Santa Barbara, California

For previous talk see User talk:GraemeLeggett/ Archive 1

HMS Queen 12 pdr guns

Hi Graeme, I see you linked HMS Queen to QF 12 pdr 18 cwt rather than QF 12 pdr 12 cwt. Do you have a source for this ? I've found it next to impossible to identify where this gun was mounted as all the sources tend to just say QF 12 pdr as if that explains everything. The 18cwt was 50-cal and had a longer range. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

List of AMC motorcycles

As part of the Motorcycling WikiProject I am working though all the missing articles and stubs for British Bikes. To make things easier to sort out I have created a category for British motorcycles and I've started a list in table format on your original article List_of_AMC_motorcycles. I'd like to move the G80 to its own article if that's OK? Tony (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the Imperial-Metric conversions policy ?

Hi, what's the policy for Imperial weights & measures , in this case for artillery and ammunition ? Somebody's gone and arbitrarily added rounded metric equivalents to all the British artillery specs e.g. providing 18 kg as the equivalent to 40 lbs. My argument is that specs are by their nature precise - if it says 40lbs it means exactly that, and if a metric equivalent is given it should be an exact equivalent. But if every single reference gets followed by a metric conversion, even if precise, the articles will be dumbed-down and look stupid, they'll be swamped in numbers. Books don't do this for that very reason, they assume the reader will do his own conversions if he wants to. Is there a policy on this in Wikipedia ? What we really need is for the text to present specs in the units they were originally designed with, and for the reader to be able to e.g. roll his cursor over a measurement to get a metric equivalent.. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

can you point me to an article or articles in particular? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

BL 5 inch Howitzer is an example where 50 lbs is rounded to 23 kg. The conversions are in the text, not in the specs box. I'm not trying to suggest that the User Lightmouse is wrong in adding the conversion, just that we need a way of ensuring that roundings don't introduce inaccuracies - 23 kg may get translated elsewhere into 50.7 or 51 lbs and then the whole point gets lost. In normal colloquial usage this sort of conversion would be OK, but not here where 50lbs or 40 lbs are specifics rather than roundings. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the 5 inch and made some changes myself. In general I believe in only giving the conversion for any given value once especially when it can be the name of something as in "5 inch gun". Is the weight of the shell exactly 50 lb or is a nominal 50 lb and actually they were more like 50 lb 4 oz. If the latter I would use 50 lb in quotes on the first time and ref out that it was a true weight of "X lb (y kg)". If it was a true 50 lb shell then I would convert to at least one decimal point so it became "50 lb (22.7 kg)" since what we are converting is actually "50 lb 0 oz". I note in passing that only a couple of lb convsersions were made - yards were not converted, nor the calibre in the infobox.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard to tell after 90 years, I can only quote from the ordnance manuals of the time... I assume that when Treatise on Ammunition 1915 says 50 lb exactly that's what it means... the manual explicitly states that shells will be made up to exact weights by varying filling accordingly, and this is necessary for accurate shooting. So calibre and shell weight should be treated as a precise figure. Gun descriptions on the other hand just use weight as a meaningless label - Shells for 18 pounder guns weighed 18.5 lb, both 14 pounder and 12 pounder gun shells weighed 12.5 lbs. Which is why I think metric conversions would just confuse the issue, part of the article's purpose is to give a feel for how the British military thought in 1914, by using the terminology of the day, and metric intrusions blur this. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In similar vein, the WW2 RAF aircraft articles mostly list 7.7mm as an appropriate conversion for .303 British calibre. Blanket application of conversions like this just shouldn't be attempted, it's simply wrong to even try it. The Sunbeam 1000HP land speed record car suffers too - the actual power was more like 900bhp and the "1000" figure was plain marketing hype. So "746kW" is a figure out of nowhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose we don't add conversions to the text, but provide a metric conversion as a footnote when appropriate. This allows the text to flow, and we can be very precise in the footnote about what we mean by 50 lb or 18 lb or .303. E.g. a footnote stating 50 lb shell = 22.73 kg, 3 inch = 76.2mm. whereas calibres like .303 are sometimes descriptors rather than exact measurements and need care in providing metric conversion.. the article writer is in a better position than outsiders to finetune this stuff. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That would fly in the face of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Conversions which states "should generally be provided" which I think makes sense and I believe is in common use in other manuals of style. I would not apply that rule to mean that names of things should have conversions within eg the "60 pounder gun" "5 inch gun". GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read the style manual entry you refer to. It is geared towards expressing measurements as generalities rather than specifications. A problem arises when there are e.g. 100 lb shells and 102 lb shells such as for six inch guns, or 45 lb and 46 lb 9oz shells for 4.7 inch guns.. Detailed articles which mean exactly what they say when using such terms are reduced to babble when vague conversions are introduced. To say "The 5 inch howitzer fired a shell weighing approximately 18 kg" is a different thing to saying the shell weighed 18 kg. Because as sure as hell eventually everybody will believe the shell weighed 18 kg if we allow this sloppy stuff into the articles - and that kind of sloppiness is why so many people just don't trust Wikipedia.

Rcbutcher (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The onus must then by on the specialist writer or editor to make such information clear, and not be surprised if a more general editor puts in what they believe to be a reasonable conversion. (good faith edits). I believe, for most general readers the approximate weight is sufficient for them since they have no requirements to absolute accuracy on the matter. I would give exact weights can be left to elements of the article that deal with the ammunition or to footnotes. I would suggest a phrasing like "60 lb shell" (27 kg) <ref > Exact weight of the 1907 60 lb shell was 60.4 lb (27.2 kg) with fuze. < /ref >. In summary generalities are not babble, just approximatiosn good enough for most readers provided the fine detail is available for the specialist. And wikipedias trust issues go beyond sloppiness in conversions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, makes sense. I'll use it as a guideline. Footnote if exactness is important in the context. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

expand {{GreatWarBritishWeapons}} to include British Empire ?

Hi Graeme, I've thinking perhaps {{GreatWarBritishWeapons}} needs to also reflect "Weapons of the British Empire" as in WWI the entire Empire functioned as a single strategic unit. The implication is that some weapons used by e.g. Australia but not by Britain, are not "British weapons" but were used in the overall British war effort. Examples I can think of are the Garland mortar and Japanese mortars used by the Australians on Gallipoli. Similarly the Canadian Ross rifle. any thoughts on this ? Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't presumably make the navbox much bigger, so why not add them in to give the "bigger picture".GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Invert Sugar sweetness

Okay, I'm at a loss. you reverted an edit I made last month and added a cite claiming that invert sugar is sweeter than regular sucrose syrup. There are any number of cites that dispute this, including the 80 year-old peer reviewed cite still standing on the invert sugar page. I don't want to be difficult but it would seem the preponderance of the evidence indicates that invert is less sweet than regular syrup. How do we resolve this? Thanks, Peter Camper (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RAE article

I wanted to insert some note about the old controversy against what was then the Royal Aicraft Factory (later the RAE) that was rife between 1915 and the early 1920s, and has coloured some aviation historian's view of some of the Royal Aicraft Factory types ever since.

