User talk:David Newton/archive3

Chinese Naval Ensign and Jack

The info you requested:

"Zuixin Geguo Guoqi Guohui Junqi Junhui" -National Flags, Emblems, Military Flags and Emblems of The World- published in Beijing March 2004. Ed Otto 2155, 28 Apr 2005 (IST)

How do I attach this to the image?

Thanks, Ed Otto 2352, 28 Apr 2005 (IST)

HMS Queen Elizabeth painting

The entry for the painting on IWM collections is here. I see nothing to suggest it is out of copyright so I expect it should be removed. Geoff/Gsl 21:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You might also want to check out Image:Dressing the Wounded during a Gas Attack (Austin O Spare).jpg. I scanned it from the same source and its listed as IWM copyright (though I can't find it on the collections site). It won't be life+50 until next year some time. If the QE picture goes, this one probably should too (and soon because it's up for featured status though not likely to get through). These are the only two IWM paintings I have uploaded, the rest are copyright of the AWM. Sorry to be causing problems. Geoff/Gsl 21:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Parametrised template help

Hi David - I'm in need of a little template guidance for WikiProject Aircraft and thought your experience with the ship data tables might be relevant.

There's been an attempt to add intra-category navigation via templates so that (for example) Category:U.S. bomber aircraft 1930-1939 provides shortcuts to U.S. bomber aircraft f other decades, other U.S. military aircraft of the 1930s, and other nations' bomber aircraft of the 1930s. There are two current problems with the system:

1. Some countries change names. While Category:U.S. fighter aircraft 1930-1939 correctly points to Category:Soviet fighter aircraft 1930-1939, Category:U.S. fighter aircraft 2000-2009 points to a (properly) non-existent Category:Soviet fighter aircraft 2000-2009 and ignores Category:Russian fighter aircraft 2000-2009. There are similar problems created for Czechia/Czechoslovakia, China/PRC/Taiwan and others.

2. Not every nation-role-era combination is a useful one. Category:U.S. fighter aircraft 1930-1939 currently ignores Category:Latvian fighter aircraft 1930-1939 (a valid category which it should link to). Contrariwise, Category:U.S. fighter aircraft 1950-1959 includes a link to Category:Japanese fighter aircraft 1950-1959, which will remain forever empty. A comprehensive implementation of every possible nation-role-era combination that we have will produce junk like links to Category:Mexican attack aircraft 1980-1989 and Category:New Zealand airliners 1900-1909.

Are you aware of any hacks that could help with either of these issues? I know that the long way around is to set up hundreds of separate templates along the lines of "US military aircraft of the 1930s", "US bombers by decade" and "bomber aircraft of the 1930s", but I'm hoping there's a more efficient way! Any help much appreciated! --Rlandmann 23:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An Addition?

I noticed you added a new table for the USS Ronald Reagan, and I was wondering if you might consider making one small adjustment: including a spot for a ship's namesake in the templete. This would make it easier to find the noun that the ship was named after. In some cases, like with the Nimitz class ships this is not necissarily nessicary, because they are named after US presidents, but when you start getting into destoyers and cruisers and such a ships namesake is harder to determine. TomStar81 23:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:PD-BritishGov

An anon claims that the Template:PD-BritishGov is a hoax. Since you created it you should be qualified to answer, and remove the {{speedy}} tag. Thue | talk 00:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

redirects

Hi! If you're making a redirect page, please put "redirect" in the Edit Summary line. Thanks! —msh210 18:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Accidently replaced high-res 'Brewsterbuffalo.jpg' with 733 pix one

Hi David.

I've accidently replaced the hi-res 'Brewsterbuffalo.jpg' pic you uploaded with a lightened smaller 730 pixel one.

If you can re-upload the original large pic I'll lighten that one and re-upload it properly this time!

Thanks.

Ian Dunster

Update: Forget what I said above, I found the file on the NHC site and re-uploaded at the original size.

Ian Dunster 16:34, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of headings

In reply to User talk:Ellmist#Capitalization of Headings.

I did not write that part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings). User:Ortolan88 added that guideline on 12:12, 1 Mar 2003 to Wikipedia:Manual of style#Headlines. On 12:55, 12 Apr 2003, I created Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) based on the 05:48, 11 Apr 2003 version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Headlines. I agree with User:Ortolan88, but I don't have a good reason. Have a nice day. --Ellmist 18:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PNG vs. JPEG

