User talk:BilCat/archive10

September

Regarding the Eurocopter Tiger article

I'm sorry if you took what I entered as vandalism but, what i origionaly typed was in fact factual information from the telivision program "Noticias con Joaqin Lopez Doriga" a well respected Mexican news program, i simply could not find this shows quote on the information on the internet but I did find this article from a french web site about it although it is not as thourogh as the information on the news program was and if you simply follow the Source that I provided with my latest edit (in which i deleted the things I could not prove) you will see that it is not vandalism and I only added the statement that Mexico had signed a contract with Eurocopter for various eurocopter models including the Tiger. This is not vandalism at all and it is even backed up by a source. Sorry to here your sick I am too actualy hope you get better.

Power Jets

Hi am still learning - tried to reference the item placed to Flight Magasine (UK) April 1951 - this did not happen correctly - hense your action. I am happy to take your advice on this matter - I consider the item relevant to the history of Power Jets Best Regards(slmvbs)

Lockheed TriStar (RAF)

Hi! I had wondered whether to leave my "white finish" tanker pic on the article or whether to start a Gallery for wrong-colour-scheme pics of the TriStar. In the end I decided to remove it entirely. However, I'm quite happy with its restoration. (What do you think of the idea of using Galleries to keep historical views of aircraft on their respective articles?) Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Air specifications

Working on it. Rich Farmbrough 10:15 3 September 2008 (UTC).

Thanks. Apoplogy on your page! - BillCJ (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you insert these blank lines, they are not project standard. I have been looking at putting comments in, see for example Curtiss P-40. What do you think? Rich Farmbrough, 10:44 3 September 2008 (GMT).

The comments look good, and should help a lot. As to the blank lines, I assume you mean in both the Specs template and {{aircontent}}. I also assume that by "project standard" you mean Wikipedia. I have been editing WP for two years now, and those lines have always been used in these two templates since at least that time. I know that there have been alot of MOS changes recently, so I guess the removal of these lines is one of them. However, MOS is not policy, so whatever the reasons for now deleting these lines, I believe the specific nature and use of the {{aircontent}} template in particular necessitates the lines remaining, per WP:IAR. I'm not trying to argue my case with you, just to state it. I'm perfectly willing to take the issue to a relevant discussion page, provided the editors there are not the ones who used the word "elitist" along with other insults that they hurled at me and others on the MOSNUM talk pages. Those people aren't interested in anyone else's views, and I won't waste my time with them. It's too bad they are allowed to treat people that way with impunity - I can't even insult a genuine vandal or troll without 4 admins jumping on my case - but as in life, WP is all about who you know now, and they must know the right people! - BillCJ (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosnum is a hard place to be... but no, I meant Wikipedia: Project aerospace or whatever it is called. I also saw useful - in terms of improving maintainability - comments on an aircontent template. MoS has little to say on the wikicode of the articles. We dcould do much better I think with the way we extract information from templates, and also how we capture it, but that is quite a wide debate. Rich Farmbrough, 19:18 5 September 2008 (GMT).

Me-109 "Further reading"... (Sub)Section?

Hi Bill, wish your health is improving. Just a question about the ammendment you did to the section Further reading that I've created today in the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article (see the Revision as of 2008-09-04T02:55:27), where you've "demoted" it to a sub-section. Before doing that, I gave a look at the relevant Wikipedia policies/guidelines (especially Wikipedia:Citing sources#Further reading) and it seemed that it should be a section. Moreover, the beforementioned policy has "Further reading" as a section (not a sub-section).
I'd appreciate if you can please explain if within the relevant WikiProjects is there a diffferent guideline that recommends this as a sub-section. This is not a key issue, I'm just trying to follow a standarized recommended format.
Many thanks & kind regards, DPdH (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

THanks for your well wishes on my health. Yes, look at WP:AIR/PC. The WP:AIR project uses three main sections at the end of the article on most of the aircraft articles: "See also", "References", and "External links" (there are some that have still not been updated yet.) Within the "References" section, there is sometimes two subheadings: "Notes", with the {{reflist}} tag, and "Bibliography". Within that format, I believe the ususal "Further reading" info is combined with the sources used in the Notes section. User:BZuk, who in his other life is a meek librarian, was the one who lead the implementation of that format, and he can probably beter explain this to you. I'll abide by whatever the two of you can work out on this. I hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Helps a lot! As always, fast and precise responses. Will give a look at that guideline, and do my best to follow it. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you got a fast response because I'm still awake when I should be sleeping! (It's 4:30 am here, but I'm up this late most nights because of my health.) One thing to remember is, despite all the reverts I tend to do on guideline-related things, they are still just guidelines! There's no real harm trying out new or different ideas first, as long as you realize they'll probably get reverted at some point. However, you've not let that discourage you so far, so it shouldn't be a problem for you. If you have a better way, or something you think is more workable, on any issue, feel free to speak up. There's a lot of that kind of dicsussion all the time at WT:AIR, the main talk page for the WP Aircraft Project, alongs with a few other talk pages. Feel free to jump in! - BillCJ (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dassault Ouragan

