This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fnlayson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have Strike from the Sea by Tommy H. Thompson, which has a chapter on it. I'm caught up with worrking on some Pratt and Whitney articles, but if I need a break from that but still want to do some work, I'll see what I can do. - BilCat (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I am an administrator, and please dont abuse the rolleback feature. Im trying to improve that article, because its in a dire need of improvement. And yes SU-35 is used also in some official papers. GP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralPatton (talk • contribs) 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Well I hope both of us can helpfully contribute to that article, I've been here for a long time, just haven't been in a position to contribute that much in the past few years, so im a bit rusty. --GeneralPatton (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay about the non-validity of other wiki links, sorry for that. The Sukhoi exclusion, however, was really a matter of controversy between Brazilian pilots and analysts. I'll search some references on the subject in the media in English. Regards. 201.36.232.9 (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the number of edits on Boeing 767. As for the pictures under ===Design===, I formatted it as "center" because there's a text sandwich; I don't know if you'be seen it or not. I'll be only for the next few hours, so I want this to improve this article (with you) until it's GA-, and hopefully, FA-standard. Sp33dyphil(Talk)(Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!)21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing images actually sandwiching text the way it is now. That only becomes an issue for narrow screens/low resolutions. I narrowed my window down to check that. Peer reviews provide suggestions. Take them with a grain of salt sometimes.. -fnlayson (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Some sources say that the A330/A340 program was launched in June 1987, while others say in November 1987, given your extensive knowledge of aviation, can you please tell me which one is it? Sp33dyphil(Talk)(Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!)21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, ask this type of stuff on the article's talk page. That's its purpose. The Frawley Civil aircraft book lists June 1987 as the A330/A340 launch date. Copies of the entries are available through airliners.net. See A330, and A340. -fnlayson (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
BillZ what am I to look at there? Things appear handled on the talk page. I don't know much about WWII era planes and they are not a real interest for me. -fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Jeff, it's the appellation of "all-weather" fighter in the postwar years that I'm interested in seeing what its usage was. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a little before my period of interest. The F-104, F-105, and F-4 are some of the earlier mil aircraft that I know much about. I may have a book or two that covers that timeframe though. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
RAAF F-111 operators in the main F-111 article
Hi Fnlayson, I might be being a bit Australia-centric here, but there seems to be no reason to leave out the RAAF units which operated the F-111 from the main article on the aircraft as it covers all variants. I'm not going to edit war with you about it, but it seems a rather inconsistent approach to exclude the RAAF units while including the USAF units. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I would just list the Gs as opearated by the RAAF. The usual pattern for variant articles is to cover the operators of the variants on those pages, not the main page, though this is inconsistently applied, and not every agrees with me on it either! Note that the US Navy isn;t listed here either, and probably wouldn't be even had the F-111B entered full operational service. - BilCat (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd be for adding whatever USN test and development squadron(s?) operated the aircraft as well. It seems a bit artificial to only list the RAAF as operating Gs (particularly as these aircraft were modified a bit in Australian service so they had more common features with the Cs). Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Well RAAF F-111 has its own article and I was trying to follow WP:SunmaryStyle. There has been other articles, like the AH-64, where users kept adding details to the main article instead of the more appropriate variant article. The list is short and doesn't seem like a problem with these articles so I restored the RAAF squadrons. Bring it up on the article's talk page if there's more. -fnlayson (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Fnlayson, I thought I would express my opinion that the A-12 is very close to the level of GA quality, if you have more sources to make the finishing touches to it, I could nominate it and hopefully the GA Reviewing process will create more positive changes, rather than it just being a status badge and an end-result. If you're interested in this, drop me a line on my talk page. Kyteto (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess. But I'm not sure if the article is truly complete. Given that it was highly classified, details are hard to come by. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll put that idea on ice. Messing around in secretive programs is likely good for nobody's heath; :P I really don't want the suits deciding I've taken too much interest in one of their 'interests' and whisking me off! Some things truely will be never complete. Kyteto (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright. No suits here. I was mainly talking about the article being a little short. I need to add somewhere about the A-12 mock-up being unveiled to the public in 1996. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe the aircraft to be a politically important peice, much like the Nimrod MRA4 being a sign of its times, it would be nice to pay better tribute to it. I've always been a little apprehensive working on 'secret' projects, hence why I stay quite far away from the B-2; it isn't wise to tempt fate, I really wouldn't want to accidentally discover a document that wasn't supposed to be released and ending up answering for an innocent mistake around a sensative issue, I suppose I can break that policy for a 'dead' project from 20 years ago however. I've performed a few more tunes and citation additions; it is getting closer. I'll be happy to work with you on it, and when you think it's ready, we can see how it performs at GAN. Kyteto (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You're found all kind of good sources on this. I had better luck finding info on the Northrop/MD YF-23. I guess we'll see what other notable details can be added and polish/tune the wording. Then go for GA. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
