Talk:Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:55, 20 October 2009

Aviation: Aircraft Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / British / European Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

I don't understand why the advantage of the deal is that there will be more jobs in Germany. Is this badly writtern or is the MOD pandering to European nations to support their industries? 217.7.209.108 11:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make any sense....Airbus, partly British or Boeing, not British at all. Given the degree of integration that has been taking place within the European defence industry (Eurofighter, Meteor, MBDA, Stormshadow, A400M etc), the Airbus solution does seem more advantages. Also, more work would be in the UK with NEW aircraft because they will need new wings (UK built) and new Engines (UK built). Matchrthom 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article - not for discussing the issue in general. However since the issue has been raised - What is the alternative? Is there an all-British, modern, large airliner in production that I haven't heard about?? Also a lot of the content of Airbus airliner is British, and a lot of the value is RR engines. The refuelling system is British too. Mark83 20:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That rude word

WP:NOTCENSORED suggests we should report the aircrew view uncensored - FSTA = Fucking shortage of tankers again. It seems there is another view, that the offensive word should be censored to F*cking, or some variant. Views?

For my self, I prefer to see the original, and find no merit in censoring. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no merit in censoring, and no precedent for doing so. See articles such as FUBAR and RTFM. pablo_hablo. 11:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While my personal opinions differ, we still have to go with the policy. Is there any reason not to? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient with new users! I'm all for free speach and all that but where do you draw the line? I didn't remove the quote just amended the word i think should not appear in an online encyclopaedia which children can easily access. Seems the consensus is that its OK to offend but not to censor, even for good reason.

There are other examples of this word being changed on this site (not just a band including “f*cking” in their name) so find the inconsistent application of a policy just as wrong as my ‘edit warring’ for which I now apologise and only plead ignorance as my defence. Bobbieball —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbieball (talk • contribs) 11:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbieball: first, on a talkpage, please always end your post with ~~~~ .. this signs your posts. Don't do this in articles themselves though. Second, the consensus on Wikipedia is that it is not censored. This doesn't mean we can swear left, right, and centre, but that where appropriate (such as quotes) it is permissable. I have given you a nice menu of links to other Wikipedia policies that you might find useful as a new editor - I hope they help. Feel free to ask for further help when needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that as it is not referenced and not that important or notable it can be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nb it does have a reference. pablo_hablo. 12:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a particularly reliable reference just repeating hearsay from another source. Reference or not it is not particularly notable as a nickname unless it can be proved to be in general acceptable use. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any evaluation of the source's quality, just pointing out that it's there. Similarly, I have no idea whether this information should be included, the article's editors will determine that. But if this does stay in, it should not be censored. pablo_hablo. 13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A previous amendment to this section made by Mark83 on 18/03/2007 points out that the quote from AFM is censored. Therefore, if it’s to be reproduced (which I’ve never disputed) it should be as it appeared in that publication i.e. “censored”. Bobbieball 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

Revision as of 14:53, 20 October 2009 edit Bobbieball (talk \| contribs) 26 edits →‎That rude word ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:55, 20 October 2009 edit undo Bobbieball (talk \| contribs) 26 edits →‎That rude word Next edit →
Line 28:		Line 28:
	:::I'm not making any evaluation of the source's quality, just pointing out that it's there. Similarly, I have no idea whether this information should be included, the article's editors will determine that. But if this does stay in, it should not be censored.  <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">[[User:Pablomismo\| pablo]]</span><sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">[[User talk:Pablomismo\|hablo]].</sub> 13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)		:::I'm not making any evaluation of the source's quality, just pointing out that it's there. Similarly, I have no idea whether this information should be included, the article's editors will determine that. But if this does stay in, it should not be censored.  <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">[[User:Pablomismo\| pablo]]</span><sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">[[User talk:Pablomismo\|hablo]].</sub> 13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	A previous amendment to this section made by Mark83 on 18/03/2007 points out that the quote from AFM is censored. Therefore, if it’s to be reproduced (which I’ve never disputed) it should be as it appeared in that publication i.e. “censored”.Bobbieball 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC).		A previous amendment to this section made by Mark83 on 18/03/2007 points out that the quote from AFM is censored. Therefore, if it’s to be reproduced (which I’ve never disputed) it should be as it appeared in that publication i.e. “censored”. Bobbieball 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC).