User talk:Mark83/Archive 7

For archived talk please see:

Rolls-Royce

I think the entry in Rolls-Royce for RRMPO Ltd was significant in that the nuclear reactor research & production is quite different from the other activities mentioned in the article. I agree that there may be many other subsiduaries of R-R and they cannot all be mentioned - in fact most others probably do not merit their own article, but I think RRMPO does. A previous discussion on the R-R talk page noted the absense of any mention of Rolls-Royce & Associates, something that I've tried to rectify. Would you be able to suggest a better way of including this reference into the R-R article? Thanks. - MightyWarrior 10:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I agree that Rolls-Royce overall is not handled in the very structured way in Wikipedia, especially with current article naming; and that it could indeed be improved. I don't have a good enough all-round knowledge of the various companies to do this, but you sound as though you do - maybe a possible project sometime? I do however know several people who work for RR&A (now RRMPO Ltd) so I felt it was important that this aspect of the company was mentioned somewhere. (In fact I live only 1½ mile from the nuclear reactor!). - MightyWarrior 21:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on RR on my talk page. GraemeLeggett 08:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CVF

Yeah, no one updated that page in ages. Old information operating on overly-optimistic deadlines. I think we might be looking at as late as 2015 for ISD, if the Labour pricks keep putting off main gate. John Smith's 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll thank them when I see 2 CVFs and T-45s numbers 7 & 8 confirmed! John Smith's 13:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EADS

Hey, did you have a look at the EADS entry on the German wikipedia, it is exactly as I said... Hektor 11:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Regarding the article Image:Shaws.gif, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "created and uploaded with vandalism as the sole purpose", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because it is not clear how this image is vandalistic. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:IFD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I fully accept what you say and will follow your advice. However I would just like to explain my reasoning. The image was used to replace a company logo in the article infobox. Plus it also uses that company's logo. While people can have certain points of view regarding the ethics of companies this is not the place for it (unless unethical conduct is a fact). You must surely agree that it is at the very least unecylopedic! Regards Mark83 15:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, and this means the image should probably be deleted. However, it should not be speedily deleted, at least not for five days (after adding {{subst:orfud}} or {{ifd}}<). Speedy deletions are for things that are completely uncontroversial. Thanks for your message. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue water navy

Hi, there's this Chinese nationalist troll that keep insisting the PLAN is blue-water, when I've posted information saying otherwise on the talk page. Can you do me a favour and take a look? If you could remove the PLAN from the list that would be great. If I do it again I'll 3RR. Cheers, John Smith's 21:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, new idea. I've put up sources justifying the Indian Navy, Australian Navy and Canadian Navy. Also the French, US and UK are fine. If you could put the revised list up for me I would appreciate it. It isn't about the size of a navy, it's to do with how well it can project its power. It's just that if I do it tomorrow he'll keep rving, because he's obsessed the Indian Navy is the "same" as the PLAN. John Smith's 21:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully he'll be happy with the current edit. If he isn't I would appreciate your coments on the talk page so that we can resolve the matter. John Smith's 22:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxhall

You said;

Hi! It's not incorrect to say Vauxhall is a private company, it is. From what I know of the infobox the options are public or private. Vauxhall Motors Limited is a private company, wholly owned by GM.

I see, I just thought that 'subsidiary' would be a bit more specific. 'Subsidiary' is used on the Opel Page. -Aled D 14:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vickers VC10/VC-10

The manufacturer's designation was originally V.C.10 and (by 1960) VC10. Do check with Jane's and Flight International. The VC-10 is the RAF's internal type designation. You have moved the page from "VC10" to "VC-10"; please restore it, with "VC-10" as a pointer. Thanks Livedvalid 16:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. Apologies for the solecism, now repaired. The VC10 mover is a mystery, in this case; on my screen, it showed your signature, which is now gone... (On the question of my editing remark, you should have seen the entry as it stood! Nothing personal, of course...)Livedvalid 18:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selected articles on Portal:F1

Hello again.

I dropped notes round a while back to those who have listed themselves at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One to ask for suggestions for selected articles on portal:Formula One. There was a pretty good response, both in terms of how it might work and of articles suggested. Damon Hill came out with the most support and was brought up to Good Article standard after a lot of work by Skully Collins and others before going on as the F1 portal selected article a couple of weeks ago. It is now at Featured Article Candidates as a Featured Article candidate (why not drop by and see if you can help polish it further?).

Several people who responded to the original request suggested that a monthly or bi-weekly 'Selected Article' could act as a catalyst for an improvement drive to get more articles up to a higher standard. Although it wasn't quite what I had in mind when I started, this seemed to work pretty well for the Damon Hill article, so I've drafted up a process for doing this more regularly. See Portal_talk:Formula_One/Management_of_selected_articles for details. Essentially the suggestion is that we vote for an article to improve every couple of weeks and at the end of the improvement process the article goes on the portal as the new 'Selected Article'. I'd be grateful for any comments on how this might work - I'm sure some of you are more familiar with things 'Wiki' than me - as well as your votes for the next candidate (by 16 July).

