Hosta

I tend to agree, you cannot insert information then instruct others to vote on it. Here we... suggest > form consensus > then include. This is a matter of convention. G. R. Allison (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya BilCat, I wanted to ask you about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_Vertol_VZ-2&diff=336847724&oldid=336846081 revert, which I just happened to notice. I don't understand why you reverted my edit. All I did was clean up the wikitext, probably after some noob made a mess out it all. It's pretty strange to have a purely maintenance related edit reverted, so I wanted to ask, what's up?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was removed was several hidden notes, along with the {{aircontent}} template in the See also section. These are normal notations and templates used in aircraft articles. They arn't nwebie mistakes or superfluous notations. There were extra spaces in several places, which I did leave out of my revert, as these should have been removed. If you've used AWB or a similar aid that marked these as unneeded, please let me know which one, so I can try to get these "allowed". Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*blink* ...those were there on purpose? I did't use any tools to make that edit, I just cleaned up what was presented to me when I went to copy a bit of content. Why in the world would you add all of that garbage on purpose? Among other things, there are guidelines discouraging the use hidden comments.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they aren't banned by policy. The top header is a project notice, and the headers between the main text and the Specs are there for for future use in expanding the article. The last one, in the See also secion, isn't a hidden note, but a template with a few hidden notes in it. Hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to really argue about it. Project notices go on talk pages, empty sections shouldn't exist, and spaghetti code for wikitext should always be avoided as a general principle. If you want to follow me around and revert any edits I make to similar articles then feel free, but you should know that this sort of non-standard editing will probably be resisted by many people.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you disagree with a project's standard practices, you should take it up with the project. Continuing to remove standard elements such as the top hiden notice and the see also template will result in appropriate actions being taken. Btw, I'm not following you - those pages were already on my watchlist. - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? What project are you referring to? Also, are you threatening me with something? (and ps.: I wasn't accusing you of following me, above).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't threatening you anymore than you were accusing me of following you. And I thought I had listed the project, sorry. It's WP:AIR, and the guidelines are at WP:AIR/PC. (Coincedently, that's in the hidden note you keep removing from the tops of pages.) If you disagree with the guidelines, you ought to discuss it at the project's talk page, WT:AIR. - BilCat (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humm... sorry, but I'm looking over that guideline and I'm not seeing where it says, or even suggests, adding all of the notes and stuff that we're talking about here. I do see {{aircontent}} mentioned, which is a separate issue (and the layout/style issues I see with that template is something that I might address separately), but not the rest. Aside from the clutter problem (which is probably the most significant issue), are you aware of just how amateurish it looks to be adding all of that to the article? I'm sure that you have good intentions in adding all of those notes and things, and looking over your contrib history I see some good content contributions and quite a bit of maintenance work, so I'm not trying to put you down or anything. I'm simply saying, the reason that I started this conversation was because I thought it was strange that you would revert what I honestly thought was a mess created by a noobie.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) I've removed the hidden section headings from the VZ-2 article, as they are unneded if they aren't going to be used soon after articel creation. The top header is used on virtually all aircraft pages, and that should be discussed if you think it should go. As to the Aircontent template, I wasn't sure if you referring to that or not, so I answerd as if you were, just in case. - BilCat (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that the aircontent template was widely used, but since this discussion started I've actually looked and seen that it's used quite a bit. Like I said above, I have issues with the layout and style that template is presenting. That can be addressed on the talk page of the template itself though (once I feel like dealing with the fight that such a discussion will invariably create *rolls eyes*), so it's not really an issue here.

I'll take your word on the fact that the wikitext comment about the project has been added to many articles. I might be missing it, (and if I am, please point it out) but I don't see any mention of adding that comment anywhere on WP:AIR/PC. Besides that, just because something is currently widespread doesn't automatically make it good or correct (eg.: WP:OTHERSTUFF). I guess that I can see the desire to add such a comment, but it's not at all necessary (and again, I really do think that it just looks bad). What's worse is that, since it's a source wikitext comment, the wikilink formatting is completely ineffective anyway, so half of the purpose for having such a comment is immediately irrelevant anyway.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your objection to the move? --Cybercobra (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you bothered to read the talk page, or Glider's history? You should be doing that before trying to make page moves and using a CSD header that claims the move is uncontested or consenual. - BilCat (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion seems to be from 10mos ago. Surely whatever moves & hatnotes that were to be added/executed have occurred by now? It never makes sense to have Foo redirect to Foo (bar).