I wanted this to be:

1. Free from POV 2. Fair 3. Brief (it is after all a minor by-way, not a major issue)

Since at least two of the "fact" tags that have festooned my work seem to have originated with you I am letting you know I have removed them. I have NOT supplied conventional citations in any detail - as I said in the "talk" section this would have been hard without being highly specific, and therefore blowing that section of the article up out of all proportion.

On the other hand I have mentioned a couple of sources that would make intersteing reading for anyone interested in the subject.

Does this answer your concerns about uncited work? Or do you want to insert citations for the two works mentioned in a more standard way? I must admit I am still a little hazy about how this is done, as I have not been editing wikipedia for long Soundofmusicals 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

CSC

In the article on CSC's, you recently edited this: "The second code, and the most cited, is CVV2 or CVC2. This CSC"

You added this phrase: "(also known as a CCID or Credit Card ID)"

I've not heard this used before.

Did you come across it in a particular part of the world or particular circumstances?

Are you able to provide any reference for its use?

Happy New Year! Gaimhreadhan 23:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Had to find it out when processing a software upgrade through Microsoft, the webpage asked for the CCID so I went searching, try terms such as CCID and credit and you get links like this and this. Note also that CCID can be a abbreviation for "Cybercash Identification" GraemeLeggett 09:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

dates

Dude, could you please not wikify dates in chronological lists? It puts the day/month first and then the year (with common prefs), making it difficult to follow the order. You keep doing this on "list of naval battles". I can have it ruled on if you like. SpookyMulder 12:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Major and notable motorcycle manufacturers

A contributor has just changed it, and other country duplicates, into a straight manufacturers list. He does not see the "Major and Notable" idea. Discussion is on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling#Major and Notable motorcycle marque infoboxes. I was hoping you might comment. Seasalt 11:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ironclad warship

Don't want to particpate in the discussion concerning the future of the article? Regards Gun Powder Ma 05:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Span Sweep Spec

Graeme, I note that you added the span sweep spec to the Short Sherpa but it doesn't appear in the article. I have checked the spec template and this parameter isn't catered for. I have left a comment on the spec editor's talk page re the need for additional entries for carrier aircrafts' height/width with wings folded; perhaps sweep is another field which needs to be added to the template. I'll mention this to him/her. TraceyR 00:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Must have seen it on another parameter list. Perhaps we could get it swapped out for the NACA airfoil position which I doubt exists for most of the aircraft on wikipedia - though sweep is probably available. Even better get airfoil swpaped out for some generic wing descriptor. GraemeLeggett 10:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

First Commercial airliner in Canada

The Avro Aircraft Ltd. Avro C102 Jetliner was the first jet-powered airliner in North America and the second to fly in the world, 13 days behind the de Havilland Comet. Although intended for use by the Trans-Canada AirLines, the airline reneged on a letter of agreement and relegated a promising design into the "also-ran" category. After a successful test program and an ambitious marketing effort to find an alternative buyer, the Jetliner languished as a company photo platform until its demise in 1956. During the Korea War, a second prototype was broken apart at the factory in the wake of government concerns that the military contracts of Avro Canada would be unduly affected.Bzuk 16:04 25 January 2007 (UTC).

I think I can edit the article appropriately - though I'll find a form of words that doesn't leave it open to confusion with a jet engined Lancastrian. GraemeLeggett 17:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

List of naval battles

This is what I see for many of what used to be actual links:

([[Action of 16 September 1629|details]])

The date has been linked, meaning that the "details" no longer appears as a link; instead the code for the "details" link appears with the date and year linked. For some reason they've decided it would be a good idea to nullify the link by showing the code. I can't think of a good reason for doing this. You're right. I assumed you did that change too. Anyway, I've asked for a review or whatever they call it so hopefully it'll be cleared up.

I hope you'll reconsider linking every date on the page and putting sub indents and sub sub indents. It really does look stupid and is much harder to follow. In some cases the year is first, in others the month or day are first. It makes the page a lot longer and serves no purpose. It actually HINDERS clarity. If you've got a few dates with lots of indents after eacxh one it can look fine. Lots of dates with 1 or 2 indents after each one looks stupid. The page was fine before.

SpookyMulder 09:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Bismarck Chase

I don't understand the dispute that seems to be going on over the 'disputed facts' tag, and I'd prefer to stay out of it. But I noted that in your edit to remove the disputed tag today another item was removed, perhaps inadvertently. The edit by Hossen27 that inserted the reference to the destroyer HMAS Nestor as being an Australian-commissioned and manned ship. It may not matter too much to other nationalities, but to a young nation like Australia, it probably matters a great deal that their history is acknowledged. My edition of Warships of WWII by Lenton and Colledge, pub 1964 by Ian Allen, page 113, identifies Nestor as an Australian destroyer using the prefix HMAS . Unfortunately, this source is an old one, so old that it has no ISBN number to quote you.

I have other, more generalised views about the quality of this article. I feel that a thorough clean-up would be a good thing. IMHO there are too many assertions made in it that are inadequately sourced. A notable example being the claim of an air-corridor though the Irish Republic. And the use of the Gaelic term 'Eire' seems misplaced. The correct English term is 'Ireland' with 'Eire' being the correct word in the Gaelic language. We don't after all use the term 'Roma' when in English the correct term is 'Rome'. A good place to start a clean-up might be to provide an 'External References' reading list. One I suggest is the account by a participant aboard the destroyer HMS Tartar, Ludovic Kennedy, pub 1974 by Collins, ISBN 0 00 634014 8 Pursuit - The Sinking of the Bismarck. Regards George.Hutchinson 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Air Ministry Specifications

Hi Graeme.

Actually when it comes to Air Ministry Specifications sources tend to be inconsistent, for example one of my sources says that the Spitfire was initially designed to F.5/34. I have just been adding aircraft when I can find a specific AM Spec. number. Some publications differ on the actual Spec. to which the aircraft was designed/submitted and occasionally some 'educated guesswork' has been used. I try only to use published (book/magazine form) data and regard web-sourced information as potentially unreliable, although there is some good work out there.

I don't know much about the COW gun fighter so I can't say whether the Spec. is correct or not RE: the Gauntlet, although Emmanuel's work is usually pretty good. Feel free to amend the Wiki list as necessary, my references are mostly from the 1970's/80s so may have been superseded by later, more accurate, data. Regards, Ian Dunster 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I will look into how cite web works - I've only just got the hang of < ref > thne perhaps I can add a ref to that. GraemeLeggett 15:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Spec for Airspeed Fleet Shadower etc

Hi again Graeme.

Actually that was one of the references I used - the others being here: [1] and here: [2] but the AS.39 one has the Spec. as S.22/27 so I'm assuming that's a typo and they were both developed to S.23/27 - I seem to remember that the two aircraft are usually mentioned as being developed to the same spec. - BTW, the page you referenced is actually a copy of No. 1 above. Ian Dunster 20:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I have just left a message about possibly splitting the Specs. up into periods and moving them to separate pages if you want to take a look: Talk:List of Air Ministry Specifications. Regards, Ian Dunster 21:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just realised I had the S.23/27 in the wrong section - it should have been (as you correctly wrote on my talk page) S.23/37 - thought the year and OR were a bit funny - must have gotten it off the typo here: [3]. Ian Dunster 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Graeme.