All that's missing from the current content is a cite for the estimated per unit price; though an additional cite for the specs would be good (especially if it is in list form, the current is prose). I'll ease off for now, let the article settle for a while. Kyteto (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Since I've got hold of Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft by Paul Eden, maybe I can collaborate with you at artcicles such as B-52, B-1 Lancer, Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, with the ultimate aim of promoting them to GA/FA statuses. What do you think? Sp33dyphil(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)00:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Uh, the B-1 and B-52 articles are already GAs. I like the Eden book. It has good coverage for a lot of aircraft, but not a lot of specifics on each. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Right. I am a little burned out with GA reviews now and have had less time to really work on articles lately. Maybe if a couple weeks or so.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
A330
Hello! Very good. Could you also change the wording to show that the A330 is not entirely manufactured in Toulouse but that only some components and final assembly is done there. Many major components are wholly manufactured elsewhere. The wings, for example,come from the UK. Hudicourt (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I was not sure how much component manufacturing is done in Toulouse. Will check for sources to cite that.. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Jeff, the infobox shows "Round 1" and "Round 2", whereas the article body has "Initial competition", "Expedited recompetition" and "Round three". --Dan Dassow (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I did not fill in the new Infobox. But the "expedited recompetition" got canceled, so that was not really a round. Your point seems to be about the Round 2 in the Infobox corresponds with the Round 3 section. The Round 3 section label also looks overly simple to me. I changed the Round 3 label to "Restarted competition". How is that? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it normal for someone to update a projects class when someone from the project has just assessed it and left a note for other project members to assess at a later date?
I only ask as it seems that most projects state "anyone who is a member of the project can assess"?
Do bots do that sort of thing automatically? I know Xeno has one that is by request, but I was not aware of one that does it without being asked to.
I am asking as there was an issue where a project gave B class rating to an article that was definitely a stub/start or, with a massive stretching of the imagination, a scrape through to C class. I asked them to reduce the class but there are only two editors involved and they refused point blank replying "why do you care what the rating is, it doesn't matter anyway". I was a little annoyed as there seems to be nothing I can do about it. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Some project banners have a setting that can be set to "=auto" for a bot to inherit the assessment from another banner. I've worked on the X-37 article and updated the assessments for this article in the WP:Aviation and Mil History as it has improved. If you think the article is not a B-class or something, please bring it up on the article talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Boeing 717
Hello!
I see you have been reverting a lot of changes to the "current operators" section of the B717 article. I have just made an update there myself, so in case you like to revert it, I'd like to hear your word on why you revert, since I'd rather correct my numbers and sources accordingly instead of having the section once again reverted to a by now 8 months outdated source. This isn't meant to be criticism of your work, merely an inquiry to help get it right and up to date this time. Glad to hear your comments on this!
Cainamahs (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, I've read your summaries, I was just curious wether you'd approve of my update and if not, why, so that it wouldn't be reverted but could be corrected accordingly. Thank you! Cainamahs (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You added a reasonable reference, updated all the numbers, and updated the date in the sentence. The list provides a fair comparison of fleet numbers at a given time. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
<delurk> Sorry to borrow Fnlayson talk page - bit of experiment and the toc appears hidden inside the comment field in the aviation banner - the cause was the level 2 header - when I removed the level 2 (==Foo==) in Talk:Boeing 707/Comments the toc appears on the main talk page.! MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
With your edits to the Airbus A330, I feel obliged to ask for your wise comments on whether the article should be nominated to FAC. In case you say yes, I'm wondering if you'd like to become co-nominators for the process. If not, that's okay–I'll try to give the article the best recognition by myself. However, I hope you agree with me. No pressure! Sp33dyphilReady • to • Rumble09:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You seem to avoid the article talk pages for some reason. Why not ask about nominating the A330 on the article's talk page? I doubt if it is ready, but will have to check the recent reviews on the article and improvements... -Fnlayson (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Leaving the article A330 behind, would you like to nominate the article Boeing B-52 Stratofortress for FA status? Airbus A330 is being nominated at the moment, so I can't actually nominate another article. The article is classed as an A-class, so I reckon it will have any major problems achieving the star. Anyway, aren't you the most active contributor, according to [1]?Sp33dyphilReady • to • Rumble02:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the B-52 article is ready. What makes you think it is ready for an FA nom? If you think it is almost there, then spend a couple weeks touching it up first. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Am I an idiot?
