format (take a look at De Havilland DH-98 Mosquito Survivors on my home page) agree it is not a table but with the limitations of wikipedia processor this is the best we can achieve.

If you can get the information to line-up (ala Word for Windows) (say in you sandbox) send me a note and let me take a look and maybe you can do something that has been driving me nuts for 2 years now.

I do like tables (did the table for the Catch-22 aircraft as well as the Doolittle Raider aircraft) but I like being to read the information easily, cleanly and with little eye strain Davegnz (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I need more information, first to replicate your situation. Can you tell me which browser you use and at what screen size/resolution. On List_of_B-29_Superfortress_survivors#B-29_Survivors where do thr forced newlines appear in the top entry?GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

B-24 Survivors

Here is a sample of what the Mosquito Survivors page looks like, as you can see would not easily be converted to a table (usiing wiki tables)

DH-94 Prototype De Havilland - Salisbury Hall

DH-98 Prototype E0234 (c/n: I98001). Built: October 1941, Dismantled: 3 November 1940, First flight: 25 November 1940 (Pilot: Geoffrey de Havilland Jr.), Accepted: 19 February 1941 Royal Air Force (W4050)(Pilot: Alan Wheeler) (RAF Boscombe Down) Ground accident: 24 February 1941 - fuselage replaced with one built for W4051 (PR.1 prototype), Modification: 14 March 1941 - extended engine nacelles, Service trials completed: 23 May 1941, Aircraft used to test various modifications, Installed: 20 June 1942 Merlin 61 engines, Installed: 8 October 1942 Merlin 77's engines, Loaned: 1 March 1943 - 10 June 1943 Rolls Royce, Grounded: January 1944 - assigned to apprentice training, Movie: 1945 "The Mosquito Story", SOC: 21 June 1947, Sold: 1947 De Havilland Aircraft ^[1]^[2]^[3]

On public restoration at De Havilland Museum, Salisbury Hall, St. Albans, Hertfordshire (Markings:

E0234)

Davegnz (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that what you have there will not tabulate. However, you are including more information than is useful. Some of the prototype's history is already covered by the Mosquito article. The rest is largely superfluous in the article or more complx than a few words can convey. Detail is in the linked sources. Accordingly it can be rewritten as

DH.98 prototype E0234 Accepted for trials by the RAF as W4050 in 1941. Grounded in 1944 and subsequently used by de Havilland for apprentice training. Sold in 1947 to de Havilland. ^[4]^[5]^[6]Now on public restoration at the De Havilland Aircraft Heritage Centre, St. Albans, UK.

And that's the detail for a relatively important Mosquito. For most purposes, an entry of the form

NF Mk II

HJ711

RAF 1943-1944 169 Sqn
crashed and scrapped 1944
Fuselage used by Training Command
Purchased 1972

Yorkshire Air Museum,

being rebuilt with parts from other aircraft

Actually thats a bad example - more of a replica than anything

B.35 TJ138	RAF 1945- to date Converted in 1952 to Target tug (TT.35). Transferred to Air Historical Branch Collection.	RAF Museum	public display at Hendon

You have to be almost brutal in trimming the content down to what is key, rather than try a write a potted history of what may be a long career spent a lot of the time in Maintenance units.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[1] EO234 (Mossier page)

[2] EO234 (Warbird Registry)

[3] E)234 (Airliners photo collection)

[4] W4050 (prototype) at www.mossie.org

[5] EO234 (Warbird Registry)

[6] E)234 (Airliners photo collection)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 313: / Line 313: @@
 |area alt=
 |airfoil=
+|aspect ratio= 5 to 1
 |empty weight main= 54,700 lb
 |empty weight alt= 24,810 kg
@@ Line 359: / Line 360: @@
 |more performance=
 |sink rate main=25 m/s
+|glide ratio=15:1
 |endurance=15 minutes

the Old World of the Warhammer Fantasy setting
games	Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Warmaster, Mordheim, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
Races:	Bretonnia, Tilea, , Skaven, Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, Wood Elves
Places:	Araby, Cathay, Lustria, Ulthuan, Southlands
the Empire	Stirland, Averland, Reikland Wissenland, Talabland
Cities	Talabheim, Altdorf, Middenheim

v t e British Empire artillery of the First World War
Armoured vehicle guns	QF 3-pounder Vickers QF 6-pounder Hotchkiss QF 6-pounder 6 cwt
Infantry guns	1.59-inch breech-loading Vickers Q.F. gun, Mk II
Field artillery	BL 12-pounder 6 cwt QF 12-pounder 8 cwt QF 12-pounder 18 cwt QF 13-pounder BL 15-pounder BLC 15-pounder QF 15-pounder QF 18-pounder QF 4-inch gun Mk III BL 4-inch gun Mk VII QF 4.5-inch howitzer
Medium & heavy artillery	QF 4.7-inch gun BL 5-inch howitzer BL 5.4-inch howitzer BL 60-pounder gun BLC 6-inch siege gun BL 6-inch gun Mk VII BL 6-inch gun Mk XIX BL 6-inch 26 cwt howitzer BL 6-inch 30 cwt howitzer BL 8-inch howitzer Mk I – V BL 8-inch howitzer Mk VI – VIII
Siege artillery	BL 7.5-inch Mk III naval gun BL 9.2-inch howitzer BL 9.2-inch Mk X naval gun BL 12-inch howitzer BL 12-inch Mk X naval gun BL 15-inch howitzer
Mountain artillery	RML 2.5-inch mountain gun BL 10-pounder mountain gun BL 2.75-inch mountain gun QF 2.95-inch mountain gun QF 3.7-inch mountain howitzer
Mortars	Garland trench mortar 3-inch Stokes mortar Vickers 1.57-inch mortar 2-inch medium mortar Newton 6-inch mortar 9.45-inch Heavy Mortar
Smoke and chemical weapons	4-inch Stokes Mortar Livens Projector Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector
Anti-aircraft guns	QF 1-pounder pom-pom QF 2-pounder "pom-pom" Mk II 75 mm AA gun QF 12-pounder 12 cwt QF 13-pounder 6 cwt QF 13-pounder Mk IV QF 13-pounder 9 cwt QF 3-inch 20 cwt QF 18-pounder QF 4-inch Mk V
Coastal artillery	QF 12-pounder 12 cwt QF 4-inch naval gun Mk I – III BL 6-inch Mk VII naval gun BL 9.2-inch Mk IX – X naval gun RML 9-inch
Railway guns	BL 9.2-inch railway gun BL 12-inch railway gun BL 12-inch railway howitzer BL 14-inch railway gun