Found this a while ago but forget to let you know: Profile - Flying Slow Ian Dunster 22:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Battlecruiser Article

Hi there,

Thanks for cleaning up my new sections in the Battlecruiser article. I was busy working on the German section when you did it, and therein lies the problem.

I think I obliterated your work on the "the German Response" section when I saved my new work. Was there any substancial changes in there as I would be more than happy to reincorporate them into the article.

Regards Getztashida 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've run through it again so it's no big deal - mostly German style capitalization of nouns and a few typos.GraemeLeggett 14:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vista

Please restate your opinion on the Vista move on the Vista talk page. Thank you. W3stfa11/^{Talk to me} 03:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Need Help in the de Havilland Comet article

References needed

In order for the de Havilland Comet article to be treated as a serious piece of research, there has to be some check on the constant reversions and revisons that have occurred in the recent history of the article. There are many reputable sources of information available and editors should qualify their commentary with appropriate references, otherwise the work comes off as a flawed, less than neutral observation. I can appreciate that the Comet represents an iconic aviation programme that has been the subject of ongoing interest, however, scholarly, balanced research should be the watchword. Bzuk 22:23 11 February 2007 (UTC).

James C Floyd and the Concorde

Graeme, I have noted the reference source that fully details the involvement of Floyd in the HS SST program. The author, Randall Whitcomb recounts the post-Avro Canada years fully and devotes a great deal of his work on James Floyd. He had unique access to Floyd and his personal files. Bzuk 13:11 21 February (UTC).

I'm not disputing the source - it seeems to me that the JCF's wikiarticle needs editing to match that. The bio at avroArrow.org [4] indicates a pre and post concorde flight participation which gets glossed over in the text. GraemeLeggett 15:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Graeme,the information presented elaborates on the Hawker Siddeley Aviation (HSA) supersonic airliner studies from the Hawker Siddeley Advanced Projects Group headed by James C. Floyd post 1959. The HSA.1000 was the final submission to the Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee (STAC) which along with the Bristol Aircraft proposal was for an advanced Mach 2.2 design. The STA dictated a joint SST feasibility study in 1959 wherein the two competing design teams could collaborate, this being the only point at which Floyd influenced the ultimate Concorde layout. The HSA.1000 had similarities to the Bristol (later BAC) studies although the HSA design had a blended wing-fuselage with underslung jet engines in nacelles situated at the rear of the wing and the Bristol design was based on a delta wing planform (with an initial above-wing engine configuration). After the Concorde contract was given to the BAC/Sud Aviation collaboration, the HSA SST team continued to develop advanced SST projects but found no interest by either European or American manufacturers with design studies concluded in 1967. I will include this information in both the Avro Arrow and James C Floyd articles. Bzuk 22:59 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Yank spelling vs. Brit spelling

G'day Graeme. As you can probably tell from the HMS Electra article, I'm a Yank and spell as such. I'm not against Brit spelling (and often favour it, actually), but I ask... could you either point me towards, or create, a list of words that fall under the "Yanks spell it this way, Brits spell it this way, and they're both right!" topic? Words like signalled, refuelled, etc. (which, at this moment, Firefox is denoting as misspelled). Thank you kindly -- HawkeAnyone 16:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, I'd suggest turning off Firefox spellchecker (if such a thing is possible) unless you want to engage British English spelling. otherwise you should try reading through American and British English differences and American_and_British_English_spelling_differences, altered roots addresses the double single "l" topic. Hope that helps. GraemeLeggett 09:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Avro Arrow

Hi Graeme, 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 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).

Thanks

N'abend Graeme, just wanted to thank you for showing me yet another possibility for disambiguating "Elector". I really wasn't sure how to handle these Electors in the Warhammer universe, as I have no idea of it. Good job! -Bundesamt 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

British military aircraft designation systems

Hi Graeme.

Actually, it looks like you (or someone else) already found it - Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle - GT = General Transport - LOL! Ian Dunster 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is Glider Tug is just as, if not more plausible, and is consistent with TT = target tug. The equipment needed to make a plane into a tug rather rules out it being a "general" transport. GraemeLeggett 09:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember the Albemarle being designated as a 'transport' later on in the war - a number where supplied to Russia as-such, with the dorsal gun position faired-over. However you may be right and 'Glider Tug' could be what is meant, but I have never heard of the GT standing for Glider Tug though. I think General Transport is probably the correct meaning. Ian Dunster 12:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

An Invite to join Aviation WikiProject

Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Aviation WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation. This includes aircraft, airports, airlines and other topics.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 11:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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) 11:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Conversion of AFV template to Infobox weapon

Hey, I've just been following the conversion instructions here. If those instructions aren't complete, you might want to mention it to Kirill Lokshin, so he (or you, or someone else) can make sure that anyone converting the templates (including myself) has the correct instructions. At any rate, I'll hold off on the conversions until the instructions are complete. Carom 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the simple expedient of making those additional fields optional; the conversion should now work correctly without adding anything new. Kirill Lokshin 12:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

New articles

Hi Graeme.

Just thought I'd let you know I've started a couple of new articles that might interest you.

• NIVO
• Turbinlite

They're a bit sparse ATM so if you have anything to add feel free. Regards, Ian Dunster 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hawker P.V.4

Graeme- do you have a photo of this "one-off?" Bzuk 17:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Fraid not. Perhaps Tony Buttler will do a book pre 1935 and we'll get to see one. GraemeLeggett 08:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Found one and posted it. Bzuk 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Tornado ADV

Hi. Do you think you should revise "Since the fuselage was being built by the UK, this was far easier to achieve than using a modifed wing (built in Germany) or if the fuselage had been built by the German part of the consortium."? It is my understanding that the centre fuselage was built in Germany. The way you have written it seems to suggest that the entire fuselage was built by BAe? I didn't change it because I'm not 100% sure. Best regards. Mark83 17:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

I'll check, presumably as the germans built the wings, they also built the section of the fuselage that they fit into - the pivoting business being more complex than simply bolting a pair of wings onto another structure. I'll go and reread Tony Buttler's Bombers etcGraemeLeggett 08:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember when that company damaged F3s (Airwork??) undergoing maintainence the RAF had to return some of the fuselages to Germany as they could only be fixed in the original jig. Mark83 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

I thought that you might like to know that British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, an article to which you have previously contributed, has been put forward as a featured article candidate. Thank you for your help. If you would like to comment on this article's nomination, please see here. Your opinions will be most welcome. Gaius Cornelius 12:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Type 97 Chi-Ha related armoured fighting vehicles

Hi Graeme, just thought you'd like to know that this article has been proposed for deletion, the main reason being a lack of references. Since you originally created it, perhaps you could provide some? Thanks, Marasmusine 06:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I span it off from the Type 97 Chi-Ha page to clean up that article, the references for it would be those of the tank itself - personally I've no objections to deletion.GraemeLeggett 08:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Elbing