'My Bad. In each case my computer just saved them as BMPs, and I guess i convert to PNG without thinking about it. If you want to reload them as JPEG's you can. Thanks for brining that to my attenetion. TomStar81 21:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I finally got a minute and have begun to switch out the PNG files for JPG files. The Missouri pictures have already been switched, and I will get to the others when I have a moment. Further bulltin as events warrent. TomStar81 05:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • All affected pictures have (to my knowlage) been converted from PNG to JPEG. TomStar81 00:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

machine parsability

ping.... Avriette 03:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for supporting my nomination for administrator. —wwoods 05:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for making me wise to the errors in my way regarding my effort on (Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/RN Ensign image). I was quite unaware of what I was doing viz the line break. And while we have a line of communication open, I should say that there was a couple or few of the links where I couldn't find the link to be redirected, I was gonna tell you when I'd got to the end of the list. L-Bit 10:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

image:us flag large.png

Hi David,
Actually, it appears that the PD template on the image in wikimedia commons is just what appears when the {{PD-flag}} tag is used. It would be appreciated if someone changed the tag to be more accurate, or maybe added a tag for national flags or something. I'd license my version of the flag under GFDL. --jacobolus (t) 22:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be a better solution to go ahead and change the {{PD-flag}} template. I think all the flag images on the commons use this template, and so updating it would be a better solution (and more reversible/flexible) than changing all the flag images to use the {{Insignia}} template. --jacobolus (t) 22:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flag of France, et al.

David,

Greetings! Thank you for your note. Indeed, I created the current French 'tricolore' and release it into the public domain: I am in a quest (of sorts) to create and place on Wikipedia wholly accurate and legitimate flags for various countries and organisations. I do so after being disappointed regarding the prior, inaccurate versions of Canada's flag abound, et al. I will update as appropriate. Ta!

--E Pluribus Anthony 23:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David,

Hello again! I have more thoroughly tagged the images I created and uploaded and will be more diligent in the future. I'm still wrapping my head around this and that, so bear with me. :) Merci!

--E Pluribus Anthony 21:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blue on blue

What do you think of my point--that flags with dark blue fields like the Blue Ensign, the French Jack, and the Brazilian Jack need a border, to set them off from the background? Obviously my version is a kludge; it'd be much better if some image maven made versions with the outer pixels white or gray--a band thick enough that when scaled down, there's a just-perceptible break between the flag and the background. —wwoods 00:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RDF

David Newton: saw your contributions on the CENTCOM page and was very impressed; I feel the need for a RDF or Rapid Depolyment Force page to document its origins. If you have any information could you assist? Thx nobs

Images from navyphotos to be deleted?

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Pictures from navyphotos Gdr 21:37, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Newport class template

Greetings - I just discovered that I've created a template that is a duplicate of yours for the Newport class. Observe:

• Template:Newport class landing ship tank (You created)
• Template:Newport class tank landing ship (I created)

I did not discover your template until after I created mine. My reasons for naming my template as I did are that the template for Harpers Ferry class has it as "dock landing ship" as opposed to landing ship dock. Similarly, a number of other templates end with "ship" (see Template:Tarawa class amphibious assault ship, Template:Wasp class amphibious assault ship, etc).

One of our pages needs to be deleted. Your thoughts? --Durin 01:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally I voted for tank landing ship, 'cause it's a type of ship, not a type of tank. Ditto for dock landing ship. Doesn't the abbreviation come from the military style, Item comma Adjective [comma Adjective]? E.g. CVN = Carrier, aViation[?], Nuclear.

—wwoods 21:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It does indeed come from that form. Still I'm not enormously bothered in this case as reversing the order of the two nouns does not alter the meaning for those who understand what is going on. It is also obvious from the context that ships, rather than tanks, are being talked about. David Newton 21:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I requested a speedy delete for the template I created. It was the path of least resistance. As David noted, it would be difficult to misconstrue what type of things the template is talking about. Of course, this begs the question...if we leave this as 'landing ship tank' then 'dock landing ship' should move to 'landing ship dock' to conform to this standard. --Durinn 22:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I was rather amazed that not a single Newport class LST had an article. I created one on USS Frederick (and a disambig page). These were significant ships. Ok, missing a class of minesweepers I can see (see USS Fearless...I added those also). But LSTs? These are not small, insignificant ships. Ah well. Onwards and upwards. --Durin 22:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

On the Newport-class LSTs and their lack of articles: I would say that it is simply the volume of information that we have to put online. There are an enormous number of subjects that the Wikipedia either has no articles on or inadequate articles. For example, there is currently no article on the British Ninth Army, and I have been meaning to write one for ages. If an entire British field army is not covered in the Wikipedia, how much more the LSTs, which whilst large ships were not exactly as prominent as battleships, cruisers and aircraft carriers and nowhere near as big as field armies.

