User talk:Darren Olivier/Archive 1
Hello Darren Olivier/Archive 1 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck!
SAAF Aircraft
[edit]"Changed AAM to Mistral Atam" - I'd be interested to hear the reason for this change. Just change of name for the same product or replacement of one by the other or ... ? Elf-friend 20:42, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi Impi,
Thanks for the compliment! :)
I have no problem if you want to delete the weaponry from the Oryx article if it is inaccurate. However, it would be good if you added the part about the door-mounted MG to the article, plus any other info you have. And the whole Puma -> XTP-1 -> Rooivalk history would make a nice addition to the Rooivalk article.
Same for the Rooivalk missiles: I find the information interesting - I'm sure you can incorporate the information into a Wikipedia article of some kind.
About the SAAF numbering, I cordially disagree. :)
- While I'm sure that the format you mention is the one in more common use, I prefer the more formal name for an encyclopedia article. Also, I used the format for the RAF numbering (which uses the "No. XXX" format as well), which I suggest should be followed as the senior air force for all the Commonwealth nations.
- Secondly, from a purely practical point of view, if there was to be a name change the change should be made (for the sake of uniformity) in all articles mentioning SAAF squadrons (of which there are quite a few already) and/or there should be a redirect page for each squadron. This is IMHO too much work for such a small issue. Although I'm almost tempted to say that, if you want to do it, go right ahead. But there's still a lot to be done in the aircraft articles in general and the SA aircraft articles in particular; I think our time could be better spent in contributing/writing those articles.
Kind Regards, Elf-friend 21:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi Impi,
Great work with adding the rest of the current SAAF squadrons! And I found your arguments for changing the naming format of the SAAF squadron articles quite convincing as well.
Kind Regards, Elf-friend 19:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hey.. nice to meet another south african wikipedian! MDCore 12:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
PC-7
[edit]My thoughts: Well, if we have (or there is) enough information on it to warrant a seperate article, by all means, yes. But at the moment even the PC-7 article is still short on information, almost a stub (although I haven't finished scouring the Internet and my magazines for info yet). Having two stub articles on two aircraft that are very similar (to most people, anyway) and with similar content would probably not be very useful at this stage. But definitely something to keep in mind for the future/when enough info presents iteself.
Elf-friend 20:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
AM-3
[edit]The designation AM-3 was used during evaluation by the Italian Army prior to the prototypes being re-engined with the Lycoming powerplant. Good article! --Rlandmann 01:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Moving pages
[edit]To move just click on the move tab when your using the standard interface (I think there's still a link around somwhere on older interfaces as well though). A page should come up with a spot for the new page name and and a option to move the talk page (along with warning). Its pretty easy, but its important to check for redirects which can be time consuming. Greyengine5 20:04, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
Sqn Infobox
[edit]Please go ahead and use this for SAAF articles. The RAF ones are very much at an early stage, so if you have any ideas on improvement, please make the edit, or let me know.. Sc147 22:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, it certainly looks nice. I'm only wondering about the copyright for the squadron insigniae (correct plural form?). Regards, Elf-friend 13:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Looks really good. I'd like to have the badges for the RAF pages too, but could not find any that are allowed due to copyright. Sc147 18:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Altas Cheetah
[edit]Nice job there - I'll confess that it's not a type that I'm very familiar with - I basically wanted to split the Kfir and the Cheetah off the main Mirage III article (which originated at the Vectorsite). But yes - a big improvement! My only suggestions (apart from the copyediting and wikifying you mentioned) would be to change the "See Also" section to the standard "Related content" section. --Rlandmann 00:37, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
AM.3 picture
[edit]Hi again - I'm wondering what the source is for your picture of this aircraft? I'm starting to write to a few manufacturers and air forces now to ask for permission to use pictures of some of their aircraft. Was this photo taken by someone you know? If so, could you make a comment on the image page to say that they are permitting Wikipedia to use it? Otherwise, maybe you know who to contact in the SAAF or SAAF museum who might be willing to donate use of a photo to Wikipedia?
There seems to be a real drive at the moment in Wikipedia to clean up images that might create copyright and licencing problems, and I'd like to see WP Aircraft stay one step ahead of that! --Rlandmann 00:44, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sports planes
[edit]Hi - I expanded racing aircraft and aerobatics aircraft into sports planes because it was becoming obvious that the existing categories were too narrow - we have a growing number of sports planes (particularly from the 1930s) that were neither strictly racing nor aerobatic aircraft, but which were designed and built specificially for sports flying. The general rule for the "role" categories has always been to make them intentionally broad "catch-alls" so that we don't have to make arbitrary decisions about specialised roles. As for the nomenclature, I'm unaware of the term being exlusively (or even primarily) for ultralights - but I'll admit to not knowing much about ultralights. Googling around shows "sport" "sports" or "sporting" plane to be a common way to describe the Pitts Special, as do the two print encyclopedias I have to hand, so common usage seems to suggest aerobatics to be a subset of sports... However, you seem to know more in this area than I do, so if you see problems here, I'm happy to stand corrected! --Rlandmann 21:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Aero-Cam
[edit]Just wondering whether you know or can find out anything about this firm? Their website seems no longer to exist, and the only reference I can find on-line is here (under ("C"), which isn't saying much! --Rlandmann 03:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)