Hi. I would not compare number of Elbings guns with L and M class destroyers, but rather with a bulk of British destroyers, having 4 guns (they fought against Q-R and S-W destroyers by the way, and supposedly managed to damage HMS Grenvile and Rocket). They could be compared also with Hunts. Pibwl ←« 22:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I was building on the existing statement which (I thought) overstated the calibre difference - 4 inch vs 4.5/4.7 inch - and I picked a contemporary destroyer. The Hunts are probably better for comparison in terms of period but then there is no calibre difference. The Q/R etc are an emergency measure built with whatever guns were available so perhaps the J/K which they were built on should be the comparator.GraemeLeggett 08:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cap Arcona

De quel droit tu te permet de supprimer des modifications ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.64.182.240 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Five pillars if my French is it to the job.GraemeLeggett 15:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

List of operators formatting

WP:MOS doesn't forbide to use links or special signs in heading title. It should be avoided but isn't forbidden, especially if there is no other solution. In this case there is no alternative because there is no other possibility to put flag icon and country name in heading. Format ==={{FRA}}=== is much shorter than ===[[Image:Flag of France.svg|22px]] [[France]]===. Flag icons make these articles more readable, more user friendly and more informative. This format is common for all "list of operators" articles. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture hardcoding

Hi, I noticed a number of your edits on Peninsular War and am somewhat confused by the removal of hardcoding on the images. Are we no longer permitted to adjust the images to an agreeable size? Albrecht 18:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since thumb sizing is under user preferences, and other reasons it is considered that hardcoding size should be avoided (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. GraemeLeggett 08:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Siege of Delhi / Bengal Army

Re. your description of British Army "European" units in Delhi: In India at the time, common usage was "British" or "Queen's" to indicate British Army units. "European" referred to whites-only units of the British East India Company's armies. For example, the 1st and 2nd Bengal Fusiliers had previously been known as the 1st and 2nd European Light Infantry (in 1846 at least). The "European" troops of the Company's armies were mainly raised in Ireland, though any and all applicants for life under harsh barrack conditions in an enervating climate were welcome! I'll try and produce an article on the Bengal Army (and EICo's armies) in general, but it will take a fair amount of research to do the subject justice. HLGallon 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Help

Can you help me by telling me how to copyright my image [[Image:Bothferry.jpg]] I dont know how to do it.

Input needed for the article on Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors

There is currently an problem with edits at Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors. A discussion has been started at Wiki Project Aircraft's talk page. Your input, as a contributor to either an old or new version of the article would be much appreciated on the projects talk page. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Universal_Carrier.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Universal_Carrier.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:79th armoured division badge.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:79th armoured division badge.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Eric Saward younger.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Eric Saward younger.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Gliderpilotregimentbadge.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Gliderpilotregimentbadge.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New Marines landing craft

I have heard reports that the boat designer Phil Bolger has been working for the last three years on a design for a new landing craft for the Marines. I am curious if you have heard anything about this project. SaltyBoatr 17:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Brown sugar

In your edit summary you said "beet sugar is not always cheaper than cane" - well, but how is it then cheaper to first refine sugar to get clean white sugar and then mix it with molasses again, when you could simply stop refining at some stage? Icek 12:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

in the case of beet sugar, intermediate products are unpalatable (due to their beet origins) and there is no mechanism in place to remove the intermediate from the system, dry and pack it on sight and give a consistent product for size and colour. The crystallisation stages of a beet factory are designed to optimise output of bulk white sugar from high input feeds of raw beet into storage silos, with packing being handled by separate plants, often at separate sites. Brown sugar is a relatively minor product compared to white and selective production from white sugar plus varying amounts of brown can be done batchwise on smaller plant to give different products as demand requires. GraemeLeggett 13:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

But then how are manufacturing cost reduced compared to not refining the [cane] sugar to a purity level where it's white? Or what else does that sentence in brown sugar mean - could you clarify that in the article? Icek 06:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe it can be stated as follows: While the marginal costs would be a bit lower without the separation and reuniting of sugar and molasses, the capital costs for a change would be quite large. Icek 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly - another thing is that building of new (from scratch) beet refining facilities is rare. Eg the British ones were all first established by the 1920s if memory serves correctly and have been expanded since then. also in the British case - until the UK joined the Common Market it could import all the raw cane sugar it liked from the commonwealth and refine that into various browns.GraemeLeggett 08:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Velocette LE (police).jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Velocette LE (police).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting aircraft photos?

Hi Graeme.

Just came across this site [5] with a number of contemporary photographs of British aircraft of the 1930's and 40's and thought you might be interested. Regards, Ian Dunster 13:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Dunkirk.

I think we have a problem with user "Hiens". He as added the "Did Hitler want peace?" section. I have removed it, but no doubt he will be back. I can see this developing into an edit war. He is clearly an idiot and is POV pushing. Can we "nip this in the bud" by warning (or blocking) him now?.Dapi89 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1948 civil war

Hi GreameLeggett,
Thank you for your contribution to the article.
I permitted nevertheless to put back the "synthesis" at the end of the article because its purpose is not to "introduce" or to "summarise" the content of the article but to give readers a "synthesis" that helps him to fix ideas.
There are 3 reasons :

• This article is cut into numerous subsections giving that reader cannot always easily link together. The synthesis helps him to link them.
• In this war, it is POV to analyse FORMER events with some that arose AFTER.
• This article is itself a subsection of a wider article. The 1948 Palestine War is cut into 2 parts 1947-1948 Civil War in Palestine and 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
  A synthesis -at the end- helps the reader to fix ideas to start the reading of the next phase of the Palestine War.
  

Kind Regards,
Alithien 09:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pennants after ship links

Hi, I've undone some of your changes that have added pennant numbers in the text after the link, e.g. to write HMS Bonaventure (31). I can see why you're doing this, but it goes against our ship naming conventions as described here. Specifically Do not give the hull number or other disambiguation information unless it is immediately relevant. Someone who needs to know can follow the link:. Drop me a line if you have any questions. Thanks, Benea 19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Britains

Why change W. Britains to Britains Limited? It looks like W. Britains is what they call themselves.... http://www.wbritain.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.169.89 (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Norfolk Regt

Hello

I was tidying up the Battle Honours section for the Royal Norfolk Regiment page (trying to make it easier to read and follow).
I notice you’d corrected some mistakes (thank you!); also that you had added some links. I’m inclined to think that a link here should go to a page on the battle referred to; were you planning to do this?
I was also going to add some details for before the Boer War; have you got that in hand already?
I had also thought it was less confusing to just link to the campaign, (less blue!) and go to the individual battles from there, but that’s just an opinion; what do you think?.
Swanny18 08:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm working by incremental immprovement. Linking to the name "as is" then gives me a link to follow to hunt down the actual battle. The other approach is just try "Battle of XXXX|XXXX" and see if that doesn't throw a redlink of disambig up. I've no issues against wl all the engagments since the links work both ways - if you are at the "Battle of..." you can see which pages link to it, which would give you the regiments invovled even if they aren't already mentioned in the text. It might also be the case that a descendant of a Norfolk was looking for a particuilar incident...GraemeLeggett 09:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WWII ship classes

We seem to be playing a game over this article! No problem, I hope. Some points. You've changed Ca to Ca - I understood that, by Wiki stanards, a class name is italicised only when it is the name of a ship, ie, Uganda but not Cown Colony. Ca isn't a ship name, therefore not italicised - comment? There are single ship classes in the list: I intend to delete these in line with the intro and ensure that they're in the appropriate WWII ship list - comment?