Am I an idiot, imcompetent or stupid? When you summarily revert my edit on S-67 the way you did, that's how you're treating me. You even removed my ref. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE14:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
That's not what I'm looking for, but you could have a least discussed it. I made those changes for a specific reason, not just general wordsmithing. I don't expect special treatment. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE16:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
LOL, you added my ref from the JSF page ten minutes after I added it. Great minds, I guess... It is an excellent article though. I will name and fix. Ng.j (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I just received a new source, American Secret Projects: Fighters & Interceptors 1945-1978, by Tony Buttler. This is an excellent resource on unbuilt US fighters, escecially some limited specs, including the Vought Model 1600. (Note the new sandbox title at User:BilCat/Sandbox/Vought Model 1600.) I've added specs now, and I hope to get some original text added this week. Hopefully I can move it to mainspace soon! - BilCat (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
OK. The Huntsville area has been without power since last Wednesday afternoon when the storms/tornadoes came through. We should get it back Tuesday or maybe Monday. I am out of town for work now. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Why the change from Model 1602 to 1600? Model 1600 looks simpler to me and does not matter much all in all.. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Because that's the basic model that all others follow, and the version I have specs for. :) We could name the article/Lead "Model 1600 series", if that will help. - BilCat (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the post. I noticed that, but have no real knowledge of which is right. And is not too critical to me.. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
F-15E revert explanation
Apologies but I have reverted your edit. The information in the cite is incorrect as later reports show. The incorrect info has been repeatedly added by an editor with some sort of obsession, resorting to multiple sock puppets. See Talk:Friendly Fire for the true story. It really is a tragic accident with no-one really to blame. Regards, Wee Curry Monstertalk16:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you mind if I copy edit the whole thing? The outcome of the inquest made it plain there was no one to blame really and I don't think you've captured that. Wee Curry Monstertalk18:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fnlayson, as you might have known, Airbus A330 is nominated for A-class status. Any comment from an experienced editor such as you is warmly welcomed. Any also, I want to move this article along, so it can reach that coveted star (if you know what I mean).
Hi Fnlayson. Thanks for lending a great deal of your time to the improvement process of the HS Harrier, it was appreciated. I've just completed a fairly big batch of changes to the Apache's used in the UK, I'm even considering GAN'ing the article in the future, could you take a look over it and see what sticks out as wrong to you? Kyteto (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Did some work on it last night. It seems to be in good shape. My AH-64 books are at least a few years old and have little details on the UK Apache. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll take that as a positive sign for going ahead. Thak you for your expertise, and time. I'll put in a nom shortly. Kyteto (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Extra blank lines on Airbus A350 article
Hey, just a question: I edited that article, and took out what appeared to me to be unneeded lines, and you promptly put them back in. I have looked at both versions of the resulting format, and I can see no difference. Would you mind explaining the need for those extra empty lines? If they really are necessary, I will not expend my future efforts in peeling them out of Wikipedia pages. Thanks in advance.--Raymondwinn (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The blank lines around the image links seems to help on the edit screen. Otherwise I mainly just remove repeated blank lines, which is poor formatting. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Vandal on fighter aircraft-related pages
The IPs that have been making strange edits to the See also sections of fighter aircraft pages appear to be the same person, despite that they come from different IPs. Geolocate shows that they have the same ISP and location. Should a WP:SPI be filed? -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail12:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the IPs can be blocked as they are solely used for making disrputive edits. The IPs do not intend on engaging in community discussion to gain WP:CONSENSUS, and their edit warring is nothing short of disruption. I'll try to bring this to the attention of a sysop. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail12:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
We'll see if they come back again. Once they've made 4 reverts using any of their IPs on the one page we can take them to 3RR; SPI is too slow to have any significant impact. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail13:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
True, he is really missed. Hey, it looks like Singapore's S-70Bs are not yet in service. Aviation Week's source book did not list any in Jan. 2011. Is that still the case? I'll keep an eye for media reports to update. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Cite book
Hi, re [3]: I changed the citation format from {{cite book}} to {{vcite book}}, since some editors for some reason had put the years of publication inside the publisher parameters. The vancite template puts the year in the end of the cite, so there is no need for abusing the cite book template by using wrong parameters. I am aware that the article is at FAC, and I couldn't find any inconsistensies in the version I edited? --Eisfbnoretalk16:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any abusing; the dates are all in the year fields. Just trying to use consistent templates/formats per comments at the review. If there are further issues with the article, use the article's talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
