Talk:Noorduyn Norseman

message: With regard to units of measure...  My intent was to use the units of measure in a way appropriate to the aviation & historical ontext to which this article belongs.  For that reason, I see the editing of these units of measure to detract from the article, rather than add to it.  I'll check back next week, and, unless moved by objections, I'll be correcting the units of measure back the way they were.  Part of my feeling is that this article is something I created, and that I had a specific intent to communicate with the reader, a communication involving not only the literal word on the page, but also context & style.  An article about an early 20th century airplane should sound like it's about an early 20th century airplane.  Otherwise, we should go all the way & replace all the statistics with their SI equivalents.  Anyone care to discuss the 447.4 kW engine on this plane?  :-)   SteveB 03:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you created the page doesn't mean you own the page, (see WP:OWN), and to ensure that as wide an audience as possible can understand it, we always used both imperial AND metric (see WP:UNIT). Also, don't be surprised to see the entire article completely rewritten, which will happen because you couldn't be bothered including citations for the statements. - NiD.29 (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units of Measure 

message: Seems a bit redundant.  "A footnote in history," or "a notable historic fact" seems less so. But, if it must be your prose, . . . .--Evb-wiki 18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks- I am a bit pedantic at times, but the original thought was that the Norseman was incidental to the larger event of the Glenn Miller disappearance. Bzuk 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable footnote

message: I have just returned from the Norseman Floatplane festival and have a new dramatic in-flight photo of the aircraft. I would like to change the infobox photo to this new image. I will retain the other photo in the article. Is it time also to remove the trivia section? An admin is on a tear removing all these sections. FWIW Bzuk 13:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awww, man. I love my photo, with the reflection and all . . . but, okay, let's see what you've got. --Evb-wiki 13:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look, I still used it (both photos were a little soft but still... ) I put a quick changeover to let you see the result. If it doesn't work, I'll change it back. FWIW Bzuk 13:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's cool. I agree that a variety of planes is better. --Evb-wiki 13:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll make the change permanent. BTW, I had a chance to fly in one of the Norseman and ripped off a roll of images that show the aircraft at its best. FWIW Bzuk 13:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet. I rode in the Spirit. It was a bit load and shakey, but a nice, rugged aircraft. Most of my aerial shots were blurry. --Evb-wiki 13:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm writing a book on Bush planes and Bush pilots so I took a couple of flights north (Thompson, Manitoba), west  (Victoria and Vancouver, BC) and into the bush (Red Lake, Ontario) flying in a variety of Beaver, Otter, C-46, Norseman and even modern types (Caravan, Pilatus PC 12) to get aerial and ground shots. If you want to see some of them, just shoot me an email. [:¬∆  Bzuk 14:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Lake