User talk:Nimbus227/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Specifications (CL-1200-2 / X-27)

{{aircraft specifications  |plane or copter?= plane |jet or prop?= jet  |ref=<ref name="Swan">Swanborough, 1971. p.179.</ref> NB: these are mostly estimated figures |crew= One |capacity= |length main= 57 ft 3 in / 53 ft 2 in |length alt= 17.45 / 16.2 m |span main= 29 ft 2 in / 28 ft 7 in |span alt= 8.89 / 8.7 m |height main= 17 ft 2 in / 16 ft 2 in |height alt= 5.23 / 4.9 m |area main= 300 / ? ft² |area alt= 28 / ? m² |airfoil= |empty weight main= 16,640 / 17,250 lb |empty weight alt= 7,548 / 7,800 kg |loaded weight main= 24,385 / 32,500 lb |loaded weight alt= 11,061 / 16,000 kg |useful load main=  |useful load alt=  |max takeoff weight main= 35,000 / ? lb |max takeoff weight alt= 15,900 / ? kg |more general= |engine (jet)= [[Pratt & Whitney TF30]]-P-100 |type of jet=[[turbofan]] / same |number of jets=1 |thrust main= 15,000 lbf |thrust alt= 66.7 kN |thrust original= |afterburning thrust main= 25,000 lbf |afterburning thrust alt= 111.2 kN |max speed main= 1,477 / 1,260 knots at 35,000 ft (Mach 2.57 / 2.19) |max speed alt= 1,700 / 1,450 mph, 2,720 / 2,330 km/h |cruise speed main=  |cruise speed alt=  |never exceed speed main=  |never exceed speed alt=  |stall speed main=  |stall speed alt=  |range main= 367 nm combat radius with 4,000 lb (8,800 kg) bombload / 1,836 nm range |range alt= 420 / 2,100 mi, 680 / 3,400 km |ceiling main= ? / 60,000 ft |ceiling alt= ? / 18,300 m |climb rate main= 60,000 / ? ft/min |climb rate alt= 300 / ? m/s |loading main=  |loading alt=  |thrust/weight= |power/mass main=  |power/mass alt=  |more performance= * '''Takeoff run:''' 1,450 ft (440 m) / ? * '''Landing run:''' 2,060 ft (930 m) / ? |armament=(CL-1200-2) * 1 × 20 mm General Electric [[M61 Vulcan]] cannon with 725 rounds * 1 × 30 mm DEFA cannon with 400 rounds as alternative. * Offensive load of up to 12,000 lb (5,450 kg) on nine external weapons hardpoints |avionics= }}

I will take that as a hint then! Great stuff and I will sort it soon. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really a hint, just an idea that I wanted to share with you if you still felt like getting away from having two separate lists. You may have a better suggestion anyway, so it's fine if you want to disregard it – over to you. --Red Sunset 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's great. We will use it. I am in de Havilland Vampire and de Havilland Venom land at the moment. I think the Vampire can safely go up to B class in a minute, do you mind having a quick look? Cheers, Gary. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't see a problem with B class for the Vampire; it's certainly past "start" but needs some polishing. Time for supper now, will look in again tomorrow. --Red Sunset 22:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

F-4 again

Hi Gary, have you noticed the sudden rush to address the Baugher refs et al following Marskel's and SandyGeorgia's latest comments? Your Thornborough and Davies refs have done the trick nicely and enabled the removal of a handful of the "offending" cites! I only wish I could get hold of either of the "Spirit" books where much of the information originated, and would then be able to sort out a few more. Never mind, onto Transylvania (Vampire land!)...--Red Sunset 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries re specs table; my concern was that I didn't want you to feel obliged to implement my suggestion, besides, I'm too thick-skinned and ignorant (not to mention antisocial according to the "trouble and strife") to take comments the wrong way! BTW, your amendments look good. Cheers.

Good stuff, it's only since I started editing here that I realised how many books I have. Always knew that they would come in handy one day! Nimbus227 (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

More F4

Apology Nimbus my statement was not directed at your statement but the earlier comments from Marksell just trying to explain that it is not a quick job and to give us time to change the refs. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I am getting quite fed up with people questioning good references and the other brigade who argue incessantly over minor details of WP:MOS etiquette where we are actually free to do what we want within reason if it improves the article. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Frustrating alright. Sorry if I added any to it. I don't have any references with enough detail to help with sourcing. Keep up the good work. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vampire layout

Evenin' Gary, I'm running late tonight. I see you've done some sterling work on the F-4 page – great stuff, and it seems to be coming around now. Despite my own thoughts on some of the issues (and well said BTW re your GA experience and the reviewer's comments on web/book sources), credit must be given to Marskell and SandyGeorgia for keeping the FARC open for this length of time; but having said that, it is pretty obvious that a number of good editors are addressing the situation and will in time resolve all of the reference problems.

In response to your message, it was actually Bill (Zuk) who moved the external links [1], as he did with my move of the records section, but I don't think that he would have made either move without good reason. My moves were in accordance with the guidelines you mentioned, and I would have thought that "records" would have been part of the "biography" of the aircraft and therefore would belong in operational history – whadya think?. I might bring it up at WT:AIR and see what the consensus is. Cheers. --Red Sunset 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Update. I've moved the external links back again, no worries. --Red Sunset 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Rob, I must have got confused, now I see who it really was! We do need to have a standard. Will see if it gets moved again and the reasoning. Having a night off editing by order of the management! Nimbus227 (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bonnie

Just taking a break from aircraft articles and dreaming of something that I missed out on. If I had more spare time perhaps I would learn to ride, but just now keeping my son's first car operational (and legal) keeps me occupied, and takes care of considerable sums of money to boot! I have some bits and pieces of info that I might add to the Bonneville article later, and possibly look into a few other bike pages while I'm at it.

These old aircraft do need to be well-maintained and cared for; I remember my late uncle's Hornet Moth (G-ADKC) regularly seemed to be undergoing some sort of work or other as a matter of course to maintain its certificate of airworthiness. I was told it is the oldest airworthy example of the type.

New season, new car, new hopes! Fingers crossed for Jensen and Rubens (assuming he is still with you), but I'm sure you've done an excellent job and the car will be the most aerodynamic on the track! Cheers --Red Sunset 19:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, they certainly take some TLC. That Moth is still going according to this:[2] Ours is a baby at 64 years old! Perhaps I will see it at the rally later this year. Same drivers BTW. Nimbus227 (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Gary (I'm getting all emotional now); used to be silver, and its C of A is imminent I see! --Red Sunset 21:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone still loves it. Late shift this week, i.e.@work! Nimbus227 (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Vickers aircraft

Good work on the template. I have amended some of the links in the template from re-directs, if they are not direct links to the article then the highlighting of the current article doesnt work! and as you have noticed if the name is not the same as template name the edit buttons dont work!! Just trying to help! - MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic and thanks. It was a learning experience! Quite a long list of aircraft that was missed when we went to navboxes not so long ago, there could be more. I am adding the box to the articles starting at the end of the list. Nimbus227 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem at all; as you could see, either format works just as well - but one is easier to edit :) Quit a learning curve, but once you get used to them, they're not too bad, and maybe even fun. Actually, I'll shamefacedly admit that I took a look at Vickers and put it in the "too hard basket" when we were churning these out rapidly at the start of the month - too many re-used and alternative names. How many words could they think of starting with "V" anyway? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

One starts with a 'W' (but it was not their name). It is quite fun and I can see why you left it! I some of the other boxes have type numbers, will see if that can be added. It is easier the new way, the first version was making me go cross-eyed!!! Nimbus227 (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom II

The image was made by a young student. It could probably go. Bzuk (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

Yep, guess he was well meaning but it is an FA and the photo is mainly of the car park! Nimbus227 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Vickers aircraft

Not sure if you mean template or category. I created a civilian aviation category. I had just forgotten to add it to that template. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant category. If you have added it to the civilian cat as well then that is great, cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep I did. :) I plan on plowing through the rest of the temps in the Aviation navigation boxes category tonight. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

List of F-104 Starfighter operators

Please stop spamming this list. The airforces you have listed them on do not all operate them and there is no consensus to add the list. The see also section is not designed for anything vaguely related - it's something directly relevant today and should be used highly sparingly.

If you want to keep the link on articles please gain consensus on the talk pages. Otherwise I will remove them when I have the time and can remember. John Smith's (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Which air forces did I add the list to that did not operate the F-104? Nimbus227 (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand. It isn't enough that they used to operate it to justify adding the list to the "see also" section. It needs to be relevant today.

