User talk:Uli Elch

Hello, Uli Elch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to

Background: Airbus CC-150 Polaris: Revision history

• Uli Elch, 15:09, 29 May 2015: removed Category:French military transport aircraft 1990–1999; added Category:International military transport aircraft 1990–1999
• MilborneOne, 15:10, 29 May 2015: Undid revision 664571927 by Uli Elch (talk) still a french built aircraft

The following exchange was transferred from User talk:MilborneOne, dated 29 May 2015 (for preservation of principle):

Your revert of Airbus CC-150 Polaris

Hello; would you like to have all A319s and A321s changed to "German aircraft", because they are all german built? The same applies to the "Spanish aircraft" A400M. In my opinion they are all international projects. Best regards --Uli Elch (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree the A310 was built in France so is by any definition a French aircraft, likewise the A400Ms are built in Spain so are Spanish aircraft, simples. MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Advanced Landing Ground

added links pointing to R-44, R-27, R-35, R-39, R-41 and R-47

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Höga Kusten Flyg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Virtual airline. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uli Elch. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uli. I wonder could you explain to me why you think

Good evening. In the final report of the SHK the term "overspeed" is always and only mentioned in connection with the aircraft speed (V_MO and M_MO) (6 times), never concerning the engines. You may be interested in the contents of V speeds#Regulatory V-speeds and V speeds#Mach numbers.

As can be seen in the graph at the bottom of Appendix 1, page 84 of the report, the N₁ of both engines, which is the RPM of the gas generator section of engines (see Airbreathing jet engine#Terminology), was steady at a cruise power setting of about 92%. It was then decreased to idle RPM; there was never any engine overspeed condition.

Therefore, the link to the article

Overspeed (engine), which deals exclusively with engine RPMs, does not fit in this particular case. --- Best regards --Uli Elch (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Many thanks. Do you think there is any easy way this could be made this clear in the article, by means of link(s) and/or footnote? Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like "The overspeed warning was activated due to the exceedance of this/the maximum allowable airspeed, and the vertical acceleration ..." --- Kind regards --Uli Elch (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe that could be added as a footnote. Meanwhile, do you think

Overspeed (aeronautics) would be appropriate? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh yes, fits perfectly. I didn't know that this one existed at all! Best regards --Uli Elch (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To save me reverting your edits please note we dont use "introduced" type categories on aircraft articles as we use first flight by decade categories, refer to aircraft project if you have an issue, thanks MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to apologise if I did remove your category additions after I raised it at the project, I was already removing the small number of introduced in categories (per previous discussions on that category) when I noticed your changes. I certainly should not have removed any aircraft introduced in year after that discussion was started and if I did I am sorry about that it was not intentional. It looks like we probably have a sensible way forward using first flight dates. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

& I think that adding these categories using HotCat is hazardous.... I've amended that for the BE2 from 1912 t0 1911 ( first flown date is in the article) & removed it from the Edwards Rhomboidal, which in all probability never flew.TheLongTone (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not quite understand why "using HotCat is hazardous".

Concerning the Edwards Rhomboidal I had read "It was tested at Brooklands during early 1911", but then probably overlooked the second part "but there is no record of it having left the ground". My apologies for that.

However, I have to disagree with your category amendment of the Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2 from 1912 to 1911. The article title as well as the infobox deals with the B.E.2, which first flew on 1 February 1912. You probably mixed it up with the B.E.1, which is not the main subject of the article. --Uli Elch (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uli Elch. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uli Elch. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know I have started a discussion on Category:Four-engined piston aircraft at the aircraft project, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that Uli I had missed that the tractor category was a different tree. MilborneOne (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious as to why Category:Flying boats is being removed from articles such as this one? They are not flying boats. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. The quoted Colonial Skimmer has a "a retractable tricycle landing gear", making it an amphibian.

The Category:Seaplanes and flying boats is the parent category for both Category:Amphibious aircraft and Category:Flying boats. Therefore it cannot be in those two parallel cats at the same time.

As your name is "BilCat" I assume you are well familiar with the system and rules of categories. Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your explanation as far as categories go, but the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. These aircraft are flying boats and amhibians at the same time, so they should be in both categories. Also, not all amphibian aircraft are flying boats (some are floatplanes), and not all flying boats are amphibious, even the same type of aircraft, such as the

PBY Catalina. - BilCat (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Due to your lack of response to my reply, I'm going to take this up at

WT:AIR#More Cat-fights. - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Even though not completely convinced, I tend to agree with your view. --Uli Elch (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ BilCat: So what would you propose? Revert all previous edits or clarify the definition(s) or both? --Uli Elch (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that in North American English, both "floatplanes" and "flying boats" are considered "seaplanes", while in British English, a "seaplane" is another word for "floatplane". Hence our article Seaplane covers both floatplanes and flying boats, but the Parent category is "Seaplanes and flying boats", with separate categories for floatplanes and for flying boats, along with a separate one for amphibians.

As far as a solution, I'd recommend reverting the previous edits. We could then have a discussion at WT:AIR on what to do with the main category, Category:Seaplanes and flying boats, possibly moving it to Category:Seaplanes. - BilCat (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable to me. Reverting might take a few days, since I'll be somewhat busy from tomorrow. --Uli Elch (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info @ BilCat: I'm planning to start today. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --- I think that we now should start discussing both the respective category system and the defintions in the two articles Flying boat and Amphibious aircraft, which are partially contradictory (see also Floatplane).

