Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:07, 1 June 2009

Read through the notes below and leave new messages at the bottom. ;) -Jeff

NOTES: Discuss issues with an article on the article's talk page (most likely on my watchlist of 300+), not here except in limited cases. To keep conversations together, I prefer to reply to posts where they start (here or on other talk pages). Please make your point without going on and on for paragraphs. Personal attacks will be removed. Unfair and improper criticism will be ignored or removed if needed. Thanks...

US Aircraft A-67 Dragon

Jeff, I just read the sources that you added to the OV-10 article. It mentions the US Aircraft A-67 Dragon as a possible candidate for the OA-X or similar programs. Might be worth adding to the Dragon article, esp. since the text is still very short. - BillCJ (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a few articles to the A-67's External links section last year that would be good sources also. Nobody has cared to use them and I have not had the interest. You might try adding the A-67 to the To-Do list on WT:AIR. I need to limit my involvement sometimes so this does not lose its enjoyment/fulfillment to me -Fnlayson (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is better to have an article no one else edits than one everyone is edit warring over! :) I'll take a look at the sources and see what I can do. It might do some good to link to the Dragon on pages like the OV-10 and T-6, which do get more traffic. Btw, do you think there is enough info to cover the OA-X program on its own page? I honestly don't know. And with the Emperor's Men fighting to collect "scalps" (cancel DOD programs), it remains to be seen if any new programs survive, though OA-X is probably cheap enough to slip by. - BillCJ (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

True. That's why I like working on lesser known aircraft articles. They can be their own sandbox to some degree. I don't know squat about the OA-X program now. I'd have to read up on it specifically to give a fair answer. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you seem to run across more articles from Flightglobal, AFA, and such than I do, so I thought I would ask about OA-X before doing an internet search of the term. And I do understand about "enjoyment/fulfillmenmt". Knowledge has always been "fun" to me, so I've had to learn not to let other people or tasks steal that joy from me. That's one reason I've stayed in the background on this whole "return of Dave" thing. The daily interaction is just not worth it, and it's usually easier to wait till he stops editing for awhile, and then clean up his messes! - BillCJ (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, wait out the storm, then clean up. :) Before today I only knew the AF was looking for COIN aircraft like the A-67 for Iraq. Didn't know program had a name. The AF has developed a related MC-12W ISR platform under Project Liberty recently I see. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Related aircraft: Navy trying out EMB-314 Super Tucanos (my title) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
and: Ecuador finalises big Super Tucano order -Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

F-15SE Silent Eagle

Thanks for jumping into F-15SE Silent Eagle and getting it cleaned up. I left it a bit of a mess after repurposing the framework of the F-15E article, and promptly signing off for the day... :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. At first I thought it was premature to split that off now, but figured I should still help. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

fine point... I was pretty sure I was off target with that phrasing. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor difference in the phrasing. You did improve on what was there before. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies 14:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I have only helped with a couple articles though (B-52 only one that comes to mind). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention to the Cessna 180 article

Jeff, a quick note to thank you for your time and effort to reinsert some of the info I'd added to the C-180 article earlier today. Bill's hasty reversion caught me by surprise; you beat me to the punch in adding back the material. Moreover, I very much like the reorganization you've done and the point at which you chose to insert the maiden-flight sentence. See ya 'round, Jim Ward 03:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. You're welcome. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a break from the flying world

Well, that's one way to put it. Is there any chance you could review User:BQZip01/RfA4? I'm thinking about applying for adminship and would like some feedback before/if I go "live". — BQZip01 —  03:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks! — BQZip01 —  21:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

^ OK. Maybe I mentioned something helpful... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Tips

Thanks for extending a hand. WIkipedia was quite confusing for me at first (still is, especially the markup and it's editor; could be better :( ). It's great to see somebody with similar passions as myself around here.

Cheers Alexandru.rosu (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Take it easy. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, there seem to be loads of 3view plane drawings in raster format. is it alright to mark them as Should Be SVG?! - Alexandru.rosu (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. You can try tagging them like that though. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yak-141

Jeff, according to Bill Gunston and Yefim Gordon Yakovlev's final official designation for the aircraft is Yak-141. I've put a section in the article explaining the history of the name based on their publication. Would you be so good as to convert the article title over to "Yak-141" from the current Yak-41", and restore the designations to match that title? Thanks - Ken keisel (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. That's confusing with the article named Yak-41. Can the article not be renamed to Yak-141? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed both. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank Jeff!! How does one do that? I've never been able to figure out how to modify an article's title, or disambuglate (sp?) when there are several titles attached to a single article and I want to break one off to make it's own article. Can you help explaine? - Ken keisel (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved Yakovlev Yak-41 to Yakovlev Yak-141 to rename it. There is a Move tab near the top of each page, next to the History tab. I used that. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I see!! How does one remove an alternate title away from an existing article to create an article under that name? - Ken keisel (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Only Admins can delete articles, but users can ask for redirect pages to be deleted by tagging or requesting on a board (requested move something). -Fnlayson (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, can you provide me with a redirect to that board? I've been looking for it for some time and can't seem to find it. Thanks - Ken keisel (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Have no idea. Try a search for requested moves. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Thanks for help

You're welcome! I was only using Huggle anyway so no big deal really :) Jozal 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I use Twinkle. One has to notice the vandalism to fix it... -Fnlayson (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this...

In this edit you asked if your ref might be helpful. Yes!!!. The FA problem was with Joe's articles (which, IMHO, I consider bogus) so if you can click-through on them and find similar statements in your book, we're good to go for FA. Note that I actually went to the Toronto Reference Library to find that exact text, but it was miss-filed and no one can find it again :-( Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what particular text you mean there. I will work on F-20 article this week to replace references where I can though. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks! I'll go through the FA motions when the time is ripe. I would be nice to get another aircraft one on the FA ranks. By text I mean "book", BTW. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, of course. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

F-22 Raptor image

You removed an image of an F-22, because it is "on-ground". Could you please explain what is wrong with "on-ground" images ? Is there some legal issue ? I cannot follow your rationale. Other Misplaced Pages aircraft articles have plenty of "on-ground" images. Coenen (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You removed good flight images and replaced them with on-ground images. Flight images are generally preferred for aircraft. This is a general WP:Air project guideline. It's better to just add images (within reason), unless the new ones are similar angle and better quality etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It was my intention to have pictures with clearly visible tail codes in the operators section to match the bases in the operators section. The WikiProject guideline and its preference for in-flight images is a convoluted line of reasoning , IMHO. The current Misplaced Pages page on the Raptor has not a single on-ground image (except for the assembly of the aircraft). There is not a single picture showing the Raptor's landing gear or open canopy, for example. Having only in-flight images is rather monotonous. Coenen (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To me showing the tail codes only seems reasonable for images in the Operators section. I only said in-flight images are preferred and that's what the WP:Air page says. On-ground ones are not prohibited. You make a good point about showing the canopy open and landing gear. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class Article (777)

I have just made the article Boeing 777 a WikiProject Aviation A-class article. Thanks for your nomination.

With compliments.