--Cybercobra (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it was upheld in August here, so it should still be discussed first. In such cases, you do need to make a proposal first. Anyway, Glider (disambiguation) is probably the better choice for Glider, as there really is no clear primary topic - that makes your proposal contested. - BilCat (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you personally have an objection or is your objection just about the lack of discussion. (i.e. Were there to be a !vote, would you vote Oppose?) --Cybercobra (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read Talk:Glider (sailplane)/Archive 2. This wasn't a simple maintenance move, but the result af an extermly lengthy discusion which lead to the consensus to have the page where it is now. You can't "be bold" and undo a previous consensus simply because it's old. - BilCat (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering what you think would happen if I create their own article. I would like to join text from A-4 Skyhawk, List of A-4 Skyhawk operators, Falklands articles, serials, BuNos, etc plus the drawings at pt:McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawk. --Jor70 (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best to set up a test articel on your userspace, so the other editors can see what it looks like. (I can help you wuth that if you need it.) You probably need to combine it with the A-4AR article also, as I don't think we need two on Argentine variants when we only have one for the other (except for 1 for Singapore). - BilCat (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I will give it a though. thks --Jor70 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what about having a whole episode dedicated to top gun and having it named 'wingmen'? and then some in other episodes. it's undeniably on the articles about the episodes themselves, and where's the reference in that? 119.12.219.33 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the discussion got refactored a bit since you commented, you may wish to clarify your vote on Talk:Glider. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill. Here's a link to a page of Garrett history with some discussion of development of various engines in the mid-1970s. You may find something worth drawing into WP. There's a .pdf at this location: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1975/1975%20-%200026.html ~~Mack2~~ 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A newly updated and very informative archive devoted to the ATF3, with many internal links to further documents, e.g., by John Evans who was one of the engineers: http://web.me.com/jcefamily/ATF3/ATF3_Online_Museum.html I exchanged some email with Evans a couple of years ago (using my real name), and I he had an interesting story to tell about how/when he was hired (and about my dad). This museum is the product of an enormous amount of labor and I'm sure some of it belongs in WP. It has a lot of engineering spex, info about airframes, and so on, that you might be able to use to enhance the ATF article.

Also here re ATF3: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/all/search/503DECB3FABC5541CA2571F800269D56 ~~Mack2~~ 00:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll take a look. - BilCat (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it would help to have a disambiguation page for ATF3 -- the protein vs. the jet engine. I don't know how to set that up.~~Mack2~~ 22:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as there are just two articles with the name, a hatnote at ATF3 should be sufficient. I'll add one. - BilCat (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to this page. Unfortunately I'm not sure they were constructive. Please see my comments at Talk:Glider (disambiguation)#Recent edits to this page where I have opened a discussion on the tipic. Thanks --MegaSloth (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I don't think your edits were constructive either! - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help cleaning out my talk page - there's a little Troll alert there. He/she/it also acted at the Airbus A340 and [[Boeing 777] articles using a different name, also as IP (was changing specs or removing content). --Denniss (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! - BilCat (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used "SVG" in the edit summary all three times that I updated the roundels from JPEG to SVG (in fact four times). If you're a little more dexterous than Gerald Ford, then you should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. AnonMoos (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm quite clumsy due to a physcial condition, so I find your comments offensive. The first edits seeme dto add an old roundel, and the others were stomped in the middle of reverting the removal of cited info. My apologies, but to me, reverting vandalism matters more than SVG files. Some help reverting the vandals would have been appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find it? I blitzed it just now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Wiki-searched "aircraft enging" "popular culture". - BilCat (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, amazing that it was the only one. It occurs to me that if an aircraft appearance is that notable it will be linked from the movie/game article. I am all for getting rid of the pop culture rubbish. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lurking on in - I just want to see how Aircraft in fiction ends up. It we keep it then I say move all the popcult stuff there, as most of it is now. If it gets deleted then we need to have a formal debate, but I am with you on this, I would support a zero tolerance policy on it - none at all. Keep the game, toy etc stuff on the pages about the games, toys etc - I think a good argument can be made that a Transformer toy that turns into an F-15 is not notable to the F-15, only to the toy and that is where the mention should be. As Nimbus noted - Janes doesn't have to deal with this stuff... - Ahunt (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with the two of you... and that article might well end up in a dead end, judging by how it's going right now. As for Jane, everyone including the Russians would cease buying their publications should they ever include such popcult/trivia, correct me if I'm wrong. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 03:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I completely support the Zero Tolerance porposal, we might have trouble getting a consensus to ban it. I hae an alternate proposal that might be better accepted, and is based on the lessons learned from this latest attempt to have a single article for "Notable appearances in Media" (NAM). The idea is to have a single central page on WP:AIR project-space for all discussions on pop-culture in aircraft articles, and where a consensus must be gained for any pop-culture item to be added, by anyone, to an aircraft-related article. The main NAM page would list the quidelines, and there would be a another page for discussing and approving the appearances in articles. Naving a central discussion page should help to aliviate arguments such as "The F-22 page has the transformers, so why can't the F-15 page?". (That went on for several weeks!) We would probably need a series of warning templates to warn users who add items without clearing them through the "Central Committiee on NAM" first, with warings that they'll be blocked if this continues. Also, with the warnings, we might be able to pursue getting a 3RR exemption for the removal of undiscussed pop-culture items. - BilCat (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the least-biased sentence from that article and moved it the Jamaica page. Blackjays1 (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just wondering where the line's drawn for notability of air accidents and why some are removed. The incident I added on the PA-31 in Queensland is quite notable here in Australia, it is well-known amongst plane-heads here as one of the greatest mysteries in twin-engine aircraft crashes. Anyway I'm new here, I was just wondering if it's number-of-fatalities that deems it notable.