My purpose in converting the list to a table is to improve presentation and limit the info presented (it's a list, detail should be in the linked article). Also Wiki standards prefer tables to lists. In the process, I'm checking info when I can. Folks at 137 22:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

They are "Ca" from the initial letters of the names. hence it seemed reasonable to italicize. as to the table I have no issues save the choice of table header colour - the default grey on grey of wikitable being sufficient and preferable . GraemeLeggett 20:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oddities in the Thunderbird and Bloodhound timelines

I was wondering if you had any insight into some of these issues:

1. In the Thunderbird timeline here (or here, which seems identical) it seems like it is saying the Thunderbird II was developed using the Type 86 Indigo Corkscrew/Green Flax/Yellow Temple, but then includes a confusing statement about the Type 88/89 Green Ginger. Did the former ever enter service? Was the later an upgrade? I should point out that the timeline here seems to disagree with all of this.
2. The Bloodhound timeline here states "In the initial trials of XRD.1 the RAF were so disappointed that they cancelled an order for Red Duster and ordered the rocket powered English Electric Red Shoes, later called Thunderbird I." This statement is extremely confusing. As far as I am aware the Thunderbird was never used by the RAF, so I'm not sure what this is trying to say. It is possible they meant "British Army" instead of "RAF", but that implies that the Army was looking at the Bloodhound at some point in time.
3. Over all of this is the question as two why two systems were developed. The Mk. I Bloodhound had extremely limited advantages over the Thunderbird (although not the Mk. II), is there any recorded reasons why development continued. IE, why didn't the RAF buy Thunderbird?

Maury 22:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review

F-4 Phantom II has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Duran Duran

Hi! The "Band members' timeline" seems to be dysfunctional. I did not f*** it up but I'm too stupid to mend it. Could you help? Thanks.
--Fromgermany (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The title for Motor Launch

I changed the title to Motor launch (naval) because outside of military circles the unmodified term "motor launch" usually refers to a recreational boat. If you check the (UK) version of Google you will find that eight of the first ten hits for "motor launch" refer to recreational motor launches. Of the remaining two that refer to military boats one is the Wikipedia article! It is the same here down under in New Zealand.

I am a rookie editor trying to learn the ropes. I see you originated the article, and in future before I rename an article I will see if I can clear the issue with the originator.

For now can we agree the title should be changed? If so I will complete the job by creating another page for the recreational motor boat and try and clean up the disambiguation (I would welcome your feedback). There is already another problem with this entry.

Can you also advise me about these issues:

• should spaces and dashes be eliminated in pendant numbers?
• and is this true? (by Wiki stanards, a class name is italicised only when it is the name of a ship) If so it seems very persnickety!

--Geronimo20 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

Or perhaps better, discuss both naval and recreational motor boats on the same page? Then thew title can stay as it is. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Motor Launch" for the RN is capitalized. I would link "Motor launch" no cap on launch to launch (boat) and leave the capped version alone for the moment but I will look at launch properly first. With RN ships no spaces for simplicity and never dashes in article names. with class names, certain classes are named after ships and the wiki covention is to italicize ship names. I wouldn't say pernickety but conventions make article writing easier.

Unnecessary template calls

Hi Graeme! I was wondering why you removed a bunch of template calls here. I am of the opinion that the {{HMS}} template cleans up articles considerably, while the {{convert}} template guarantees proper unit conversions. It would seem to me that if they're a bad thing, they're universally bad and should be deleted, whereas if they're a good thing then they shouldn't be removed. Could you tell me your reasoning? TomTheHand (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

They're useful at the time of creating the text but once they've done the job they have no other purpose other than to require the servers to work more with the page. That's my take on it opiniosn differ Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits is an opinion I largely share. Now the conversion factor for ft to metres isn't going to change, so its easy to cut and paste the conversion over the original template code. For ship name I prefer to see the formatting within the wikilink but perhaps that's just me, but while I was typing I did those too.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't exactly agree; the templates provide easy formatting adjustments later as well. You can easily change between different ways of formatting ship names, or change the number of significant figures or use of abbreviations in a conversion. Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits is an essay, not a guideline or policy; I'll respond with this: Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. I'm not trying to make a believer out of you, but I would like to ask that you not revert my edits when I use the templates. TomTheHand (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to say "my edits are off limits, so don't touch 'em!" It's just that I had made those edits to Illustrious class aircraft carrier‎ only last night, and was surprised to find them changed back in the morning. TomTheHand (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. No offence taken. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

List of World War II ship classes

Some advice please. I've always considered this list as fighting ships (and amended the intro to say so) so when Smacdon630 added a Japanese oiler class, I removed it and left an explanation on the talk page. He's replaced it. Before I get snotty, am I being unreasonable? Don't want to cause trouble. Elsewhere, we have made a similar distinction. Away for a few days, so no prompt response from here. Folks at 137 (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

---(NZ) Squadron versus --- Squadron RNZAF

Hi Graeme, hope I'm not being to much of a pain in the butt on this one, but I have tried to make my reasons clear for editing the 486(NZ) Squadron (and the other NZ squadron) page(s) the way I have. I would like to try and clear up for once and for all the confusion surrounding the titles and administration of all of the New Zealand Article XV units, so that people referring to Wikipedia as their first reference point won't themselves end up being confused. I can't say things better than; Gerard Morris (Spitfire The New Zealand Story): (quote)'It was impractical, for operational and administrative reasons, to establish...RNZAF squadrons in Britain. So, although the squadron badges carried the name Royal New Zealand Air Force. the squadrons were, in fact, receiving their pay cheques from the British Government and official records, such as the Operations Record Book acknowledged this. For example, 485 Squadron was referred to informally as 485 (New Zealand) or 485 (NZ) Squadron and never as 485 Squadron RNZAF.(unquote) Some of the distinctions are small, but they are important to the men (not forgetting the women in the likes of the ATA) who served during the war. I've discussed this further on the Hawker Tempest talk page. Minorhistorian 01:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

British Coastal Forces of World War II

Hello Graham. You commented on the talk for this page that a lot of the text here resembles that of an information sheet of the Royal Navy Museum namely this.

I am confused by your comment. I though it would be appropriate to use this text since it was, I thought, a small amount from an impeccable public source and I attributed the source in the references. Is in fact this inappropriate? Should I remove the text or simply reword it?--Geronimo20 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You yourself seem to add text that is not attributed at all! --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is appropriate to use the text as a source and even to quote in part from it but in such cases the text used should be clearly marked by quotes alongside the source attributed. The alternative is to reword the material or combine it with other material eg expanding on the points with material from other sources. I do add material with necessari;y citing if I think it is already covered in a previous work listed or if it is not "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Not as thorough as adding sources at the time i know. Is there any particular pieces I have done recently were the lack of source is particularly galling? Thanks. GraemeLeggett 12:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a great Christmas

You're from Norfolk? I have Norfolk ancestry and -er- what's happened to Norwich City FC?? I hope you and your family have a great Christmas and an excellent New Year. Regards from New Zealand. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

the City have the usual issues with inconsistent playing finding a manager but still get massive gates. so far as I can tell, I don't follow the football. Seasons greetings to you too! GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC).