No, not anymore, but if you take a look at this diff, you'll see that some books had their pub years stuck inside the publisher parameter, which is not necessary. I don't know your preferences with this, but the point is that one can use vancite templates to get the pub year in the end of the cite, and need therefore not abuse the cite book template. Also, the version you reverted here was consistently formatted. --Eisfbnoretalk16:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I remember that. I'd rather have the dates after the publisher, but the cite web and other cite templates put the date before the title. That was just an edit, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I am bowing out of the ongoing mudfight about Aircraft in Fiction image removal. It seems to me that there is too much ego involved in this dispute, although the incipient combatants are busy trying to deny it. It is sad that editors who have done nothing to improve the article over the last year or two are now trying to ramrod their notions of what is appropriate for the page. As I learned many years ago, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig." For the record, I support having the images, but I have better things to do with my time than argue with Hammersoft, who clearly has no interest in a real dialogue to reach a consensus... Mark Sublette (talk)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk)
XF-104
Do you have access to a book about the F-104? At the moment, I'm improving XF-104, but because I don't have a book about it, I cannot quickly find sources for uncited comments. Also, what aircraft do you have books for? Just wondering to see if you can help me with a few things. Sp33dyphil"Adastra"11:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I am somewhat familiar with that aircraft. I'll look at it. Don't know about doing a review though. I have not done any before. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Northrop F-20 Tigershark
Hey there Fnlayson, as you've probably noticed I've been "boiling down" and condensing the F-20 article, in preperation for re-referencing. I hope you don't mind, as I noted it was on your Long Term list of articles to cover. I'm going to knuckle down on it, until I get a bite on the Kestrel GAN or your upcoming work on the Gripen is completed. Sometimes it is hard to keep all four of the ongoing projects straight in my mind! :D Kyteto (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I have worked a little on that article here & there. I have a small 100 page book for the F-5/T-38/F-20 family. But it does not cover much of the details in the article. Do what you can for it. Let me know if you need help. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
GAN still not started yet. I did not find anything that needed citing there that I could with that book. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you take an independent look at the editing dispute between BillCat and DeeJay (and myself), and give your opinion on how this styling issue could be resolved? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE14:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I had not dug into it deep enough yet. Yes, FG was over-something there. Corrected wording to say it is an agreement, not an order. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I checked the 747-8 page an its maybe not here yet. Its still firmed by the 777 or the 747. I do not know what time it will begin services this time. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
B-1
[4] Thanks for this... It's not really my usual subject area, and I'm probably being overly-precise as a result. I do try to be cautious is such areas. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
If you check the edit history of those articles, you'll see I have already been working on them for years.. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
This was more of an advert, please don't take any offence out of it. I was expecting this kind of reply, and I know full well your excellent contributions to these articles. But, I'd like to make a special concentrated "edit window" during which everyone chips in, instead of having one person work by themselves. Sp33dyphil"Adastra"11:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I did not take any offense there, just wanted to state my position. The Su-35 article is way better now than a couple years ago when I started on. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Many thanks for helping me out with various articles, most recently Sukhoi Su-35. I am very grateful for your effort, and I do hope we can get something out of this. Here, enjoy my home-made pie! Sp33dyphil"Adastra"23:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey Dave. Yea, blogs are generally not acceptable, except where they are really articles published online by newspapers (not blog posts). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I just tagged the blogspot references there. I don't think anybody in particular needs to be notified now. A lot of those entries appear to be outdoor, aircraft on a pedestal things. So maybe some can be removed as non-notable/minor. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I saw all your userspace drafts and I saw 2 problems on each of them, which is that there is no lead and normally, in an article, there's not a level 1 heading, and youfr userspace drafts shouldn't have them. Thanks for making articles, ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs20:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Does not matter for what I am using them for. They are places to work on text mostly for already existing articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