Hi Bill,

Hope your health improves. I had submitted the article on Dassault Ouragan for a assessment feedback to Wiki Project Aviation. In the mean time I noticed that you had done several changes for it to comply with established policies. Are you planning on working further on this article ? If so I will wait to incorporate the review feedback by Trevor MacInnis.

I also noticed that you removed the Citation 'fact' markers added by Trevor for my benefit. Can you please restore those or provide those citations as needed ? perseus71 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I did not "remove" the fact tags - Trevor added them while I had the {{inuse}} tag on the article, and I accidently overwrote them when I saved my changes, but I didn't realize what happaned until now. That's the sort of the inuse tag is supposed to help avoid. I don't have time to restore them right now, but I'll try to get to them later. Feel free to add them back in the meantime if you want to. - BillCJ (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. Yes I noticed that too. Well, I am not going to interrupt your work. I'll start working on those citations once you are done. Of Course I can refer to history. I'd rather have your changes completed instead of having to restore those tags. Let me know perseus71 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gulfstream history

Hi Bill- I haven't gone through to compare every addition to the Gulfstream page, just the diff that you pointed me to. As far as I can see, it really borrows nothing but its underlying structure from the Gulfstream site. Are there some particular passages that you can point me to where the wording is identical or near-identical? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

IP edits

Thanks for looking out for me though! — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just remember to say who you are in your summaries - that would help! - BillCJ (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to "disruptive" IP

To the "disruptive IP: Don't waste your time posting here or responding to this - it will be removed. I can easily add dozens of fact tags to the A-7 Corsair II article. But other editors would object to the "clutter", and replace it with an article tag! Rather than spending your time tying to "disrupt" WP to prove whatever point you're trying to make, you could actually spend some time improving the actualy content of an article, such as adding actual inline citations to the A-7. I know that's not as much fun as being "disruptive", but please remember WP is still an encyclopedia - for now, anyway! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Tag spam" ;) I feel like using that with tags like these at top. ;)

F-22

Thanks you revised the F-22 article. I was very dissatisfied with the old one. Yours seems to be quite right. Basilicum (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Saw you reverted my edit on the FB-22 but your reasons seems OK. The only one I would still take issue with is the comparison with the B1. A gen 4 (do bombers have generations?) strategic bomber seems a bit more removed from a stealthy strike aircraft.70.179.120.137 (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good speedy update on KC-45!

You scooped CNN! When I saw your update with the press release that the program had been cancelled, I checked CNN -- and they are not carrying the news yet. How'd you beat them? A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

An anon posted it on the KC-45 talkpage, and I Googled it, and found reports on AFP and Yahoo. Even WP's IPs are good! - BillCJ (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks BillCJ. I used your text and reference for the KC-767 article. Looks like they specifically canceled the bidding process since the AF will ask for future money for KC-X. At least going by the last paragraph in the DoD release. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No prob on the clarification. While I cited it from the horse's mouth, I didn't actually read the DOD release! I read the AFP realease instead, which didn't have the clarifications. Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I read a couple articles and was not sure what was next until reading that DoD press release. They will do a new RFP by next spring I think/hope. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Braves

Obviously that IP's comment was uncited, but I think it's true that Eddie Mathews is the only big leaguer to play for the same organization (i.e. ball club) in 3 different cities. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Opps, I missed the "more than" part - I thought he said "two" cities! Anyway, if he'd added what you just wrote, I would have just added a fact tag, as what you wrote is "qualified" - his was not. - BillCJ (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