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eric Saward Older.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eric Saward Older.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 20:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A question of style

Hi Graeme, and complements of the season. Can you tell me whether it is okay for ships in Wikipedia to be referred to as "she"? Should they preferentially be referred to as "she"? There seems to be some inconsistency, with some editors referring to a ship as "it" and others being even more stand-offish, using terms like "the ship". I can't find directions in style manuals.--Geronimo20 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

ps, do you mind me directing questions like this to you or should I direct them elsewhere? --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For me, it reads wrong as anything other than "she". If I am doing an expansion cleanup of an existing article I take the liberty of making consistent she rather than it. More so if the article as it stands shows poor English language idioms and grammar to start with as it implies the writer may not be as au-fait with the language. I don't think anyone would complain if you created an article using the "She" form in it, and I would defend your right to do so. Equally if you used it and reverted changes to "she" I would go with that too unless a style guideline existed or it left the article out of character with a sistership for example. There is the article Gender-specific_pronoun#Ships_and_countries which states that it is still Lloyds preference for she - and if they don't know about ships then who does? I think it might be a preferred stylistic choiuce rather than a set-in-stone convention. And by all means ask questions here as well as other places. I think searching through the archived discussion for WP:Ships and Military taskforce ships might take a while but I tihnk there will be sometihng in there. You could suggest that it is included in the guideline if not a definitive statement for one or the other than to state specifically that both are a acceptable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh... I've just discoverd this issue is the subject of current discussion on WikiProject Military history (initiated 36 minutes after posting the initial entry here).--Geronimo20 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

More stylistic questions

Graeme, you may have noted the recent subtle alterations to the format adopted in the aviation articles for identifying references. Although not my "invention," (actually tried out first by a Swedish editor which I reverted and then took a long, hard look at his changes and began to reread the MoS guidleines); I began noticing the slight variation in use in articles and after reading the MoS carefully, I concluded that the identification of notes and bibliographical lists (as well as further reading) are part of the overall "references" section or can be considered such. I welcome more discussion about this aspect as an ardent user of the new format Dirk Broer is intent on changing the entire gazillion aircraft articles to this new format. I find that there are distinct advantages to the format as it clearly identifies the notes and bibliography subsections, yet places them in close proximity for readers to see. It also is a very "clean" and concise format that works to compress the sometimes lengthy section of references. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

Further to the earlier note; let me explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References."

The references area is kind of a Wikiedia catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the "Short Shetland" article, for instance, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

The example annotated article is no particular use on this, but Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes sets notes and refs as distinct and equal at the standard heading level. As do the pages in the manual of style itself.

Setting them within to to an extra two levels inside (H4?) seems strange and when there are only a couple of items in each subsection pointless compared to the semi-colon format "trick" (don't know what that is called).

Bibliography should be retained for material by the article subject is quoted on one page.

I think either way that Dirk would be spending his time better on tackling articles with a large number of references rather than (as is typical) a couple of books and a couple of websites. Making these into subsections seems over the top. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning is that "References" is actually a nebulous term in this WickyWacky world that was coined obviously eons ago to give some sources of information a place to be. The actual publishing terms "Notes (endnotes, footnotes)" and "Bibliography" were later instituted as a "sop" to the academics out there. What references actually encompasses is a listing of all reference sources (print and non-print) but as changes and other developments took place, gradually Wiki world accommodated them. You will note that there is still an evolving MoS and even the suggestions and recommendations are being questioned. FWIW, Dirk P Broer is on a "mission" and I am loathe to stop him; I agree that a better use of his time could be spent on other pursuits, but I am guessing that he has the template probably set up as a copy/edit/paste system that probably doesn't take much time or effort to "plunk in." Bzuk (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

Scharnhorst & Gneisenau

I have opened an RfC on whether to refer to these ships as battleships or battlecruisers. Since you have participated in this debate previously, please have a look, read the debate, and make your views known: Talk:Scharnhorst_class_battlecruiser#Request_for_Comment:_Battleships_or_Battlecruisers.3F Regards, The Land (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

G3 Battlecruiser

Hi, I see you've been adding more to the G3 battlecruiser. Further to my "threat", I've started work on a better version. It's probably getting far too wordy, so I'd like your opinion. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say a combination of the two would lead to a very reasonable article. May I take some of your version and try introducing it into the current article to see how it might work? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take what you need. Today I'll do some expansion on the actual nuts and bolts of the class. By the by what's your source for the G3s taking precedence over the N3 due to gun supply? It's a valid point but I don't recall seeing it before and Campbell certainly doesn't mention. I'm assuming the companies are Elswick Ordnance Company, Vickers, Coventry Ordnance Works and the Royal Gun Factory Woolwich (with the one capable of 18" production being E.O.C.). Might be an idea to list and link where appropriate. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Preston (historian) - Battleships, and yes Elswick for the 18s. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat interestingly, orders for trial 18"/45 guns were placed with Vickers and E.O.C. on 22 December, 1920 and for one from the RGF on 20 January, 1921. I will confess to being prejudiced against Preston's "popular" books (I wouldn't cite his companion works "Cruisers" and "Destroyers" ever), and this really doesn't make me think otherwise. And if Raven and Roberts are right (and I'm sure they are), then both Elswick and Vickers produced draft designs for 18" turrets.

I think I've led myself down a bit of a dead-end with the Lexington class reason. I'm trying to ascertain from some acquaintances whether anyone has seen the Admiralty documents pertaining to the G3s and whether they give any real reasons for the choice. The only impression I'm getting thus far is although they were called Battle cruisers, the RN thought they would make fine battleships and then would see whether an 18" battleline needed to be built. Anyway, I'll keep you abreast of what I find and leave it out of the article until I get something concrete. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Gurneys

I see you have done some editing on articles about bankers named Gurney. Is there any relationship between Gurneys Bank and Overend, Gurney & Co‎? If so, it would seem that a number of cross references ought to be made to explain the relationship? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Gurney's in each case are related, the Gurney setting up Overend etc being born of the family running Gurney's bank.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Motor car

A tag has been placed on Template:Motor car 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.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Leading edge slot

Thanks for finding that reference! - Ahunt (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Inverted sugar syrup

I saw you had been at the invert sugar talk page a couple of times in the past. There is a question about the contradiction between chemical and culinary estimates of sweetness, which I'm quite certain has to do with the fact that "equal concentrations" is utterly irrelevant in the culinary sense, as you're vastly increasing the concentration of sugar to water during the inversion process. However, my only knowledge of the topic is that I use equal parts brown sugar and water boiled for a few minutes to pour over my baklava, so I'm just extrapolating. Do you happen to have any sources that can support, or replace, my rationalization? scot (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - I will have to cast my mind back. All definitions of sweetness are done comparing like-with-like eg 10% solution of fructose with 10% sucrose or on a realtive basis eg artificial sweetener is 10,000 x the sweetness of sucrose weight for weight. It may be that the circustances quoted in each case differ. More thinking required on my part... GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of ship's company of HMS Hydra (A144)