The numbere of fatalities is part of it, but there is more to it. Take a look at WP:AIRCRASH, which gives the guidelines for accident and incident inclusion in aircraft articles. As the first line states, "Most accidents and incidents are not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia." Read over the guidelines, and then if you have any questions, or if you feel this accident qualifies for inclusion, discuss this at Talk:Piper PA-31 Navajo. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone is being a DICK again... should we just revert and then ignore him? Personally, I find him a pain in the behind. --Dave ^{♪♫1185♪♫} 19:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (NB: You do know "who" I'm talking about... right?)[reply]

Yeah, what a shame! - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Damn... you beat me to it~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, Jeff beats me to reverts all te time. Anyway, even without the IP's stated reason (assuming in good faith that there was one!), I can't see any reason to remove the opponent - it's history - supposedly, as it's a painting.  ;) - BilCat (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, my sentiments exactly... you can't bloody well be fighting against the air, right? I mean, it's a battle and who was the other party? Leaving a blank there serves no purpose, at all. Once again, this shows how stupid IPs can be... *face palm* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• More monkey business happened at Airbus A340 & Talk:Airbus A340 today... and guess what? The shamee got BLOCKED for the second consecutive time for twice breaching 3RR... really a shame~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the dude's problem is, but his time on WP is going to be very short if he keeps this up. Some of his latest comments are an admission he doesn't intend to follow policies. - BilCat (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah... with such kind of confession, I would have indef-ed him right from the start instead of waiting until now. IMO, we have extended too much good faith to the shamee and he should have been REVERT, BLOCK & IGNORED a long time ago. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I'll check there as I have the time to. Are there any admins you could recommend talking to about naming conventions such as those I mentioned to Akradecki on his talk page? Thanks! Der.Gray (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might try User talk:MilborneOne. He's generally very helpful, and if he can't help directly, he may be able to point you to someone who can. He is active at the Aviation Accident task force, so he has some familiarity with the topic as relates to aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my bad. Connormah (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Template talk:US Air Force navbox#Remove the flags‎. There is a compromise with Gnevin that I would like your input on before I execute. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BilCat! On 11 and 12 February 2009 you did a lot of good work on de Havilland Sea Venom including adding an image of the instrument panel of a Swiss Venom. You then edited the caption of this image to read Royal Navy Sea Venom aircraft being handed over to the Royal Australian Navy circa 1955. However, despite the caption, the image remains of the instrument panel of a single-seat Venom.