Imagine it like this. A user creates a list for every fighter ever made and its operators past and present. Then he adds them to the "see also" section of every airforce that ever used them. Can you imagine how long those sections would be? It would be ridiculous. "See also" is to be used sparingly for a few VIP pages that are important to the article in question. So you should not have spammed the link as you did. John Smith's (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, remove them all. It was prompted by an orphaned tag on the article. I'm not a spammer, I am a usually thoughtful and careful editor who might have made an error of judgement, there is a a difference Nimbus227 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I will remove it from two articles that I am involved with - you may do with the remainder as you please. The act of spamming can be unintentional rather than deliberate trouble-making - I was not commenting on your motivations. John Smith's (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My thanks

Have some 'Wikiwings', fantastic effort and well deserved. Nimbus227 (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated and my thanks for your help on these page. Cheers!Minorhistorian (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cherub

Thanks for the offer - I couldnt find the specs in any of my refs but I thought it worth starting the article. Welcome to dive in. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No we dont have the Pobjoy R only one Pobjoy engine has an article. Some of the smaller engines are a bit neglected, not an expert just makes a change from aircraft for a few hours! MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hendy Hobo !! MilborneOne (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Just found another user of the Cherub , the Mignet Pou-du-Ciel. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed in the Hobo article I have just created the engine is a Pobjoy Cataract not a Pobjoy R acording to my reference!!! MilborneOne (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird, definately says Hobo under Pobjoy R in the old Shuttleworth book, perhaps they got confused in 1969?! Must get over to Old Warden (not far away) and take some photos for the infoboxes. Off to bed, wet, windy, wiki editing day tomorrow. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

BA Swallow appears to have a Pobjoy Cataract not a Pobjoy R as well? MilborneOne (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have another Shuttleworth book (1989) which confirms this so the earlier book is wrong (or slightly incorrect). They do look very similar, perhaps the difference is internal? Nimbus227 (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tu-70 image

Nimbus, I think you said you speak/read some German. Could you look at this 3-view of the Tupolev Tu-70, and see if we can copy over to en.wiki? Looks likes there's a question of its usability on Commons, but since I can't read German (that ability is not genetic, or I'd be able to read one-fourth of it), I'm unsure of posting it here either. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill, It looks clear to use to me, the main license text says roughly: 'This file is of a low quality which does not require copyright protection. The file is therefore in the public domain.' At the the bottom of the page the category of 'public domain (low quality)' is given. What it says about Commons (repeated in English) is just to check the license before moving it there (probably a standard warning).

Interestingly, its original source is given as Wiki:en although I can see that it came from one of the Russian 3-view sites! Will see if I can copy it over. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am struggling to copy it across because the file name has been used and the image was deleted in Sept 2006 for lack of source. Will work round this Nimbus227 (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

THanks much. If you need even more fun, can you check out this image for the new Lockheed TriStar (RAF) page? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done the Tu 70. I have flown on that Tristar, all the way to the Falkland Islands! That is a GNU free image, if you replace the word 'Bild' with 'Image' in the markup it should appear, I will try it. Nimbus227 (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Struggling with the Tristar as well, sure I did not have this trouble with the Dornier Do 28. Getting a message from Commons saying they don't like the Tu-70 image after I clicked the link to upload from another Wiki project?!!!! Nimbus227 (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tristar uploaded and in the article (might not be in the best place though). The problem with the Tu 70 image is that I missed a step during the upload, this should be a one touch operation really. I looked at the Do 28 images, they are all from Commons and the rule works (Image instead of Bild) for these. Cheers and anytime you want me to look at something German I will do my best. Nimbus227 (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Commons has tagged the Tristar as well (by a bot that can not see that I have provided the source), I give in! Seems like we need a diploma in image uploading. I was at Brize Norton 83-89 and remember the intro of the Tristar well. Marshalls fitted a big freight door in the fwd fuselage. Popular culture: If a reference can be found passenger Tristars are known as 'Timmys' (Timmy Tristar) and the freighter/tankers are known as 'Tommies'! We played an interesting game in the Falklands, a mainwheel tyre would be marked with white crayon and split into 20 numbered segments (like a dartboard), we all bought a segment for £1. When the aircraft next flew in whoever owned the segment that was at the bottom when it stopped won the pot!!! Known as 'Timmy roulette' and the the highlight of our entertainment twice a week! You probably won't find a reference for that, shame. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

F-104 role in PAFs wars

Hi, I replied to your talk page comment here. Just wanted to bring it to your attention. Cheers --Za indy^٨٧ 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft Structures

Hi Nimbus227, your work on Aircraft structures is invited; have a robust go at it! The article deserves high quality. It is my hope that the article will include sections that respects all kinds of aircraft structures that play robust roles in human culture: arrows, boomerangs, kites, gliders, toss-in-air toys, Magnus-effect rotating aircraft structures, dynamic-soaring double-kite structures, RC aircraft structures, balloons, kytoons, gyros, and more. Joefaust (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nimbus227, a constraining focus just on fixed-wing large aircraft would bypass the rich meaning of "aircraft structures". A separate distinct article on your interest would allow Aircraft Structures to remain a root meta article with branching to sub-articles. There are structures on rotary-wing aircraft, flexible-wing aircraft, morphable-wing aircraft, small aircraft, toy aircraft, unmanned aircraft, etc. Have you considered an article of title:

Structures of large fixed-wing aircfaft or something like that? Visiting readers to Aircraft structures ought to be able to reach all significant aircraft structures from the aritle as lead. Joefaust (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary, I've just replied to a message from Ahunt on the subject of this article. We were wondering where we should go from here as currently the article doesn't serve much of a purpose, and I commented that IMHO you might be the best person, if you feel like doing it, to either expand the various points within this article or to create a new one more-specific to conventional aircraft. Do you think you might be able to find the time to give it a go; it's a large and complex topic. --Red Sunset 19:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

F1

Just about to watch the race and don't know the outcome yet! I take it from your comment that your team didn't fare too well! On the start line now...logging off for the moment. Cheers. --Red Sunset 15:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not the best of starts to the season for your team Gary! Still, things can only get better and RB's the man to sort it out; I'm certain he'll be making a few recommendations back at base. At least the designer of last year's car graphics seems to have been given the push. BTW, let me know when the ad for a new lollipop man is released! --Red Sunset 17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Afraid that position has already been filled internally, it's a 'no pressure' job anyway! A few lessons to take in there, just annoyed that JB got tagged, he could have been handy. I watched it live and have been editing all day, pooped! Nimbus227 (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone was quick off the mark! Hopefully JB and Rubens will be as well LOL! --Red Sunset 18:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't spot the green trousers, just one or two brown ones among the pit crew! Are they the same as the colour used on the cars, and will all employees have to wear them...even those behind the scenes and back at base? (I hope they're going to pay you more in compensation for wearin' 'em.) A week's not long to prepare for the next race; does it increase your workload? --Red Sunset 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Meant to say green with brown patches...refuelling riggers...no?! Bad joke. My workload is currently horrendous (as opposed to the usual "overwhelming") so haven't been in the right frame of mind for serious editing for some time. Looking forward to this Sunday though. --Red Sunset 20:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking good Gary! Haven't gotten round to checking grid positions yet. --Red Sunset 21:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you see it, now you don't (just like the socks)! Oh well, it looked good for a couple of minutes. --Red Sunset 22:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean, and that's why I spend time in other areas to keep as fresh a mind as possible. However, there was a valid reason for the reversion: I haven't tried it but I don't think that the whole reflist will print out; just those present in the scroll box at the time. I still think it looked real neat though! --Red Sunset 22:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We live and learn Gary! But there should still be a tidier way of handling huge lists of refs; another suggested idea was on the lines of a collapsible navbox, but I don't know whether clicking on the refpoint in the text would open the box at the relevant reference; the scrolling refbox did work! --Red Sunset 22:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating article on Spitfire Mk II

Hi Nimbus, I think you might be interested in this: http://www.spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2008/03/spitfire-excavation.htm I've just added this to the Spitfire variants part one. I would have liked to have been there! Cheers (and I see you're doing lots of work...)Minorhistorian (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A Motorcycle Wiki

Hey Nimbus227, Here's an opportunity to put your expertise on motorcycles. Cycle Chaos is a Wiki-styled web site that needs a lot of help from people who love bikes and can contribute more information and even more manufacturers. There's virtually no problems with administrators and it seems free to edit without any trouble. You seem to be someone who can offer some content, images, categories, that may be lacking. My user page is: Cycle Chaos, Noles1984 so stop by and say hello and see if you can be of help. Cheers. Noles1984 (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Vera Caspary

Thanks! EraserGirl (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Gary, I was in a hurry and didn't take a look-see at the article before making my talk page comments otherwise I would have seen your handiwork. Nice one!

A few more pics for the MAM page won't go amiss! Can't remember if I mentioned it but I spent the first 24 years of my life (before marriage) living within sight and sound of Baginton airport (on Baginton Rd in fact). I know someone whose sister has a partner who worked on the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Lancaster during its refurbishment there recently and took photos of the ongoing work, but as yet I've not been able to get hold of any of them...fingers crossed though. Got to go again, "real life" intervenes! --Red Sunset 20:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft Structures

Thanks for looking at this article. I agree that AfD for be the humane thing to do in this case! - Ahunt (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, and no sweat Nimbus, it was just a suggestion if you felt happy about it and had the time. A new technical article that covers the many aspects of (conventional) aircraft structures and related issues is a pretty big task, so it's quite understandable if it got put on the back burner with the occasional chip at it. However, should it go ahead I'd be happy to help with its readability and comprehensibility even if I don't have raw knowledge to contribute. I've been trying to come up with a suitable succinct title; maybe something along the lines of Aircraft structures (design). Food for thought at least! --Red Sunset 18:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently discovered articles

