Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Bristol 170 Freighter"
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Page Creation == | == Page Creation == | ||
Thanks to [[User:Sixcyl|Sixcyl]] for creating the page content. [[User:Bthebest|Bthebest - IMPDb Administrator]] 10:39, 14 February 2011 (MST) | Thanks to [[User:Sixcyl|Sixcyl]] for creating the page content. [[User:Bthebest|Bthebest - IMPDb Administrator]] 10:39, 14 February 2011 (MST) | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
Thank's Tim. My first page of that kind. I understand why you could hardly afford doing all the job alone, matter of time because it's amazing quite long, as much as, or even more long than editing a film page! | Thank's Tim. My first page of that kind. I understand why you could hardly afford doing all the job alone, matter of time because it's amazing quite long, as much as, or even more long than editing a film page! | ||
By the way,I did intentionnally named the category Bristol Freighter and not 170 Freighter,because I thought it was better generic name due to existence of other types (179, 216)...just a convention, but in such a way I would have prefered Bristol 170 Freighter because I don't find these "type" or "model" inclusions very atractive and good looking for naming aircrafts... some litteratures use them, some don't. Couldn't we agree on this? [[User:Sixcyl|Sixcyl]] 15:10, 14 February 2011 (MST) | By the way,I did intentionnally named the category Bristol Freighter and not 170 Freighter,because I thought it was better generic name due to existence of other types (179, 216)...just a convention, but in such a way I would have prefered Bristol 170 Freighter because I don't find these "type" or "model" inclusions very atractive and good looking for naming aircrafts... some litteratures use them, some don't. Couldn't we agree on this? [[User:Sixcyl|Sixcyl]] 15:10, 14 February 2011 (MST) |
Revision as of 22:11, 14 February 2011
Page Creation
Thanks to Sixcyl for creating the page content. Bthebest - IMPDb Administrator 10:39, 14 February 2011 (MST)
Thank's Tim. My first page of that kind. I understand why you could hardly afford doing all the job alone, matter of time because it's amazing quite long, as much as, or even more long than editing a film page!
By the way,I did intentionnally named the category Bristol Freighter and not 170 Freighter,because I thought it was better generic name due to existence of other types (179, 216)...just a convention, but in such a way I would have prefered Bristol 170 Freighter because I don't find these "type" or "model" inclusions very atractive and good looking for naming aircrafts... some litteratures use them, some don't. Couldn't we agree on this? Sixcyl 15:10, 14 February 2011 (MST)