You are possibly able to locate the correct image of a Sea Venom being handed over to the RAN. If so, it would raise the quality of the article. Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch - It looks like I neglected to update the filename when I added the caption. I found the image on Commons, so I am adding it now. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've commented on this before, and I'm sorry to bother you again, but could you do me the favor of adding your two cents to Template talk:Lockheed? Nimbus suggested that I ask for your input, and you seemed to care more about this question than most. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the reason why the statement about the Finnish Air Force is required. The statement that the RAF was first is alreay cited. Nobody else is claiming that they were not. If ii is needed in this article its not suitable for the lede section.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually in the Lead section, it's in a footnote. The reason it's there is to help deter the Finns who continually want to change the statement in favor of their "air force" being the first. If you doubt me, take a look at the article's history. If you still disagree, please raise this on the articel's talk page, and try to gain a consensus to remove it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• About this statement, why the change of mind? You are not wrong, you know? And I am 100% behind you on this. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never doubted that, and thanks. I'm not changing my mind, just tired of him telling me what I think, and acting like I don't know what I'm doing, while he completely misses the point! That last sentence in my post there is complete sarcasm! - BilCat (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bill, no sarcasm is allowed when you put up a straight face, this isn't a poker game... ya'know? Jeez! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• and there you go again... was that really necessary? \(-_-)/ --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't everything I do necessary? ;) - BilCat (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. :) Btw, a dick just came by my talk page and did a drive-by, but I just removed the dicklish/trollish comment... you got any permanent solution? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be time for a couple of hours off WP for you! I've posted at the stupid ANI, and said he was as much at fault for not backing off when you deleted his post. Btw, as far as I know, you can rollback on your own page for any reason, so he's wrong there. He's playing all innocent, but he's either verry easily offended, or was baiting you. Time will tell. - BilCat (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, you just made my day~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 08:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) Did you see his response to my first post? I had to work hard to be civil myself in responding to him! On another topic, have you been able/will you be albe to go to the Singapore Air Show? Flight Global has all kinds of stuff about it this week, so I wondered if that was something you could go to. - BilCat (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Classic trolling/bait trap, right? Anyway, I would love to go there but somehow my boss needs me at the new hangar more than he wants to see me at SAS 2010 (for some strange reason, he's going to be there!)... but fret not, I can always go there during the weekends, which is my family's domain. So what do you have in mind? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, it sounds like great fun! (That's one of the drawbacks of living in a large counrty - nothing like that is ever close to where I live!) Anyway, if you can take pics, take pics of EVERYTHING! :) Usually, Commons ends up getting some good pics from such shows, so hopefully this one will too. - BilCat (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No guarantee but I'll see what I can do, the Missus is already complaining about the current hot weather here (it's 35 degree Celsius out in the open and don't forget about the high humidity too!), while I'm worried more about the mode of transportation there... I could drive there or I could take the Free-of-charge but over-crowded shuttle bus. Or maybe... someone is going to give me a free trade day pass and voila~! Problem solved. Let's keep our fingers crossed, shall we? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, family should come first! Your weather is typical of ours in June, July and August, but right now, I wish we had some - we actualy had some snow last weekend. Just have fun, whatever else you can do. - BilCat (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Bill, I managed to snap some shots at the SAS 2010 whilst under the influence of flu medication... not sure how if it is up to mark but I'll let you know later as I'm nursing a lobster red skin condition now from the Sun-burn I got today. Cripes... it was like 36-37 degrees outside~! :( --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BilCat. I hope you are doing well. Thanks for your concern on the New Delhi article. However, I believe you are mistaken. New Delhi has three official languages: Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi (source). I would encourage you to please revert your edit on the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to India in general, as that is the usual pactice now on India-related articels, to just list Hindi only, and no other languages. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe there is such a practice and I have been working on South Asian related articles for years. Could you please point me to the policy you are referring to? Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, my impression was it was because they were all hi-tech futuristic stuff; "My Mother, the Car", not so much. If you care. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stingray wasn't high-tech/futuristic at all - it was just a Corvette Stingray. Once, the ,ain character mounted a frame on the nose with different headlights so it could appear to be different cars while tailing a suspect at night, but that's more of a low-tech gadget. Viper is from a different era, and basically a non-talking Knight Rider clone. - BilCat (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the common theme was supposed to be crime-fighting/problem-solving team shows centered around a vehicle. By the way, I noticed that similar "See Also" lists, all of which include Airwolf, are still present in Automan, The Highwayman, Knight Rider, Street Hawk, and Viper. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I never watched "Stingray". Sue me. ;p I think the crimefighting angle has some merit. I'd have nominated them all as no story, made up for by lots of SPFX & neat toys. (Not that this is a bad thing. ;D I thought Yancy Butler made "Mann & Machine". Which didn't make any of those lists, oddly.... :/ ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yancy Butler makes anything she's in! The list in Airwolf was basically of shows with a high tech machine in the starring role. Anyway, the first season of Stingray is worth watching. It was about 20 years ahead of its time in being very dark (often literally!), with a character with a covert background, and even a hint of modern cynicism towards goverment, especially the military. However, it still had much of the Steve Cannell trademark fun and adventure element, along with some optimism, that is missing from most modern dramas nowadays. That last, along with the eternal cynicism, is one reason I'll always prefer the original BSG to the newer BSG-in name only. If I want to be depressed, I'll watch the news! - BilCat (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "If I want to be depressed, I'll watch the news! - BilCat" → Right then, will it be CNN or Fox or CBS for you, sir? Personally, I'd go with George Carlin, David Letterman or Craig Ferguson anytime... they're depressingly funny~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yancy is the first woman I've ever seen where I noticed her smile first. Best in the business. (Right up there: Jane Krakowski and Kate Hudson.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bill,

I wanted to let you know that I've started a sandbox for the IHI F3 engine on in my userspace. When looking for a photo I found your sandbox... It didn't seem like you had done much there, so I hope you don't mind me continuing the one in my space. You were the one who started working on getting the Japanese aero-engine articles over here, so I didn't want to step on any toes. And, of course, I would very much welcome any contributions you can make, as you may already have some sources picked out. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Feel free to copy or play in any of my sandboxes. I procrastinate, so sometimes they languish for quite awhile. Jeff and I have cooperated that way in the past. In fact, he did most of the work on the F-111B sandbox I had created. Btw, when others work on my sandbox articles, especially major work as in Jeff's case, I usually move the article to mainspace with the move feature so there work is credited in the history; sometimes an admin will need to do the move if there is histroy at the new title. If I'm the only one to have editoed, then I'll cut-and-paste if I can't do a dierct move, since I'll be in the history anyway. - BilCat (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ishikawajima-Harima F3 is now up, feel free to fix any messes I've made there! -SidewinderX (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome back BilCat :) I've been watching the development of the new template from the sidelines, and it's a truly impressive piece of work. I'll admit to some fundamental misgivings about it though, based on my experience in developing the aerospecs template some time back.

As I saw it, there were two fundamental, inherent problems with the aircraft specifications template then in majority use. The biggest of these were the rigid "switches" that worked OK for most heavier-than-air craft but came badly unstuck by oddball designs and by anything lighter-than-air. The new template also nicely avoids these, and can cater for (as far as I can see) anything within our purview of things that fly though aerodynamic and/or aerostatic lift. However, the second major problem I had with "aircraft specifications" is its invitation to cruft -- something that the new template not only retains, but perhaps even adds to. In building aerospecs, I deliberately kept the fields as narrow and minimalist as possible; and indeed, as time went by, it became apparent that I'd excluded some which turned out to be important. Unfortunately, there's plenty of evidence around Wikipedia that people will not exercise restraint and confine themselves to the few parameters that matter most, and will instead try to "tick every box".

So from a technical and theoretical point of view, I think the new template is great; from a practical and "social engineering" point of view, I have very strong reservations. I also strongly oppose the use of knots and nm when describing aircraft in a work such as Wikipedia, but that's another fight. :)

Anyway, it's great to be back! :) Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have you back! I understand your concerns, and there was a lot of discussion on the general parameters during development. The current version isn't necessarily the final product, so jump right in and help out! It will be good to have another editor involved who can work with the coding. The discussions have pretty much stalled right now, so your input may help revive discussion, and get us on the path to producing a final version.

As to the knots,/nm issue, I think you're in the minority on that one! Anyway, some sources (rare though though may be) only provide knots/nm measurements (where applicable), so not having them would be problematic as far as using totally converted figures in the template.

Finally, if you haven't have a chance to chechout the latest on the Aero-engin task force, please do. Even if that's not your area of interest, we've been able to cover alot of ground in a year, but some fresh input would be good too. - BilCat (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bill, as promised... photos! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC) (PS: I'm kind of disappointed at this year's airshow... not much interesting military hardware around! / PPS: I'll post more photos later... ;P )[reply]

• 
  RSAF's G550 CAEW (still ironing out the bugs!)
• 
  CH-47SG of 127 Squadron, Republic of Singapore Air Force
• 
  Bell 429 at the Singapore Air Show 2010
• 
  AN/AAQ-13 & AN/AAQ-14 LANTIRN on F-15E
• 
  Fully laden Boeing AH-6 Little Bird
• 
  Fully laden Boeing AH-6 (side view)

Nice, and thanks. I see you've added the G550 AEW image to that article. I've just added the AH-6 pic to the Boeing AH-6, which had no images at all. Thanks much, in spite of your flu bug and sunburn. - BilCat (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When/if you get your Blue Thunder helo page up, msg me? I'd like it on my watchlist. (I'd offer to help with it, if I had a clue. ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In re this: Happy to tinker, but be advised, it'll get probably stranded in my sandbox space, since I'm terrible at moving (& I understand the preference is not just to copy paste); if copy paste isn't an issue, tho... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can just work on it where it is, as I don't think Jeff will mind, though you could ask to be safe. When it's ready to go to mainspace, I or Jeff will move it so as to keep all the contributors in the history. - BilCat (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, I can move it back to my userspace if Jeff wants to be rid of it! ;) - BilCat (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind. Or one of you is welcome to move the article to your user space. I don't have any real sources to use on it. I have a DVD set for the TV series, but not the movie. Trekphiler is off to a good start here, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Trekphiler did some good work on it at User:Trekphiler/SM Thunder Air. I copied all the new text to User:Fnlayson/Blue Thunder (helicopter) and combined the repeated parts. See what you think. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look yesterday, but I'm still having health problems this week, so I'm taking an informal break. Plus with the KC-X drama, I need one! The article looks good to me, so go ahead and take it live when you're ready. - BilCat (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, hope they improve soon. Did more clean up and moved the article to Blue Thunder (helicopter) a little while ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BilCat,

I noticed that on the main portal page...under "Geography and Places"..."United States" that the link to the state of Georgia (USA) actually goes to the country of Georgia. I am an infrequent editor on Wikipedia....could not figure out how to correct the link. Saw that you had edited the state of Georgia (USA) page in the past...thus this note. Thanks! Sierra Hotel 058 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I couldn't find what you are talking about. Perhaps if you post on the talk page of the portal you mentioned, a regular editor their can help.. - BilCat (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly good luck with your health issues (i'm going through something minor myself)...hope things get better. The reference to the term Gridiron summarizes the article and its usage in UK‎..on a sidenote, i play for a team in a Gridiron league myself in North-West England (not very well might i add..lol). CheersAaronTownsend (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I hope you get better soon also. The Lede already mentions that the term is used in some countries outside North America, and that would include the UK. I beleive the term is also used in Ireland, but I don't know to what extent. We could probably add a "Usage" section to the articel, and list a few more countries were the term is used, if we can find some sources to cite. - BilCat (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.AaronTownsend (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help out. I am doing as many as I can, but there are lots of links to work through. See [1] and change [[Professional football]] to [[Professional American and Canadian football]]. Thanks. --Jayron32 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latest info board is of PAC kamra from IDEAS- Check the link here below for confirmation: http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/index.php?s=f52f10d45e9e41664dc2160be5f2d6e0&showtopic=21073&st=4120&p=1199853&#entry1199853

http://www.pakdef.info/forum/showthread.php?10718-JF-17-related-discussion-November-December-2009/page6 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.52.238 (talk)

Forums aren't accepted as reliable sources on WP. Please discuss his on the JF-17 Talk page if you feel these are reliable. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those forums are pakistani forums saying that was the brochure at IDEAS. I've given 2 separate links confirming that brochure is from IDEAS. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.52.238 (talk)

Then you need to discuss this on the JF-17 talk page, and WAIT for a consensus to change the information. Right now, you in violation of WP:3RR, and subject to being blocked at any time. Tread carefully. - BilCat (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'rs forgiven. I'll just stay out of the way anyway, as I'm overreacting myself. Btw, I said "non-productive", not "unproductive" - I was trying to asumme good faith a little. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't stay out of the way because I was a jerk... what do you think of the new combined list? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated - twice - I'm fine with the list however it is arranged. The headings were a bit odd, but I understand the intent. A straight list by alpha order is probably the best solution. The History section is broken down by region, so that covers location well enough. - BilCat (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Judging by the 13 archives, and the size of the current page, this is one happening place!

Anyway, that editor, or at least his/her 71.x.x.x IP, may be out of our proverbial hair for a while, as s/he got a 3-month block. Thanks a lot for your help. SamEV (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope the block works! - BilCat (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Billy, stop applying your own standards to the rest of Wikipedia; use Wikipedia's. Thanks! --91.55.97.142 (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IPpy, I actually haven't a clue who you are, as this is the only edit your IP has made. You are obviously one of the many cowards who hides behind their IPs in order to harass people for no good reason. WP might allow such behavior through its open editing policy, but it certainly isn't a recommended "standard" of behavior. Grow up, and take responsibility for yourself, whoever you are. - BilCat (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Coward", "harras", "Grow up", do you really think this is acceptable behaviour? Do you really assume good faith? --91.55.97.142 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• YES! You are a nameless coward. If you really have a problem or an opinion with Bill, speak up and discuss it like a man instead of trolling around here like a mouse from the sideline and hiding behind an IP address. This behavioural pattern pretty much summarize what your character is like, don't you think so? And if you really have something to say, get straight to the point! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote from this very edit page: "If you create an account, you can conceal your IP address [...]" So who is hiding?

Anyway, please stop the personal attacks. --91.55.97.142 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Now I know, you were in an war of word with me back last year using dynamic IP addresses from Germany to edit. Shame you didn't learn to think for yourself instead of wasting our time on you, which (per WP:DENY) I shall now bid you adieu! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, maybe you confuse me with some other IP you insulted. But it's easy, just show the diffs. --91.55.97.142 (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is new content on WP:WQA. --91.55.97.142 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this IP account has been blocked for 31 hours. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, and your comment at WQA on being polite is noted as needed. Thanks, Dave - I took a few hours offline, and it's been resolved already! Good show! - BilCat (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP admits to using 91.55.112.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to edit before he switch to 91.55.97.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and he was thrice reverted by you on C-135 Stratolifter~! And now, a word from our sponsor... "he who smelt it, dealt it". Bye, I'm hitting the sack now. *grin* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 23:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even figure out who he was until some time after he left the first harrasment note above. Removing the colons on the variants list on the C-135 page was completely strange, but Milb1's added in contnet now, which ws the purpose of the list. Then he kept moving the Commons link from above the navboxes to the Refs heading. He didn't use edit summaries, so I haven't a clue what that was about. I think this guy is the one complaining about broken "style sheets" from a couple months back, but since he's on dynamic IPs, he has no edit history (hence the "hiding" - you don't know who he is when he has only one edit to his current IP.) In my opinion, he's more of a tenditious editor than a deliberate troll, but his running to ANI/WQA all the time is definiely trollish, and the bragging about reveeting me on his latest talk page is also trollish. If he'd register, I'd know who he is and steer clear of him if needed, but that's not possible here. Oh well! - BilCat (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; they've certainly got a very unconstructive editing style. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northrop has been deleted. Maybe you are going to move Northrop Corporation there or something. Just letting you know if so. Take it easy.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved [[[Northrop Corporation]] to Northrop awhile back. I've reconsidered it, as both [[[Northrop Corporation]] and Northrop Grumman are important topics. Feel free to speak up if you disagree. Lot of links to change, though, so I may have to find someone with AWB or something to change the links. - BilCat (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real preference. Northrop Corporation is the proper full name, but is/was commonly known just as Northrop. So not much difference in my opinion. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface it looks like you are engaged in an WP:EW on List of Mikoyan MiG-29 operators . Is there more than meets the eye there? Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See WT:AIR#Disruptive editing, and User talk:75.80.151.51. If you'll check my contributions, I am using an edit summary, but not on every revert of this user's edits. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user was blocked for a whole 55 hours this time. So we get like a 2+ day break. WooHoo. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About this editor → Aristofane di bisanzio (talk · contribs) ← (yes, its another "helpful" Italian again...), I find his edit here on F-8 Crusader and here on Hawker Siddeley Nimrod to be verbatim copies from books I've read somewhere but couldn't recall them. WP:Copyvios? Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 08:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! Where do they make these guys?? He's quoting Italian sources just like ol' Step-on-me, but does seem to write slightly better, or at least has a better machine translator. Anyway, I'm on an idiot-break for a couple of days to get my blood pressure back down, as I spent most of my edits yesterday dealing with vandals and trolls. Oh the joys of open editing! It's probably best to take this to WPAIR, at least before you get blocked for 3RR by some overzealous admin! :) - BilCat (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't worry Bill, I think both Nick-D and Mill knows me better than to block me up since I've informed them both of the anomaly at those two articles. And Mill agreed that it looks like something lifted from them Italish/Englian books, he'll check it and get back once he gets a hit. I hope! I'm getting too old for this shit now... can't even remember from which book I read those exact text... sheesh! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 14:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it doesnt apply to this user it does appear strange that the contributions are mainly in clear english but any edit summaries and talk pages contents is written in Italish or Englian! MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good fix on KC-767, thanks. I didn't think much about rest of that sentence. Take it easy. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the typo fix. I didn't read the given source there, so it might actualy say Boeing is the likely winner. The FlightGlobal piece is more comprhensive, and mentions EADS going it alone or with LM. I didn't add that part since it's the KC-767 article, not the KC-45.