Hi Nimbus - I'm wondering why you've been adding the articles you've been adding to the "recently discovered" lists? While I don't think it's ever been formally set down anywhere, these lists have always been used to alert the project to articles that have been written in recent months but which escaped notice at the time. Typically these diverge markedly from WP:AIR layout guidelines, and often from wiki nice-ness in general and need a little TLC. Like I said, though, it's not set in stone - I was just wondering in what sense these were "recently discovered"? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if I might add, these type would have very few links to or from other aticles, which is partly why we added the section. Afterbutner is linked in a number of articles, and I've seen the links for well over a year. So I'm wondering along with RL. If they are in dire need of attention in some area, perhaps we need a separate page or section somewhere to deal with those types of article. - BillCJ (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

All those articles had unopened talkpages and were unassessed which I understood as the 'discovery' point. I also assumed/understood that if the talk page was not opened then the article was not included in the project count. I can carry on opening the talk pages and assessing and not post them as 'new' articles if you like. It was also my intention to draw attention to some of them which as you say may need some attention. Perhaps I have misunderstood the rules again. Nimbus (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't really misunderstand them if they aren't written rules to begin with. I totally understand your point of the talk pages, and we defintely need some way of listing those articles. As usual, you've pointed out a flaw in our system which needs to be addressed, and that's a good thing! (PS, I wans't trying to pile on abouve, but hwas on my way to ask you about it when RL posted.) - BillCJ (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just been looking for the relevant guidance and could not find much, also wondering what the definition of 'recently discovered new article' is? It does appear to me that the project banners have an automatic function that includes them in the project. Will wait for further guidance before I upset anyone. Nimbus (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What Bill said :) It hadn't occurred to me that what you were doing was connected to tagging. You're right - the banner code automatically slots the article into one of the "quality"-based subcategories of WP:AVIATION. As for "relevant guidance" and "definitions" - you haven't found them because they don't yet exist! :) We should probably take this up on the project talk page. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think we added that section for articles that had been created within the last few months, but had not been added to the list the month they we created. It's just a way to catch up on new pages that got missed. Usually these pages were created by editors who had no idea how to make an article, such as latuot, infoboxes, templates, or even wikilinks. I have no problem including pages with blank talk pages for the time being, and permanently if we don't find anotehr place for them. ANd this certainly shoulnd't be an "upset" issue, though that often doesn't seem to matter when dealing with fallible humans, me being the biggest case in point! - BillCJ (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My IE7 just crashed halfway through typing! We could change the text in the header to 'recently discovered/initial assessment' or something like that. I assume that the project tags drive the stats on the project assessment page, though this kind of thing is a mystery to me. Just don't like to 'go against the flow' and thought that I was helping. Nimbus (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your kind words; they were much appreciated. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

Cavalry to the rescue?

I see the League of Copyeditors has put an in-use tag at the top of the F-104 page: it'll be interesting to see what changes they make; and what they do ought to go some way in helping to achieve GA status although it already reads well to me; doubtless there'll be some useful lessons to be learned! --Red Sunset 21:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit of an anticlimax! It was all minor tweakery rather than the major grammar and style changes I was expecting; in a way I'm disappointed in the League of Copyeditors and felt I had to correct a couple of their/his revisions. It smarted a bit when I removed the bolding from a variant per MOS:BOLD, but I felt it was necessary just to get to GA even though I think variants should be bolded! At least it shows the article's not in that much of a bad state; in fact, as I've already said, IMHO it already reads pretty well.

I don't blame you for taking a back seat for a while. I have an idea who it is that you refer to; there's a particular editor that I find a bit "offish" and the best way to deal with it is move on. I take mini-breaks all the while for many reasons, the main one being maintainance of domestic harmony by not being anti-social (while I'm bashing the keyboard).

Yeah, good result last weekend. Slick tyres and no more aerodynamic twiddly packages next season; are you already working on the new specs? The new regulations will certainly provide more overtaking opportunities and should make for more exciting racing in which driver skills will play a bigger part. --Red Sunset 19:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vought aircraft

Thanks for adding the {{Vought aircraft}} navboxes to the relevant articles. I intended to do it myself after I made the box, but after a few sleep periods, it slipped my mind. - BillCJ (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case, I am working on a Republic one, cheers. Nimbus (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire Variants

I think Trevor's suggested titles are the way to go. However, I won't start on this without a go-ahead from other editors. I've discussed this in more detail on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft page. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the article titles you are thinking of were my suggestion, not that it is important. What is important is that everyone is happy with the change, I hope they would be. Give me a shout if you need a hand. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)