You may also want to help with the article Gilles Villeneuve, which was the next most popular after Damon Hill. The idea is to try and get it up to GA standard by 16 July and then put it on the portal as the 'Selected Article'. I hope you can help! 4u1e 18:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sainos edit

Fair point on the attribution, I'll get some references in a moment. As for your second point, the original version sort of made it sound like Sainsbury's was trying to get its customers to be more diverse in their tastes, rather than simply to get them to buy more things. Dunno if you get my point there, kinda complicated. JoeBaldwin 19:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it, yes. I think the point about the obvious new somethings should go in as well; it is a valid point (at least in my opinion...) JoeBaldwin 19:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Jeremy Clarkson

Hello Mark83, I wasn't criticising you at all, I'm sorry if you thought so - that paragraph had been appearing about 14/15 times before from an anonymous editor before your edit, and various people had reverted it because it didn't really say anything useful and was written in capitals.

It seems that you found the correct quotation and rectified it, so thanks for that. I removed the "turnip face" bit because it didn't seem that relevent, and moved your corrected quotation into the controvery-foreigners section. The comment was not directed at you, but at the anonymous editor. I wrote the "if we are to have this" to hopefully stop the anonymous editor adding his incorrect section again. Once again, thanks for finding the correct source, and my apologies if you thought I was referring to you. Bob 20:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Force One

Hi. I agreed with its deletion but I'm just wondering why you merged it into Air transports of Heads of State? It seems to me there is a clear majority for renaming the article Air transport of the Royal Family and executive of the United Kingdom (or some variation). Did you choose to ignore it or had you some other reason? I intend to create the article and create a {{main}} link at Air transports of Heads of State. Any objections? Regards Mark83 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was very redundant to the heads of state article, in that around 80% of the information in BFO was already in Heads of State, unlike the squadron article. The suggested name, IMO, seems very long and artificial, when we already have an article about Air transportation of various heads of state. What I would suggest is placing a {{splitsection}} tag in that section, and discussing it on the talk page, and polling for a consensus. At least, that is what I would do. -- Avi 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a consensus on the AFD listing. I know the title is a trainwreck, but it's important to note that the aircraft (past, present or future) are not for the sole use of the Royal Family or the executive, but both. So maintaining the standard of Air transport of.... Air transport of the Royal Family and executive of the United Kingdom is the shortest, most correct title available IMO. Mark83 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't both the Prime Minister and the Queen considered heads of state? Also, if you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Force One, while there is a consensus to merge, there does not seem to be a consensus on the title. Some say to heads of state, some to the squadron, some to the new article, and some do not make any mention of a title, which is why I merged it to the one that it most logically resembled, in my opinion. As I do not think there was a consensus on the name, I would suggest using the {{splitsection}} tag, and if no one makes a fuss on the talk page in a few days or so, go ahead and split it out. -- Avi 21:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox "if" parameters

Hi Mark, the problem seemed to be that "|" has to be escaped (by a template such as Template:!) if "|" is inside a template. I've edited Template:RAF Squadron accordingly. Hope this helps. Shawnc 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Shawnc 19:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image

u want me delete alonso and jordan image?? so i must be delete alonso and jordan image mark???--Heboy 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree File:Fernando Alonso 650 22 p.jpg must be deletion but 2 image others dont deletion from the article or this site. U can answer me in my talk mark.--Heboy 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CRJ

Hi, I just noticed your removal of the CRJ-705 image from the page about the Canadair Regional Jet. What was your reason for removing it? --KPWM_Spotter 15:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see that now. I wasn't exactly sure what "poss imgvio" meant when I first saw it. --KPWM_Spotter 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It all makes perfect sense now in context. Thanks. --KPWM_Spotter 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

I agree on the 'one reference per point' theroy, particularly if others are provided for any dissenters in the history/talk pages.

Its interesting how many people argued that the UK is NOT a country, based, I think, on the idea that England/Scotland/Wales/(Northern) Ireland are also countries. Also, the conflagration (is that a word?) of 'country' and nation confuses things; I think the people arguingn that the UK is not a country had argued that it is not a 'nation', but were using the two as synonyms.

Anyway, if you're really interested there are two pages of rather repetitive talk archives just on the 'country debate' to look over ;) --Robdurbar 22:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/06/07/30a

BMW Fins:"Twin Towers"?

Note: this is a copy of a message I posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Formula_One/Formula_One_news

In a recent edit, it was stated that the editor (you) had not heard "Twin Towers" in reference to BMW's vertical fins. However, I know that I have heard it, maybe not in an official source, but certainly by fans. They are actually named after the Petronas Twin Towers, as Petronas is a major BMW sponsor. Bduddy 19:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)