He did say it in kind of a weird way, although it was clear to me what he meant. However, that's a bit off the subject anyway, it's more of an Eddie Mathews fact. Similar to the fact that Casey Stengel was involved in some way with all four New York clubs of the 20th Century (though not the Brooklyn Federals). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Mathews article already mentions that he played in all 3 cities as a Brave, and the current Braves article basically restates that. The only other team to have played in 3 cities within the normal span of a player's career would be the A's, who moved to Kansas City in 1955 and to Oakland in 1968. The Braves were a pretty strong team in the 1950s, but the A's were the dregs for their entire stay in KC, and anybody who was any good got sent to the Yankees, so it's highly unlikely a player from the 1954 Philadelphia A's would have also played on the 1968 Oakland A's as well as the KC years in between. That's OR, though. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not on a talk page. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I meant in the article, ya silly. :) Yeh, I can speculate all I want to, in the talk page. Think outside the box. (Batter's, pitcher's, coach's, etc.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Protected

Because your page is protected against IPs one of them has started a thread at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Editor's discussion page BLOCKED for IPs?. Thought you might be interested. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My note is for User:Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats, no one else. I would have hidden it, but some genius decided it made sense to take away all the shortcuts off the edit page, and substitute a drop-down-box that I can't access for some reason. Rather than go hunting for the code, I left it in the open. Regarding the complaint, this was the IP's initial edit at V bomber - would you mind following up on this for me? I'm not going to waste my time with this guy, and I don't believe he's that new. How many "newbies" are familar with BITE and OWN? For the record, this page is blocked because of harassment by trolls and stalkers. Rlandmann is aware of the problems, and he blocked the page, on his own inititive. - BillCJ (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood - the German IP had only started editing in the last few hours! MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Milb1, I looked at his second post on the page you linked to. Something about this guy's writing style is very familiar, especially the part about "Since I want to preserve my privacy, it's too late to log in now (this would link my username to my IP)." Curiouser and curiouser! - BillCJ (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

P38 Lightning

I removed the "conversion tool" because that code produced the following for the reader of the article: Template:Convert/LoffAyesDbSoff/s, instead of producing a rate of fire. I'm pretty sure readers want to see the rate of fire, not some meaningless code. It is always a good idea, when using something like the "conversion tool", to check the results by reading the actual article.

The Oracle of Podunk 07:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also a good idea to use an edit summary! :p - BillCJ (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC

As I understand it, since you're named in the RfC, your signature should be under "certify" rather than "endorse". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understood the explanation in the RFC itself, I did not try to resolve the issues and fail, I was just involved in the issues. The wording is quite different from the ARBCOM I've participated in, where I would be a primary party in this type of case. If I misunderstood this, I'll be happy to change it. - BillCJ (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going on what Rlandmann told me. It's my first time at RfC, so I'm no expert. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Hillaker

Was it an intentional edit to remove the Designer entry? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely intentional. I apologize for not being specific about it in the edit summary. See WT:AIR#Designer field in Infobox Aircraft for a discussion on the issue that I began a few days ago. - BillCJ (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I had missed that. Actually, though, Hillaker did perform most of the basic preliminary design, but it macht's nichts to me as far as keeping it. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My "very long threads" from August 2008

Hello BillCJ: Just wondering why my letter to you entitled "My Edits and Contributions" has been removed from your archives of August of 2008? Not really an issue as it can still be retrieved in history, but I wanted it to be accessable for those who may be interested in this type of history. Not a real problem however! Take care! I did want "Tom the hand" to have a chance to veiw it but it looks like he has taken a leave of absense. One other thing, you have a typo on the date for the last set of archives (that u mistakenly) dated 3008. So long. But the information I sent you was completely legit so I was hoping that It could be accessed without much difficulty by those who may want to do so. Thanks for your reply --Middim13 (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want easy access to the material, I suggest you retrieve it, and place a copy on your own userspace - it's far more info than I want to host. - BillCJ (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

MD-80, Midwest Airlines

Hi, Bill. Thank you for your earlier help on the Beechcraft 1900 page and your hard work on the King Air pages. We chatted about two years ago; your help was invaluable.

While I did not make the original edit on the MD-80 website changing Midwest Airlines' cities served, I saw your reversion, and understood where it came from.

Whoever made the edit stating that the MD-80 flights originated in Milwaukee was correct. The Kansas City Business Journal article refers to the termination of service, but didn't explicitly state which hub was most affected in that respect.

I reverted your edit to again state that the flights originated in Milwaukee. I provided further explanation on the MD-80 talk page. I can't cite a news source; I just flew the planes on those routes.

I will check back here and at the MD-80 talk page if have an objection or otherwise wish to respond. As always, thank you for your service to Wiki.