We are working towards getting DANFS completely online at the Wikipedia, but considering that there are something like 10,000 articles on that publication it's quite a job to say the least! That also doesn't address the more modern ships, until the Naval Historical Center is able to write and/or update some more of the DANFS histories. Any contribution you could make to the completion of the LSTs would be welcome. Even just relatively short articles about all of the Newport-class ships would be a start. David Newton 22:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point on the 9th. Is it still in existance? Yes, DANFS is huge. It's not surprising, but I was disappointed the the DANFS histories available for the Newports is so limited. I agree with you; these aren't carriers, etc. What's interesting to me is how short shrift the non-hollywood star ships get. The amphibs are routinely ignored. I spent time in Assault Craft Unit Two, so I know something of amphib operations but I spent more time elsewhere. I've been making subtantial contributions elsewhere on things naval. See my user page for details. I came upon the Newport class LST omission quite by accident in meandering around Wikipedia. I've got plenty of other work on other ship classes that I know more about to do before I could spend hours working on this class, of which I know just a little. --Durin 22:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No, the Ninth Army does not exist now. The Britsh Army has not fielded a field army since the British Army of the Rhine was deactivated in the early 1990s. Even its corps HQ, the ARRC, is not entirely British. The Ninth Army was a force that was not active against the Germans or Japanese in WWII. It spent its life fairly quietly as a backstop against both Rommel and the Germans breaking through the Caucasus. I'm not sure exactly when it was deactivated, but it was sometime during 1945 or 1946 almost certainly. David Newton 22:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

RFA Fort Rosalie (A186)

is up for deletion here. thought you might like to know. Nateji77 07:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ship propulsion box Trafalgar class submarine

Hello,

I hope that you don't mind but I added metric units to the template (Template:Ship propulsion box Trafalgar class submarine) that you created. If you do mind, then feel free to modify or revert it.

But I am a little confused as to what the templates means by:
2 × W H Allen turbo generators
 2 MW
2 × Paxman diesel alternators
 2 × 2,800 hp
Am I correct in thinking that each turbo generator produces 2 MW and each diesel alternator produces 2,800 hp? If so, then I don't know what the third 2 × means. Can you clarify this for me? Many thanks and keep up the good work. Bobblewik  (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

(Response brought from Bobblewik talk page) I have absolutely no objection to you sticking metric units into those templates. In fact it's something I greatly applaud. As for the 2 × situation I got the information from Janes' Fighting Ships and it is a little vague in there also. I read the information there as each generator and engine produces however many horsepower is below it. So the T boats have 2 turbo generators each producing 2 MW of power and 2 diesel alternators each producing 2,800 hp. David Newton 00:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, think the third '2 x' causes confusion. I have removed it so that you can see what it looks like without it. I have also made some further edits. Each edit is just a thought. I trust your judgement on this more than my own. Please take a look at each edit I made and see if you think there is something useful. Otherwise, please put it back to your version. Many thanks. Bobblewik  (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The only change I have made is re-adding the 1 × to the pump jet shaft part. I feel that it is helpful to explicitly define the number of shafts that the ship has. David Newton 01:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Unusual templates

What is the purpose of the templates Template:Ship armament box Surabachi class ammunition ship, Template:Ship armament box USS Tangier (AV-8), Template:Ship armament box USS Wright (AV-1), Template:Ship armament box Lassen class ammunition ship, and Template:Ship armament box Curtiss class seaplane tender? In general, sticking article content into the "Template" namespace is considered a very bad idea. Templates should be used for formatting, for boilerplate text that is shared between articles, and for other content that does not contain the meaning of articles. --Carnildo 21:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ruensign.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ruensign.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Just procedure, thats all. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. 12 Squadron RAF

David, please accept that this was a misunderstanding of the licence afforded by Crown Copyright and its suitability for use on Wikipedia. You asked where it came from, the hyperlink I added has changed from www.raf.mod.uk/raflossiemouth to www.loscom.org.uk.

Finally I by-passed your suggestion of a new page, deleting old page as a copyvio and substituting the new one in its place by simply removing my earlier contributions that were Crown Copyright. Hopefully this is acceptable. Mark 09:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

H class submarines

I expect you missed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)#Royal Navy submarines with no name where we agreed to use article titles like HMS M1, HMS A1 etc. If you disagree, it's not too late to revisit the decision. Gdr 19:29, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

USS Missouri

Don't no wheather you care or not, but the USS Missouri (BB-63) is on the featured article canidates page. Thought you might like to know. TomStar81 02:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MARMOT

Well, if you're using that IP, that means he's not. Cheers! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:56, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ship names

I simplified some ship names because Wikipedia policy is to only disambiguate when necessary. There appeared to be just one ship under each of those particular names, so I moved them to the common names. —Mulad (talk) July 5, 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Aircraft specifications survey

Hi again David - you may be interested in a survey currently underway to help develop a revised version of our standard specifications section. --Rlandmann 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:USN-Jack.png

The image was moved to the Commons, and the same file name was used. We can safely delete this image. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

World Community Grid

Hello, before you read on I would just like to say that I have so far only posted this to a limited amount of administrators for consultation. If you have any objections to its wider distribution or suitability for Wikipedia please let me know.'

Hi, I would just like to invite you to find out about the World Community Grid Human Proteome Folding Project. This is a purely philanthropic project and supported by a "blue chip" corporation in IBM. There is an ability to join a team once you have downloaded the software and another user has already established the Wikipedia team.

I would like to emphasise that I do not want to pressure anybody into feeling obligated and I understand the limited computer resources/access available to some. Feel free to pass this message on and thank you very much for your time, Mark83 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll take it no further, thanks for your advice. Mark83 10:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)