| Revision as of 01:51, 6 December 2022 editFnlayson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers148,400 edits →2037 bomber: yes← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:05, 7 December 2022 edit undoBilCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers215,892 edits →top: UpdatedNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div style="background-color: #EBF5FF;"> | <div style="background-color: #EBF5FF;"> | ||
| {{Off and On WikiBreak}} | |||
| <!-- {{user frustrated}} --> | <!-- {{user frustrated}} --> | ||
| <!-- {{WikiBreak}} --> | <!-- {{WikiBreak}} --> | ||
Revision as of 07:05, 7 December 2022
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
 | Before posting, please read and follow the notes below.
|
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
R44
Considering this made not just local news but NY Times, Associate Press, CNN, and a few others I hadn't yet had time to link, this seems like it might be a case for an exception to the guidelines if the blurb is shortened - the nationwide news apparently thinks this is pretty noteworthy. Especially since two News station employees were involved - that IS out of the ordinary. And if the pilot did deliberately try to save the cars below, as several witnesses to the crash claim he did, that seems something worthy of remembrance as well. EEBuchanan (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Please make your case for inclusion on the articles talk page. We generally go by the guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH. Please note that Misplaced Pages isn't a news source or a memorial. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ok Duly noted. Others (one an admin) have put it on the WCNC page so I updated it with the citations I had. I guess it goes there. It is something at least important in the history of the station, but if WP policy dictates it isn't in the history of the aircraft type that's all right. EEBuchanan (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure others are keeping an eye on the incident. It wouldn't take much more to push it over the notability threshold. BilCat (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Again duly noted. I actually live near where the crash happened and work just down the street from it, so I can keep a pretty close eye on things myself. FAA/NTSB investigations have always fascinated me.
- EEBuchanan (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure others are keeping an eye on the incident. It wouldn't take much more to push it over the notability threshold. BilCat (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
After all that work on Visual Editor you might be thirsty...tell no one where you left the "body" Unbroken Chain (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC) |
- Thanks, as long as it's non-alcoholic. BilCat (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Only the best O'douls for you ;) I can't drink much beer anymore either. Stupid diabetes ;) Unbroken Chain (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Baseball
In case you weren't aware, there's a discussion going on that you may be interested in. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Fred Zepelin, thanks. I had already seen it, and am keeping track of it. I'll comment later on if warranted. BilCat (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
2037 bomber
I have to strenuously object to calling this a "program." I'm still surprised this is even an article. I almost entirely rewrote this after failing to get support for a merge at AfD. The so-called "2037 bomber" was actually a 1999 Air Force plan to put off development of strategic bombers until 2013. Given the tremendous backlash this paper received from the bomber community, it is unclear whether this policy ever really represented the Air Force's official stance. The USAF reversed course in a follow up report two years later. Furthermore, the 1999 Long Range Bombers white paper explicitly called for a "capability", not a "bomber" per se (e.g. some sort of standoff munition or otherwise some not-yet-conceived conceptual weapon). I'm not entirely satisfied with calling this "2037 bomber controversy" either, so I welcome any suggestions. Schierbecker (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'd rather just go back to "2037 Bomber". BilCat (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, agreed. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)