Also, the KC-767 article is quite badly arranged per WPAIR/PC, but it might be the best format for the current content. If Boeing does win the contest, they'll different a new designation (KC-45 or another one), and a split would definitely be warranted at that time. As to the interim, in the NewGen info begins to overshadow what's there, a split would need to be considered then too, probably to Boeing NewGen Tanker. - BilCat (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article is not arranged ideally. I'd rather have more info on the aircraft itself, but the details are scarce. I think we can wait until there's a selection and probable designation assigned before splitting off an article on the KC-4x aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this thing has taken nearly 10 years, my take is that the KC-767 isn't really a "sole competior", just the last plane standing. We'll see how it goes. Also, while I don't have a philosophical problem with buying European, the US economy needs all the help it can get, and the NewGen is a mostly-American product. The KC-10s will need to be replaced, and as we've talked about before, the next tanker contest will probably be for a larger tanker.With the Obaministration's reluctance to spend money on the military, it doesn't take a genius to figure out they'd probably favor a smaller tanker this time. Boeing learned it's lesson in the last round, and prepared both smaller and larger tanker proposals, just in case. EADS has A310 tankers, and though its no longer in production, I think EADS could have come up with a modernized A300/310-based offering as a hedge if the USAF favored a smaller tanker, but they did not - that was their choice, not Boeing's or the US government's. They need to quit whining. - BilCat (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, the last dazed & bloody fighter standing. ;) NG/EADS could have tried to get the A330 tanker costs down too. In a Defense Daily article today they quote a Pentagon spokesman saying "We may be in a position where we will be able to take a look at compressing some of those milestones." That'll help get the tankers faster and should save some costs. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looked like EADS was not bidding last week. But there is media speculation they are seeking a partner for bidding. The drama never stops. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's always fun to watch what EADS does! There were a couple of good articles in Flightglobal on the airliner Re-engining wars, here and here. John Leahy of AIrbus makes his usual snipes at Boeing, giving them advice on they should do! (I'm always amazed when companies or politicians offer free advice to their competitiors! Boeing would do well to remember that advice is worth what they paid for it!) Boeing is dealing with a basically 45-year-old design in the 737, 20 more years more than what Airbus is dealing with on the A320, a point Mr. Leahy conviniently leave out of his "advice"! My prediction: Airbus commits to the A320E, then Boing announces an all-new design, possibly a twin isle a la the 7J7, and perhaps even with rear mounted engines to allow for open rotor engines, but going with fans near-term. Then, following Airbus' pattern with the 787/A350, they send out Leahy to bad-mouth the new Boeing design for a few months, then decide a new design is better than the A320E, and launch a new one, perhaps in as many iterations as the A350 went through! But only time will tell! - BilCat (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! That's sums it up pretty well. Boeing says they will announce 737 enhancement plans after the Farnborough Air Show this summer, probably late this year. I have read that the 737 replacement will be composite like the 787. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've read that too. They can hardly do that with the 737 itself, as it would in effect be a new design. This report today says Boeing is looking towards the end of the year to make an announcemnt, and details what the think they'll need. Airbus is shooting to decide by July. Anyway, this is the fun part of following aviation, for me anyway! I think a twin-aile composite fuselage new design is probably Boeing's best bet here, something sized from about 150-250 seats to replace the bigger 737s and the 757. The below 130-seat market is pretty cramped right now, so Boeing might come up with something different, or, something I haven't heard yet, partner with one of the smaller airframers that already has a design in the pipeline. Again, we will see! - BilCat (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were right: Per FlightGlobal on Friday, EADS considers re-entering KC-X bidding as prime contractor. - BilCat (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think they are asking/hoping for more time to make a bid. EADS North America seems to be pushing for this turn around. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, you might like this article Osprey at War (Air & Space mag). There are a couple associated V-22 videos on that page too. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is something long-overdue, both of us have gotten our fair share of trollish remarks & vandalism edits by newly registered and anon ip editors, I'm requesting to MilborneOne (talk · contribs) on your behalf to semi-protect this talk page against edit by IPs and newly registered users. You may retract it if you don't feel it's right for me to help you this way, cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bit reluctant just to protect the article at the moment I know it is not always convenient but it is on my watchlist so if the IP users come back I will act. Just to note the guidline says User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users. MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You added a dubious tag in the L-1000 article, but offered no explanation. What do you find dubious about the claim in question? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I reverted the addition of flags to this article but then I had a closer look at MOS:FLAG: "A common example of use of subnational flags is in tables or lists of sporting information with regard to subnational teams; in such contexts, the appropriate flag is of course not the national one, if multiple entries in such listing would end up with the same flag." This seems to be followed in the NFL and the NHL articles as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the flags on the NFL and MHL articles were added on the same day as those on the MLB page. THe NHL page uses US and Canadian flags by consensus, and the sub-national flags were reverted. - BilCat (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Governor of Alaska/List of Governors of Alaska: Thanks! I really appreciate it. Neutrality^talk 07:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for shouldering the Diesel engine rocket removal change. I wasn't game to incite a flame war.124.170.223.178 (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. - BilCat (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is there somewhere a list of engines like this already created ? Dont you think might be useful ? --Jor70 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You'v made my month! - BilCat (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well earned for all your hard work, Bill! - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-ranger, good job on getting hte Beechcraft XT-36 page up. I was just looking at the Beechcraft navbox this week, and was thinking that we needed on article on the XT-36. Glad to see you could put it together. - BilCat (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad I was able to help! I'm hoping to eventuall get all the red links on List of military aircraft of the United States turned blue, even if only as stubs for now. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This 'destroyer' has a displacement of 18,000 tons full load, a full-length flight deck, and operates up to 11 helicopters. Wouldn't you describe that as a LPH!? The only reason it's not classified as such is due to the stigma of Japan reviving naval aviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrackDragon (talk • contribs)

I've replied on the article's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, I agree the issue appears to be over, though I've watchlisted the article just in case. Let me know if you see anything else... Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently linked to this page from several others. Although a good idea, it's currently in a slightly chaotic state due to the obvious difficulties in maintaining it! I've done my best with the current number of capital ships, but maybe you should take a look and make some input! CrackDragon (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I re-did the undo that you made on Fixed-wing aircraft regarding Gustave Whitehead. There is considerable documentation of Gustave Whitehead's achievements both on his Wiki entry and in the aviation history entry, as well as other places within Wikipedia. - Graff 74.89.158.24 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]