As stated in the "Userspace drafts" section above, I use them to work on text for existing articles. I dated the user pages based on when they were created. On the no index thing, I figured it could not hurt to prevent the pages from being archived. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I have not seen enough of or remember enough of User:B767-500 and JetBlast edits to really say without checking their contributions. Thanks for reporting the vandalism. The DC-10/MD-11 edits are the same old crap by the same people and/or copycats. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I've closed the review as successful (congratulations!), but for our review tracking purposes can we count you as a co-nominator of the article? I think the answer should be "yes" as you seem to have been a major contributor to the article, but I thought I'd check with you first. EyeSerenetalk19:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Quick response! I was about to add that I've also asked Sp33dyphil's opinion, but I can't imagine there would be any objections. EyeSerenetalk19:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey, sorry about accidentally re-adding the Abrams fuel comparison. I was going down my watched pages list (I think I didn't refresh it), and it showed the old edit by the IP user so I thought I was reverting that - didn't mean to undo your edit. Just wanted to clarify there--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Greetings Fnlayson from Oz(!), I'm posting this message out of curiosity regarding any future plans you might have for the encyclopedia. Thelast two months saw a large number of aircraft articles being promoted to GA status. I did some of that work, with great help from yourself, Kyteto, and a few other guys. I'm currently winding down the process of expanding articles to GA status, instead focusing on working on articles that are already GA status with the ultimate aim of seeing them to FA status.
There are two points I'd like to ask you:
if, you have any intentions at all, what articles would you like to expand on before nominating them for GA status, and
what aviation-related sources (books, DVDs, magazines, etc.) you have access to. The reason why I'm asking this is because I'm wondering if you and I have common sources so we could work on a particular article. I have access to a large book collection, including the Warbird Tech and Airliner Tech series, in addition to X Secret Project books by Tony Buttler. Any comments? Do you think this collaboration would work at all? Cheers! Sp33dyphil"Adastra"09:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
General comments: The Teen Series fighter articles (F-14, F-15/F-15E, F/A-18/F/A-18E/F) need referencing to varying degrees, could use more details in places, and summarize/shorten text where needed. The A-6 Intruder article needs expanding, and the SR-71 article needs summarizing and citing. The Boeing 707, DC-8, and several rotorcraft articles in need of help. More examples on my user page & Template:WPAVIATION Announcements/Aircraft. See the C-class and B-class aircraft categories linked on WP:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance for more articles that could use help. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I can probably work on F-15, F/A-18 and F/A-18E/F because I have a few detailed books at my disposal. However, it doesn't look like there are books written about the F-14 at all. I do have a book about the A-6, as well as the SR-71. For further info, please see User:Sp33dyphil/Master plan.
On reviews: The UH-60 article is probably ready for GAN, the V-22, AH-64, A-10 & B-1 articles are about ready for A-class reviews. I'd like to get the F-111, AH-1, F-15, and some other articles through GAN eventually. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you mentioned this in the first instance, but it isn't really a second opinion required, the GAN page says this:
"If you are unsure whether an article meets the Good article criteria, you may ask another reviewer or subject expert for a second opinion"
making it a (possibly underused) option for reviewers, rather than one for reviewees. I'll leave it as that, anyway, I can't imagine people will complain about hijacking it for this use. Thanks, Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 15:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Asking for a 2nd Opinion is the closest route GAN seems to have for unusual situations. I had to ask for a 2nd opinion with the V-22 GAN last year when the initial reviewer could not finish. I asked this on the GAN talk page to check. Hope that works for you.. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Why did you say that? Although 'Maiden flight' has a bit more content than 'maiden voyage', the former is narrower than the latter, which would arguably include every flight on the article, as well as for example Titanic's fateful voyage. --Ohconfucius¡digame!15:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the neutral edit, you're a gentleman. And it was a good edit. Bill and I got a bit out of hand, and I'm trying to work this definition out with him. Hopefully we can edit the other article if necessary, and improve things for other missile articles all around. As you know, sometimes terms get error-creep over time, and sometimes were wrong from the start and are never corrected. I improving precision in definitions and usage of terms definitely brings clarity to everyone. Reminds me of another similar situation with what flexible aviation fuel tanks are called (i.e., tanks, cells, or bladders). --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I did not check for how long the block was. I thought the recent warnings should be visible for evident of bad behavior.. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the C-141 article to it's original state. I was physically right next to him when he vandalized the article. His goal is to vandalize articles to ruin this website's reputation. I suggest you ban him, as he told me he would continue his vandalism. 707 (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The Northrop YF-23 was a single-seat, twin-engine fighter aircraft designed for the United States Air Force (USAF). In the 1980s, the USAF began looking for a replacement for its fighter aircraft, especially to counter the USSR's advanced Su-27 and MiG-29. Several companies submitted design proposals; the USAF selected proposals from Northrop and Lockheed. Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas to develop the YF-23, while Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics developed the YF-22. The YF-23 was stealthier and faster, but less agile than the competition. After a four-year development and evaluation process, the YF-22 was announced the winner in 1991 and entered production as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The U.S. Navy considered using one of the ATF aircraft types to replace the F-14, but later canceled these plans. The two YF-23 prototypes were on exhibit in museums as of 2009. (more...)