In "Flying boat" the definition is: "A flying boat is a fixed-winged seaplane with a hull, allowing it to land on water, that usually has no type of landing gear to allow operation on land. It differs from a floatplane as it uses a purpose-designed fuselage which can float, granting the aircraft buoyancy." --Uli Elch (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you take a look at the other airlines you'll see that the date are in bold. What will you do? Will you remove the bold from all the others? Sincerely, Chesipiero (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Before I reverted your edit I had checked the "Accidents and incidents" sections of about 10 airlines of different countries for the style. I have not found a single one with the dates in bold style. So, which ones do you mean with "all the others"?

In the meantime I checked some of your previous edits and found out that all airlines you referred to with "all the others" have recently been changed to boldface exclusively by yourself, not by any other editor. Examples:

• Aeromarine West Indies Airways
• Aero Virgin Islands
• Air Florida
• National Airlines (N8)
• Western Global Airlines
• USA Jet Airlines

In addition, please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#When not to use boldface: "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text."

Sincerely --Uli Elch (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uli Elch,

Please do not add nonexistent, red link categories to articles. See

I see you are deleting them if they have just 2 data points; but I understand those charts will update themselves based on the data that will be added to them in the future. So even if now there are just 2 data points and it looks not very attractive, 1. this is still better than no data at all 2. more data points can be added in the future and this chart will just take the data dynamically from the database as the user displays the article page in the future. Legion23 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) A 20 year old chart with 1 or 2 years does not make much sense, the same applies for charts like "2016-2017". No data at all are still better for Wikipedia's reputation than one useless line of just 1 or 2 years.

2) Once additional data are available some time in the future, you are welcome to re-instate the charts, as long as they depict a useful number of years (like most of your charts actually do already).

3) The vast majority of your charts are unsourced, that means there is no proof of their correctness. --Uli Elch (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) Historical data may be still useful for someone - we don't know for what purposes.

2) As others will now see that there is little data in the charts, they may try to find more data and add to the database (as I tried yesterday). If there is no chart (because you removed it as there were only 2-3 data points so didn't look interesting), it looks like there is no problem at all, so nobody will be prompted to improve the situation. (As an example, I don't remove dead links but added a "dead link" template - and the next day someone provided a link to the file in WayBack Machine! If I deleted it, the problem would not be highlighted and the reference would be lost.)

3) There is link to sources under the chart; they seem to be based on people adding data points with references.

4) Potential solution: add a template prompting people to add data? rather than just deleting. Legion23 (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) Historical data might be useful for someone - but in case of old data with just 1 or 2 years in plain figures instead of charts.

3) You are quoting Wikidata as source. However, this is not allowed according to WP:V. Wikidata itself has some links to official statistics, like this one. So if you insert the correct links to an original source, it would be ok, but of course, this is much more work ... --Uli Elch (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) A line chart is easy to understand in a split second to get a general idea.

Data visualisation

takes less cognitive resources than reading text, according to the article (and its source). ‘A picture is worth a thousand words’, etc. I agree that text can explain the chart but why delete the chart? (I suppose a 1-datapoint chart is not possible, must be at least 2.)

3) Not sure which part of WP:V you are referring to - the page doesn't mention 'Wikidata' (ctrl+f). It says 'don't use other Wikipedias UNLESS they are backed with reliable sources'. The charts code has been developed to be based on the database and its sources; without a source, a data point would not be added. Why assume that the data, with references, is not legit? Legion23 (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry to stick in the discussion but Wikidata is a source (infoboxes show automatically many data from Wikidata into infobox fields). Wikidata is simply the "data-speaking" part of Wikipedia, just like frwiki, dewiki, jawiki etc. The only "interdiction" about Wikidata that I know of and which interdiction is frequent among langwikis is to insert Wikidata-based calculated text/sentences into the body of articles ; which is not the case for graphes and tables. And you are free to search, add data and references into Wikidata, which would help grow the depth of passenger graphs. Bouzinac (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the ping re HeeHeeYogen8. As far as my understanding goes, a user may delete content from their talk page, but not certain very specific things such as declined unblock requests. See

(talk page stalker) Ha, ha! Nick said "temporarily". Ha, ha, ha. Or should I say, "hee hee"? No. No, I shouldn't. I wondered about the blanking, too, which is what led me here; I thought users had to keep all current block notices on their talk. Live and learn. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Try to give a watch to the millions of Wikipedia articles, it is used External links and not Website as you write. SincerelyChesipiero (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed that you've been adding leading zeros to runway numbers at US airports. I believe that this is not the correct way to represent them, as single-digit runways in the US (unlike most of the world) are not painted with leading zeros and charts here do not use them (see here for an example). It also goes against the airport infobox template's documentation and established consensus, though the most recent discussion on the matter that I could find is from 2006.

I've started a discussion here that you may want to take a look at and contribute to. TitanAndromeda 01:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I have reverted your move of

@

M16A3NoRecoilHax: The official name according the German AIP - which is the only official document - ist Verkehrslandeplatz Norderney. "Flughafen Norderney" is a pure marketing name used by the company operating the airport; no pilot will ever say "I'm flying to Flughafen Norderney". The smaller the aerodrome, the more freqent it happens that the operator tries to blow up its public appearance by calling it an airport, though it never had this title officially and though almost nobody talks of a "Flughafen". The commonly used term in these cases is "Flugplatz". For example, see the tiny Verkehrslandeplatz Hof-Plauen, calling itself "Flughafen Hof-Plauen". --Uli Elch (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 08:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]