Mikepurves (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

P-3 Orion

I re-added the crew complement section, with some references this time. I also left it fairly brief, without some of the detail that perhaps drew the vandals in - does this new section work for you? PalawanOz (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks great! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Me 163

Hi BillCJ - sorry it's taken so long to get back to you- my attention's been elsewhere.

Everything that you've proposed with regard to this article seems reasonable to me - it desperately needs restructuring. To respond to a couple of specific points:

• Concur that the "surviving aircraft" section needs attention due to WP:WEIGHT concerns - and some that's not even particularly relevant to describing the Komet. My suggestion would be to trim it for now, and if someone comes along with some properly-sourced history for these examples, then maybe a separate article would be a good idea. Most of these aircraft are in high-profile institutions that would meet the threshold that we've been kicking around for the notability of these things.
• I've had a look for the material that you're raising as a potential copyvio, but haven't been able to spot exactly what you mean - could you please point it out to me? I agree that a separate "Design" section could probably be supported.
• Variants - there's an interesting issue here, since despite the designation, the Me 163A was an entirely different aircraft from the Me 163B - with nothing in common between them. Eventually, maybe a split along the lines of the FJ Fury split may be desirable; but for now, we "prima facie" take the RLM's word that these are just different versions of the same thing! While the 163C and 163D were radically different from the 163B, they still shared many components with the earlier model (and indeed the 163D began life as a 163B). Speaking of which - at some point, someone has inserted a note about the 163D now being thought not to have existed as a separate version designation. I'm not sure where that idea comes from, but it needs to be sourced or removed. I wonder if it's from Ransom and Cammann's 2 volume book (currently the most comprehensive on the Komet). Unfortunately, I haven't got around to purchasing this yet (though I've been salivating for 5 years!)

Hope there's something useful in that lot! --Rlandmann (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Error with 737 pic

Please see your reply at my Talk Page. Regards - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

navbox

Hey, thanks for your note. It did come after I was finished adding Template:PresidentialCallsigns to the articles it links to. I was simply doing that: adding the navbox, and I figured that while I was at it, I might as well remove what seemed to be an overly broad navbox. I didn't realize there was a policy on it, and I'm not really invested enought to contest it. On the other hand, I don't appreciate you undoing those edits, because that undo removed the navbox I did add, and was completely relevant to the articles. bahamut0013♠♣ 18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Chill out and relax....

I think 210.23.146.66 is just getting upity, but chill out and relax. They have indicated a willingness to compromise, so just go with the flow. I agree that the points made need to be included, and that the strong denial of the claims over performance are also included, but seriously dude, you can flip the coin around and say that any of the major contributors on this article are POV pushing, so just go with the flow and relax, all will be well. Deleting whole sections is vandalism right? so don't go throwing out the baby with the bathtub man, just have beer, sit back and think of a way to work with this person who is clearly stressing and not getting enough, but don't bite back, the world needs more love and kindness not harsh words. So let's look at the references thrown up, some of the non-pollies do have expertise and the point about conflict of interest is on, that, INMHO, we should also consider (reading the lateline transcript it's obvious that the journo was trying to make that point as well) that and balance it out with other industry opinions, which have been given, cited, and do generally support the notion of some concerns over the performance of the aircraft. So it's just a matter of figuring out how to best word it so as not to give undue weight. So have a beer or two, sit back, relax man, it's all good! 121.79.19.4 (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rotary engine "hat note"

Fair enough - it was just a thought. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a good one too, just a bit long! Those Mazda-usage brigaders seem to be a dense lot, so I'm not sure some would even know that "Wankel engines" are what the rotary-Mazdas use! - BillCJ (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

October

AW109

Thanks for reverting me! (Betcha never thought you'd hear someone thanking you for that!) I didn't realize that the tag should be in ELs. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. We had some MOS wonks show up just after you took your hiatus. We had to change "Related content" to "See also", and move it above the Ref and EL section. In all thet, we decided to keep the Commons links with the ELs. You might want to look over the WP:AIR/PC guidelines if you haven't as yet, as there have been some other changes. (Friendly suggestion, of course! A lot has changed in WP:AIR, most for the better!) - BillCJ (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On the Commons link, found that out in a FA review. The other Wiki projects are considered External so links to them go in EL. This is stated in one of the MoS pages. For whatever that's worth.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

The article you created as a redirect,J73, is currently redirecting to a non existing page. Maybe you made a typo? :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I just forgot there wasn't an article there yet. I'm working on a template for US DOD aeroengines, and all the different designations are running together! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593