Thanks. I don't have time for much in-depth Wiki work right now with family, work and stuff. If you have some particular articles in mind, let me know and I'll try to help. Just post something on the article's talk page about improvements/changes you want to make and I'll help where I can. [offer stands, just ask for help] -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
SLS
hello, i sincerely hope that the sls will be a success, but i think its worth nothing the others view surrounding the program (i putted it under alternative view to not bee a knee jerk), since you are lucky and smart to work in aerospace, i wish you will have a piece of the action in building it.
if you wish to remove the representative, no pb, but lets find a way to leave the ccdev and propellant depot sentence.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
What purpose exactly does the loss of an aircraft pose to the greater article? A car accident down the street from me a few months ago resulted in the loss of a Buick Century, but I don't see exactly how that is notable to the car's article UNLESS the cause was something inherently notable to the aircraft itself, such as structural defect or design flaw... of which this was neither. Every minor, extraneous bit of information dug up about the subject does not belong in the article. Trusilver15:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a reason I've never been a part of the Aviation Wikiproject despite flying a dozen models of aircraft over the last fifteen years - I've always found no end of humor in that particular project's seeming insatiable need to create an article every time an aircraft hits an especially hard bump in a runway. WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION isn't policy, it's an essay. The Northrup A-17 had a (relatively) enormous amount of deaths due to slipshod maintenance, yet they aren't mentioned because there aren't extremely reliable 75 year old records and the list would EASILY be as long as the rest of the article combined. Which also means that noting a single accident in an extremely reliable aircraft has a number of WP:UNDUE issues as well. Trusilver15:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fnlayson, I see that you're a military aviation enthusiast, and that you've never logged on to IRC; I invite you to jump on [5] and check it out. Just in case you think the channel is quite deserted, you can join [6] to talk to a lot of other editors. Sp33dyphil"Adastra"00:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Slug (mass) and use of "lb" and "lbf" terminology.
Thankyou for providing a source for changing "lb" to "lbf" on Slug (mass) page. I don't have acess to that reference but I agree that lb and lbf are one and the same. Its unfortunate that the table in the article differentiates between the two, which was the only source of my reluctance to an unsourced change. I'm currently arguing with brick walls at the talk page of that table. I doubt I'll win because I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor nor am I versed to combat WP:GAME. Some people also refuse to source their claims, instead prefering to preach their beliefs. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for helping make Wikipedia better. I don't have enough bandwidth to do much these days but I used to do so and I hang in there. Ex nihil (talk)22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Not particularly. Try not to assume things based on action or inaction on my part. I think it would have looked better to pass the A-class review before FA nom though. I have not supported it since I'm probably considered a major contributor and that seems to be frowned on. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there - there was a discussion on the WP:AIR category page a couple of days ago about this category, and it was agreed that aircraft that didn't fly, and that were in this category, shouldn't be included in the "Fooian aircraft ####-####" categories. When going through the category to implement that, I boldy decided to rescope the category (being its original creator) to be only aircraft that didn't fly - as a number of the projects included in it weren't abandoned, per se, simply didn't win competitions, or whatnot. There probably should be a category for cancelled-after-flying projects, but that should be a seperate cat, I think, from this one. - The BushrangerOne ping only01:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Sp33dyphil has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!
Hi Fnlayson! As your MILHIST Military Avation Task Force coordinator, I'd like to conduct a short questionaire to give me an idea of what you would the task force to achieve and the capabilities of yours that might contribute positively to the task force. The four questions of this questionaire are:
What are your strengths on Wikipedia?
Which four military aviation articles would you like to see be promoted to at least GA?
What detailed resources (books, journals, etc) about military aviation do you have access to? Please provide the publications' authors, titles and ISSNs/ISBNs.
Which three military aviation articles are you wiling to provide assistance? This can be expansion, copyediting, reference formatting, etc.
; ~~~
#My strengths
#Articles I'd like to see the task force improve
#:
#:
#:
#:
#Sources which I have
#:
#:
#Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
#:
(I don't think this belongs to the article's talk page, as it's a minor issue, touches on formal aspects only and doesn't require others chiming in – but if you still want to move it there, I won't object.)
Hello. So, you basically just reverted my edit and then made some changes?
Please read MoS:DASH. The following (among other things) is simply incorrect:
"May 25, 1889–October 26, 1972" (correct: "May 25, 1889 – October 26, 1972" – were there only years, it would be unspaced, like this: "1889–1972")
Also, through your revert, you re-instated many instances where there are two spaces between words in the edit mask instead of one space, like, between "... [starving the engine of] fuel." and "The [close call convinced]..."
You were right to remove the space behind the "5" in "Sergei Sikorsky (1925–) Sikorsky's eldest son", but there should some kind of structuring character behind between "(1925–)" and "Sikorsky's", maybe a comma? ("Sergei Sikorsky (1925–), Sikorsky's eldest son")
A partial revert maybe, but not a full revert. That's correct on the full date spacing. I was following the year ranges part at MOS:NDASH and not the later details. The MoS allows both single and double spaces though. No need to 'fix' those. I corrrect the range spacing back as you had it. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I consider double (or triple) spacing for no reason confusing to editors, but whatever. Just made some other minor changes (exchanged "english" for "English" etc.). Thanks for accepting my corrections, unfortunately, not everyone here on Wikipedia is able to separate between the subject-matter at hand and themselves, so that they unnecessarily often feel threatend when even the slightest mistakes are brought to their attention.
Greetings Fnlayson, and thanks for your great help so far on aviation articles and the FAC review of Boeing 767! In anticipation of the source spotcheck, I have gone through the bibliography and checked page numbers for the Birtles, Davies, Eden, Haenggi, Kane, all Norris & Wagner, Shaw, Smil, Sutter, and Wells books. The Birtles book was a challenge since only the Google books limited preview version is available to me.
Anyhow, I saw in your reference list that you have copies of Donald's The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft, and Frawley's The International Directory of Civil Aircraft (albeit a different year); plus you may have access to Becher's Boeing 757 and 767 as well? Just in case they ask for source verification. Besides those books, there are 3 citations using Taylor's Jane's All the World's Aircraft and Wilson's Rise and Fall of Ansett which I don't have access to. Anyhow, the other book references, plus the supplementary online references, should cover the vast majority and entirety of the article.
Hopefully there will be more contributors in the coming days to help the FAC move along. Thanks again for your help, and I wish you a Happy New Year!. Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have those. I can check the current electronic copy of Jane's also. I do not have the Rise and Fall book, though. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good! For the Jane's citations (which are for the Airborne Surveillance Testbed), I already put in place some supporting references from different sources to verify details. The Ansett book is only cited once (for the 3-person cockpit), and a Google search already turned up several books and articles that can be used as backup refs. Anyhow, it seems that aside from the Ansett minor reference, we should have some access to all the book sources. Thanks again for your help! Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I added another footnote for the use by Ansett using the 3-person crew config. United received some early 767s configured for 3-crew, but these were retrofitted to 2-crew config. soon afterward. A reviewer is asking for a source review now. Not sure what to do for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that reference! I have responded asking for guidance on finding a reviewer to do spotchecks; the message was from a FAC coordinator. There appears to be a more stringent standard now which may involve showing scans or copies of references; I have already prepared several. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
WikiThanks
Thank you for your help throughout the improvement and review process; looks like the further ref checks were unnecessary. Thanks again! SynergyStar (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