An editor has nominated List of ship's company of HMS Hydra (A144), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ship's company of HMS Hydra (A144) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Your Talk Page

Would you like me to archive your talk page, and make you an archive box?--TrUCo⁹31¹ 21:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Aero-engine

A tag has been placed on Template:Aero-engine 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.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions for naval articles

Hi Graeme. Further to the chat we had way back about naming naval articles, here is a new guidline you may care to edit. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Commercial trawler

Okay Graeme, what am I doing wrong with trawlers? I get the impression you are not happy with me renaming this. I'm not altogether happy with it either. So what are your thoughts. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

well, to my mind trawler should be about the commercial fishing vessel (following the principle of common name and most common use). An armed trawler is the vessel with a gun on it for defence or used as a minesweeper which makes it a topic mentioned under trawler as well as its own article. the recreational vessel looks like a trawler so i'd mention it under trawler but would also put it at trawler (disambiguation) along with the book. I'll also scout out trawl net and trawling before I comment further. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I separated out commercial trawler because there was a sloppiness in the way articles referred to "trawler". Pretty much without exception, editors just link to trawler without regard to what kind of trawler. But if you look at "What links here" you will find more links to naval trawler than commercial trawler (and that is because I laboriously examined every bloody article in Wikipedia that linked to "trawler" and then redirected to what was actually intended). It is also arguable historically whether naval or commercial trawlers are more notable. So it seemed to me that it is better to have "trawler" link to a page that is more of a disambiguation page which encourages editors to link to what they intend. The trawler link could give a brief overview of trawlers, rather than just being a simple disambiguation. There are also cases (see what links to "trawler") where articles just want to link to a generic notion of a trawler without being specific. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:BSA_Bantam_D1_early.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BSA_Bantam_D1_early.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 16:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008

	The Space-Time Telegraph
	The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter
	Issue 1	March 2008
Project News We have five new participants: Sm9800, Seanor3, T saston, Type 40, Jammy0002. One editor has left the project: StuartDD. The Doctor Who portal has expanded to increase the number of selected stories to 33. Articles of note New featured articles None New featured article candidates Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (FAC) New good articles Dalek (Doctor Who episode) Astrid Peth Delisted articles None Proposals A proposal for changing the layout of the episode pages is under way here. A discussion about the formatting of the cast lists in episode pages is under way here. A discussion to move United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to UNIT is under way here. News The Torchwood project has become a task-force under the project's scope. The Torchwood series 2 finale airs on 4th April, and the 4th series of Doctor Who will start to air on 5th April. For the Doctor Who project, Sceptre (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC) You have received this letter because you are on the newsletter recipients list. To opt-out, please remove your name.

List of RAF stations

Hello there, do you think it's wise to remove them since "some" of us (not including me) are quite ignorant of the flags of countries listed for those Overseas RAF bases. What say we remove those flags within the realms of the United Kingdom but put those outside or overseas on hold? --Dave1185 (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going by opinions about there use including the extensive guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags). I don't think the flags add anything and the list is not intended as an aid to learning about the flags of country. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Wikipedia is all about learning and there are kids out there who don't understand history and are curious as to which country the RAF was based in before. I remember subscribing to the magazine "AIRPLANES" for the first time back in 1988 and was blown away by so much details and facts that I went straight to the nearest library then in search of aviation related books but there was not much to go by. And so, in this modern era of electronic communication and learning aid, I do think that it is still relevant to keep what is the meaning to knowing what was the past. I say, keep the flags, but only for those RAF bases located in other countries or ex-dependencies.--Dave1185 (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

List of RAF stations (British Malaya)

Hello again... I thought you should know this, the proper flag for British Malaya is suppose to be this one, considering that it was a British Protectorate from 1895 until its independence in 1957, it was also known then the Federated Malay States. --Dave1185 (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Keren

Hi. Is there a rule about mixing "thumb" and px sizes (in which case why does the template allow it?)? There are examples given of this usage at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. Either way it's absurd having the maps that small and they look odd below the battle box. In aligning their size with the battle box it looks neater and makes the maps readable without having to click on the enlarge icon (which stops one reading the text at the same time as viewing the picture - inconvenient in the case of maps). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just had another look at the MoS and see that for thumbs "....other cases where a specific image width is appropriate include (but are not limited to) images with extreme aspect ratios, detailed maps, diagrams or charts...". So I think I'll change it back. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability for FV Northwestern?

Hi...I must admit I'm puzzled as to why there's a notability tag on FV Northwestern, which is (1) one of the highest-producing boats in the Bering Sea Alaskan crab fishing fleet, and (2) is one of the "star" boats in the Discovery Channel TV series Deadliest Catch. You've at least heard of the show, right? 49M viewers last season, one of the most successful shows on cable TV in 2007, nominated for 4 Emmys...notable enough for its "star" vessel to be included in Wikipedia? How about the fact that the Northwestern is a top-of-the-line producer in the Bering Sea fleet and "won" the final "derby" crab seasons in 2005 and 2006, catching more tonnage in crab and selling it for more money than any other boat in the fleet--notable enough now? How about the fact that the Hansen family used the Northwestern to pioneer the now common technique of pot cod fishing, proving it could be a successful way for crabbing vessels to make more use of their crab pots and big holding tanks (and thus earn more money) during the off seasons--that notable enough? How about when its owner/operator Sig Hansen worked with Liquid Dragon studios to produce the video game Deadliest Catch: Alaskan Storm for XBox 360 and PC, which features the Northwestern as one of the boats that can be played...would you consider that notable?

Some of the examples above probably seem sarcastic or snarky, and I'll admit to taking that tone. But I'm really puzzled why, when the subject of the article is about to be seen on 3M TV screens across the US alone starting in mid-April, somebody would slap a "not notable" tag on this article. Thanks for reading... Scarletsmith (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I can

address some of those points. a) I'm British and I don't have cable nor the Discovery Channel so I've never hear

of the programme nor the boat. 

b) Notability for the programme or the boat's owners does not necessarily translate into notability for the ship itself. c) The notability tag suggests (but does not state absolutely) that it might not be notable and that other sources could be included to establish notability. ie what is notable for the area's population or viewers of that programme might also be known outside those areas. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

High Speed Flight RAF

Thanks for your advice and assistance on getting this article into shape.

I've just nominated it for a DYK
Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tables

Hi.

I put in a fair bit of work clearly formatting the tables in Soviet armored fighting vehicle production during World War II, and testing their appearance in several web browsers.

The vertical and horizontal alignment of the data is unambiguous. Nothing wraps incorrectly, even at compressed window sizes. Please let me know if I'm missing something, or if you think your browser displays the tables differently from mine, and I'll try to improve them.

I don't see the point in adding a bunch of lines and a grey background to tables, just because a bunch of other tables look like that. As a rule, adding elements with no purpose to information graphics increases the ratio of information to noise, reduces contrast, and makes them worse instead of "enhancing the readability". So then one has to crank up the volume in the few information-carrying elements so they do something. Still more noise, without adding any information.

Frankly, I think the old preformatted text version was more effective.

Like I said, I put in some work on this. Please tell me specifically what is wrong, and give me an opportunity to correct it, instead of revert-warring. —Michael Z. 2008-04-28 21:36 Z

Launch date vs. date of sea trials

With regret, I notice your edit to the RMS Empress of Asia (1913) ... or perhaps it should be RMS Empress of Asia (1912)? I've just finished changing the dates for twenty of the ships in the "Empress fleet" of Canadian Pacific Steamships; and if these edits now become a cause for dispute, I'm sorry to have become any part of a problem ....

• See CP Ships#Canadian Pacific Steamships

Of course, I have noticed that launch dates are conventionally used by many; but I was persuaded by User:Kjet that this was not a Wikipedia standard ...; and I thought I was simply complying with a decision about this matter which had been resolved elsewhere.

As for what to do next -- I can't help wondering if there is, in fact, no considered agreement on this small matter. In that case, I would have thought that it would be reasonable to permit the CP ships to remain identified as they are (with dates of sea trials) -- with the array being consistent within the context of the CP fleet list. While the matter is resolved by further discussion, we could let my work stand unaltered? However, if you want to re-do everything I've just completed, by all means, I would not want to appear disagreeable. However, I wonder if it might prove helpful if you took a few minutes to scan the following exchanges which informed the work which you perhaps would have wanted done differently:

• Talk:CP Ships#Ship's most notable incarnation
• Talk:CP Ships#Explaining RMS
• Talk:CP Ships#CP Ships

Just a suggestion. --Tenmei (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this seems to be my fault, I guess I must drop a line here... checking Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), the guide is to use launch date. However, the vast majority of articles on ..20th century commercial vessels use the service entry date instead of the launch date (service entry date is also used major sources such as William H. Miller's books and the Fakta om Fartyg website, which might concievably be the origin of this). As there is a clear conflict between practices here, I'll be taking this up at the WP:SHIPS talk page (which I believe is the easiest way to reach the largest number of people concerned). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A good idea, but a question. Have there been any other RMS/SS Empress of Asia's ? If not (I'm not aware of any from a quick scan of google) then the date is not needed at all in her case since there is no ambiguatity. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

An exceedingly good point. To the best of my knowledge the 1912/13 ship is the only (notable) Empress of Asia, so indeed there would be no need for a disambiguating year in this particular case.

GraemeLeggett -- It looks as if this is one of those "disputes" which turns out to be constructive. Now I see that I've misunderstood your view of the disambiguation dates. It would seem that you construe the date appended to a Wikipedia article about the Empress of Asia as irrelevant because no other vessel has the same name.

Could it be that 1912/13 achieves more than merely distinguishing one ship from another? For me, 1912/13 immediately suggests something about the era into which the vessel belongs, implying the evolutionary state of maritime architecture and engineering, and a cultural construct as well. My perspective on issues relating to article naming in a Wikipedia context is informed by a slightly different background than yours. In Japan, there are a great many earthquakes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters, and the evolution of naming-conventions for serial catastrophes is well developed. Please consider:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management/Naming#WikiProject Disaster Management naming convention
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/December 2007#Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?

I wonder if your analysis of dates in the titles of articles about ships might possibly profit from discussions about the utility of dates in other contexts? --Tenmei (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While I appriciate the point you make about the year being informative, I don't think disambiguation should be used unless it's nescessary (there might be a guideline for this, but if there is I couldn't find it right now). RMS Empress of Asia is a simpler title than RMS Empress of Asia (1912) (or 1913), and more reaseds are likely to find the article under that title. Also, the fact that the ship was built in 1913 becomes evident on reading the lead section—putter it in the title would in my opinion be highly superfluous. We could put a lot of stuff in the title if we wanted, but the title should be as simple and intuitive as possible. And RMS Empress of Asia, without a year, is just that.

Unrelatedly, could we try to keep the conversations in one place for the sake of clarity? It would be much easier to keep the thread going on in just one place, instead of copying fragments of messages into other talk pages, which will only result in confusion. I'm perfectly capable of following the conversation here, without the need of copying pages to my own talk page. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Kjet -- You miss my point. I simply used the Empress of Asia as an illustration because she had been mentioned by GraemeLeggett. Perhaps a better illustration would have been the SS Tirpitz (which is better known as the Empress of Australia). Her launch date is 1913 and her maiden voyage was not until 1919. As you know, there is only one vessel with this name, and therefore the date can be omitted without diminishing the utility of the article title; but if there were an "Empress of Australia II", the differences between 1913 and 1919 would have had meaningful implications, although either would serve equally well for the purpose of distinguishing catalog entities.

When your edit summary encouraged me to not to use the launch date, I took your point-of-view to have been merely arbitrary; however, as I examined the available data about the SS Tirpitz, I began to appreciate that there might be rather more to it.

Just a thought -- a potentially constructive point worth mentioning. --Tenmei (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Power Jets W.2/700

A tag has been placed on Power Jets W.2/700, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It has no Meaningful Content

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Shovon (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. No problems. :-) Shovon (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Italian Mare Nostrum

I proposed the deletion of Italian Mare Nostrum, here: [6]. Thought you might want to know in case you desire to get involved. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Naval air station

Do you know which countries have naval air stations? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

apart from US, UK and Aus, I suspect many nations have bases that translate into "Naval Air Station xxx" GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Recategorisation of Second World War

Hi Graeme. Thank you for taking an interest in the Second World War categories. Please consider that no person who uses categories is "uneducated" since they are all registered editors, unlike the readers. This means thy have a duty of care in how they categorise their articles. The situation I found a week ago had categories and articles in the Category:World War II deposited at random.

The reason I included only the very broad categories based on the four disciplines is to encourage authors to find appropriate category by channelling them into the right subject areas, which is also the reason for the moderately extensive list of subject areas that appears before they get to the lower part of he page, and a request to contact the project members who are educated enough to lend a hand in finding the right category.

I'd be happy do discuss with you how I see the categories developing--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft of the Battle of Britain

Could you kindly look at this article as it needs attention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

AfD nomination of Malal

An article that you have been involved in editing, Malal, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malal. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Terraxos (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain?

I was wondering why you were citing MoS while making the images smaller. I am not sure what was about that, so could you explain it to me? - Hexhand (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in the MoS, you use the thumb(nail) attribute in the image code so the image is displayed according to the viewers preference, which is generally 180px if not altered. the MoS says "If an image displays satisfactorily at the default size, it is recommended that no explicit size be specified" if that is the case then the a larger size should be specified - in most cases this is necessary for maps and lead images. Its at MOS:IMAGES. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Warhammer 40,000 deities

I have nominated Category:Warhammer 40,000 deities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:No74squadronRAF.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:No74squadronRAF.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:133 squadron crest.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:133 squadron crest.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Attribution

Hi GraemeLeggett. As most of Wikipedia is under the GFDL licence and not public domain, you should attribute authors when you copy their copyrighted material or at a minimum mention where the material was copied from.[7] Maybe you already know that by now, maybe you don't. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)