Seems it was there all the time, needs an infobox. Someone has 'nicked' the idea and no edit summary for the text copy/paste. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked Wolfkeeper about me creating it, and he went and dunned it himself! Check this diff from the history. Wolf watches over the Concorde related articles, including engines, very closely, so I wanted his opinion before we started it. I guess he thought it was a good idea! He doesn't use edit summaries, so we can just put a not on the talk page about the cut/paste - that should suffice. Looks good tho. - BillCJ (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mother-in-law passed away tonight, many tears in the Nimbus household. Nimbus (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Engine task force, great, You can call me Gary if you like! Nimbus (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

SNEB

Hello Bill, thought I drop by and say hi! Anyway, I've been busy with the above-mentioned page as well as adding it into the pages of several military aircraft. Do let me know if I've made any error(s) and feel free to contribute. Thanks and cheers! ...Dave1185 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a pie!

Dave1185 (talk) has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for your faith & trust in me during several of my edits, so here's a pie or as the nerds would call it, pi! Cheers! ...Dave1185 (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Olympus pics

Please see my reply to you on my Talk Page - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

MD-80s like family car

An article today about American Airlines starting to retire its MD-80s says "The MD-80s are the equivalent of the old dependable family car: It's not flashy or the most economical to operate, but it always runs, company executives say." Interesting description. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're well!

Can I bother you for your two pence on this topic? Sorry, trolling for consensus... Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Keeps his own counsel"

Hi,

I'd appreciate it if, when you have a concern regarding an edit of mine, that you take it to me rather than to other editors. In this case, the infobox was added as an example for the new User:OneShotFOGE, who had attempted the same edit but failed to get the process right. I can't see that assuming that I am keeping my plans to myself is an assumption of good faith when you hadn't actually contacted me. If you look at my talk page you'll find that I try to be as accommodating as possible regarding the concerns of others, and as this is the second time (by my count) that we'd crossed paths I'd hope that you'd consider engaging me directly if you have concerns with my edits. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I offended you - that wasn't my intention. RL is an admin, and knows how to keep his cool. Trust me, going to him was the better option for me. He is also the person who does the bulk of the maintenance on Infobox Aircraft, and thus the best person to address it's use. I did not mean to use "keep your own counsel" to mean you do anything in secret. For the record, what I do mean is illustrated by your responses (not initial comments) at [[Template talk:Infobox Aircraft# Allow {{{name}}} to be inhereited from the article title]]. You'll note that I said you idea was a good one (and really I do believe it is), just not for the way the infobox is used on aircraft pages. Btw, WP:Ships doesn't even use names in their infoboxes at all, as there are almost always the exact same as the title. When or why that happened is from before my time in WPSHIPS. - BillCJ (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I know that the use of such a parameter isn't universal, but very few things in Wikipedia are. :) Just wanted to let you know that I try to be as responsive as possible to editors' concerns on my talk page as I can, and that as we seemed to have gotten off on the wrong foot last time I'd rather be proactive in settling it this time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear depth bomb

Hi, I have deleted this page under CSD G6 as requested, you should be right to go ahead with the move now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

CF-18 Hornet

Hey BillCJ, see the talk page, I took a too long to write out the reasoning. ThePointblank (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think you posted to the talk page about 4 minutes before I reverted, but I was operating on a watchlist from before your post, so the post hadn't been recorded as yet. I find it helpful to put "see talk page" in my edit summaries, but sometimes I decide to write the post after my article edits, so that doesn't work! If we don't get another opinion on the talk page by this time tomorrow, I'll revert myself if it hasn't been done by then. - BillCJ (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Went back to Point's replacement wording. That's the most neutral and still brief way to put it. Was being a little hard-headed at first. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 72

Hi! Thanks for the message regarding the speedy delete of the above article; I had searched for 'Qantas Flight 72', but nothing came up suggesting a deletion review, or a user-space copy of that page, so I began to recreate the article (noting that, the previous one was deleted before it became even more notable).

In terms of trying to work within the system, and 'poor form' to recreate a page that is in deletion review, I was acting in good faith!

Could I ask - is it possible to search for backup copies in user areas of wikipedia (e.g. of Qantas Flight 72), or to search to see if any particular page is in a deletion review? Thanks :)

PS I have blanked the page so it will be obviously deleted when an admin sees it, pending the deletion review of the original page.

Crane comment

I noticed you reverted an unsourced addition to one of the skycrane articles a day or two ago...one element of the material was that the cockpit had seating for five. I happened to be hanging around an HTSI CH-54B this afternoon, and there's no way that there's enough room for five seats in there. Standard crew seating is for 3, and I can see where you could put a folding aft-facing jumpseat, but not two. Unless someone comes up with a good hard ref, I find the figure of 5 hard to believe. Of course, all of this is blatantly OR, since it comes from my own observations, but just thought you'd be interested. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they were counting small children as the 4th and 5th persons ;) Thanks. I do wish people would learn to cite their souces, esp. would-be MOS-wonks! - BillCJ (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, BilCat. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible topic or community ban of Middim13. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#Topic or community ban needed. Thank you. ---MBK₀₀₄ 02:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There is another discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Talk:Star_Trek_.28film.29 about your editing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't be responding. - BillCJ (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

XH-17

I don't mind that you removed the Youtube link, since you did raise a valid point about Youtube and copyrights. It just looked accidental because you didn't mention it at all in your edit summary. Hellbus (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a last-second edit before I saved that edit session, and I neglected to add it to my summary. I do try to avoid doing that, but sometimes it happens. - BillCJ (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually found that video because one of the external links in the article mentioned it. Would mentioning that said page links to a video of the aircraft be an acceptable solution? Hellbus (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

500MD Defender

Did it use an MMS? I know that MD and Bell competed for the AHIP, but I haven't found a source saying that MD developed an MMS, or mounted an MMS. Bell was selected from the design phase. They built five prototype aircraft and seven functional prototype MMS for the development contract. The only thing I've seen used (via pictures) on an MD Defender is a sight system similar to the HeliTOW sight used on the 406CS. --Born2flie (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I have seen pictures of a small sight, one about the size of the roof-mounted sight used on some MD Defenders, mounted on the mast, but nothing like that big one on the OH-58D. I look in my sources to see if I can find a reference to the mast sight being ordered by customers, or if it was just an option offered. - BillCJ (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, and it could just be the suggestion of it, I seem to remember my brother had a model of a Defender when we were much, much younger that had a sight mounted on the mast. I won't swear to it, of course. --Born2flie (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've checked several of my helicopter books from the 80s and 90s, and they all mention as MMS as an option, as does Frawley/Airliners.net. All the books except Frawley have pics of unmarked MD 500MDs with MMSs, one book having 3 pics of 2 different sights (one with a bucket-shaped sight also found in the other books, and the other 2 being more flat). However, none mention whether the option was ever taken up by any customer. I'll add a cite from Frawley, and clarify it as an option. - BillCJ (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

SH-60 Seahawk

Hey Bill, I've been working on some background/early development text for the SH-60 article at User:Fnlayson/CH-xx#SH-60 (now User:Fnlayson/H-60 hawks). I would have added some of that to the SH-60 article already, but the main SH-60 article is not laid out quite right for that. Any help or advice is appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I hope you are still watching the page - not so much drama this week! I sometimes wish I didn't have to watch it! Anyway, I did look at the SH-60 sandbox, but I'm not sure what you want to know. I guess the first section, the one above "Text 1", is what you've been writing, and that looks good. As to the rest, it's mainly about the Bravo model anyway, so I guess we can work it in as needed. The main SH-60 article text needs to be broken up anyway, with smome of the basic variant info going to the Variants section, and the rest split between Development, Design, and Operational history, if it will work that way. I'm not so sure it can be split that way without making the text a total jumble. We can add the whole main text here, and see what we can come up with. Another option is splitting off the MH-60R/S models to their own page, tho I don't think it's necessary otherwise. Hopr that helps a little. - BillCJ (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well either add that Origins info (part above Text 1) as a separate section or put it at the beginning of the SH-60B section. I've got write about the helicopter selection and maybe the basic changes from the UH-60 before adding to main article. The section label and text in the SH-60 article need to be reworked as you say. Question: Any idea why the MH-60S "Knighthawk" has the UH-60-type tail gear. The tail gear was moved forward on the B-model to be more stable for operations from ships. Also, is the "batwing" the high-mounted stub wings? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the Origins section is best for that info, as the SH-60B was the first modle, and all the others (save the -60S) are based on the same basic airframe. As to the MH-60S, I have a book that covers it, but the title slips my mind. It's published by AIRTime, and is similar to the Battleflied aircraft book, execpt it's about US Navy carrier aircraft. I'll get the exact title later if you need it, as it's in another room right now. IIRC, it states they used the UH-60-type tail because it's designed to absorb a greater sink-rate than the SH-60 type. (I'll check the wording on that too - it would be good to have something in the article about that.) Part of the reason the SH's tailwheel was so far forward was so that the tail could fold for stroarge on DDs and FFs. THe MH-60S operates from carriers and the larger replenishing ships, so that's no longer a requirement. Also, the MH-60S has a larger cabin, and it's implied the whole fuselage is from the UH-60L, with the marinized engines/drivetrain of the SH-60. That begs another question tho: When did the UH-60 get a larger cabin? I seem to recall that might have been with the UH-60L, but I'm not certain. Need to check on that to be sure. The prototype YCH-60S was a rebuilt UH-60L. On the "bat-wing", I might be able to find something in the book, but Born2 might also know. (He actully flys helicopters, unlike "wikinerds" such as myself who don't know what they're talking about! Yay for talk page drama!) Anyway, I really think the S-92 would have been a better VERTREP bird, as it has rear loading, but Sikorsky was slow developing it during the 90s, and of course the Clinton Admin didn't like to spend much money on development. That, btw, is what I've read the real cause of all the trouble with the V-22 came from - underfunded development. (I can't recall the source on that tho, or I'd add it to the V-22 article.) - BillCJ (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Good info. That AIRTime book must be "Warplanes of the Fleet". I have that but have not looked much at the aircraft sections in the back where the MH-60 would be. The SH-60B had sink rate requirement for the Navy was about 1/2 of the Army requirement. So they simplified the B's landing gear design. The Seahawk's cabin was probably taken up with avionics, & equipment (maybe extra fuel tanks too). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the book! I thought you'd said you had gotten it, but wasn't sure. The SH/MH-60 section is about 8 pages, in the back of the book just before the last section (S-3). The part about the MH-60S is about midway in the Seahawk section, with the 60R being covered last. There is some brief info on the SH-60 development on the first two pages; there's not much there, but it does have enough that it might be useful as a second source. - BillCJ (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I looked at that some friday. As I understood it, the landing gear on the SH-60B allows a smaller footprint for landing and storage. Added some background text to the SH-60 article. But you're probably already noticed. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved the SH-60 stuff to a different sandbox (User:Fnlayson/H-60 hawks). I updated that above too. I can do on UH-60 work there as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

C-27J Spartan

Since you recently worked on this article recently, I thought you'd like to see what I got to climb in/around this afternoon! AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh, lovely!! Jeff worked on that too, but he watches my talk page. I do hope you intend to post some pics to Commons, if you haven't already, especially in-flight pics. Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. I generally only watch this page after posting a message. Too much drama to watch all the time. ;) I stop by at times as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

DHC-6 New Production

Hey Bill, I'm not sure I agree with your decision to demote the "New Production" section of the Twin Otter article to a sub-heading below "Operational History". It seems to me the restarting of new plane production after 20 years, by a different company, is a significant event worthy of its own section. Not only that, but it doesn't seem related to "Operational History" anyway. Thoughts? Greg Salter (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your explanation suffices to go agaisnt the standard aircraft article format for main sections, but I do think you're right that it does not quite fit in "Operational history". Perhaps it should go in "Design and development" for the time being. In any evet, at the rate the section is growing, I think we will be splitting the Series 400 off to its own page in the future, probably within a year or two, at the point in which the section begins to overwhelm the rest of the article. That's not so much a product of recentism, but rather the rapid availability of info in the internat era, especially when one of the engineers is contributing to the article. It's a good problem to have tho! If we can't find an acceptable place for it, then it might be time to bring up a split on the article's talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd put the new production section under "Design and development" for now. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill: Thanks very much for cleaning up all the abbreviations in the Twin Otter article - it is much better now. So far as the proposal to create a new category for the "Viking" Twin Otter (the new production Series 400) - even though I work for Viking, I'm not really in favour of doing this. All we are doing at Viking is 'continuing a legend', and personally, I think it makes the most sense to just leave everything together under the existing 'de Havilland' heading. It will be a long time before anyone other than industry insiders start thinking of the DHC-6 as a Viking product rather than by its original DH name, and the industry insiders don't need to go to Wikipedia to find information. Michael Moore, Victoria, Canada. PanEuropean (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Drop tanks

Hi Bill, as you might have noticed in my latest string of edits now and also... I was wondering if you might be interested in starting a page regarding Sargent Fletcher Inc. and their list of auxiliary wing/drop tanks in use by USAF and various other US/NATO aligned air forces? Cheers~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I couldn't keep up! - BillCJ (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

USS John C. Stennis

Hey. I have been following the article for the USS John C. Stennis, and I noticed you removed all of the pop culture references to the ship. While I agree that most all the references included are not cited, and some that have been added may well be rumor (such as filming for "Transformers 2"), I think that the ship's frequent use as a movie set does have some notability to it. As to some of the items, such as the vessel's appearance in Soarin' Over California, it's tough to provide citations other than the fact that the carrier's deck number is clearly visible in the ride-film (about the best I could do would be to provide a time index in the film).

Further, I think that this area can be re-written in prose instead of being a list. If I may suggest, take a look at this article, where the former pop culture list was re-worded into more encyclopedic form. Again, I agree that additional citations will make this better, and until that time a prose version of the section, with a section tag requesting source material, could be used instead. We certainly don't need to mention every instance of its usage as a movie set, of course. There are much more important pieces of information that deserve more bandwidth, as it were.

I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts on this article, as this appears to be in your field of expertise, and while I'm all about being bold, I also don't want to be bold against established consensus. Thanks.

McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I think your suggestions are worthwhile. If you want, go ahead and write up something on the talk page, and if there's no opposition in the next day or two, we can restore the section with your rewrite. - BillCJ (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea ... will see about adding it in the article's talk page sometime Tuesday. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

SAM warning

You know what they say, you never see the one that gets you. ;D "Eject, eject!" (Sorry, I'm channelling "Top Gun".) I'm just glad you got him. Damn Commie vandals. ;D I've long since stopped trying to figure 'em out, & if I have enemies who stoop to that sort of childish garbage, & it gets 'em blocked, I call it a job well done. Let 'em come. My guns are on & Covey 41's cleared me hot. =] 'Booties' Blesse ^{♠ SAM me ♠} 03:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkin' in

Hi Bill, thanks for your note. I have now submitted my manuscript for my next book although I still have a magazine to "put to bed" although other projects have been lining up, including editing an electronic newsletter, mais c'est la vie... Bzuk (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Infobox

Reply here. Crash Underride 19:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

November

Berlin Airlift

I was poking about when I returned to this article and noticed that huge tracts of the article have been removed. I see you attempted to fight off some of these, but they managed to go in and then were "cleaned up". The check-ins for the removal edits are mostly (entirely?) from an anon account, and have few (no?) notes.

I am considering reverting many versions back to a stable version. Comments?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jamaica

For some bizzare reason you said I "vandalized" the Jamaica article by deleting one of the maps. There's a repeat of maps in the article, and I have no idea why the map is in the history part of the article, so I erased it. How is this vandalization? Also, instead of making comments like "removing latent nonsense", perhaps you could explain how the images I added are nonsense? I have spent months adding cultural images and information for articles on countries through all the continents. I have never had someone delete them with a remark like that. Thanks. Samantha555 (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow! We sure got our wires crossed somewhere! One, I stated the removal of the map was an "unexplained deletion indistinguishable from vandalism". I did looked for that map elsewhere in the text, but I didn't see a duplicate anywhere, so I restored it. My comment means that if a person makes an edit without giving an edit summary, one cannot tell the difference between it and vandalism. My mind reading ability doesn't function over the internet, so I need to see some justification for a deletion. Two, edit conflict - sorry, that happens sometimes, and I did not catch it. The line I was referring to was "starring Jimmy Cliff or Jimmy spliff as he likes to be called". By "latent", I meant that it had apparantly been in the article for awhile, but had not been detected. Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Flying Tigers

You're right, I should have posted a reason for my reversions of irrelevant material from the article. It was simpler to do a rollback of the numerous consecutive edits that I disagreed with, and the rollback function doesn't allow for summarizing the edit. It was lazy of me. In every instance, I found the reverted edits to be justified because they seem to have been placed in the article in prominent positions despite the most tenuous connection or relevance to the specificity of the article. The Chinese flag placed immediately above the image of the same flag on the blood chit seemed redundant. The emblem of the U.S. Air Force in an article dealing with a subject that took place years before the existence of the U.S. Air Force, the same usage of the roundel, all seemed anachronistic. The picture of soldiers and M-3 Stuart tanks seemed wildly trivially connected to the article, connecting only by virtue of having something to do with the war in Burma. The article seemed in great danger of being cluttered with things that were either misleading or completely out of balance with the point of the article. So I reverted them. I should have taken the time to say why. Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-30MKI

Bill, I noticed you reverted one of my earlier edits to the article on Sukhoi Su-30MKI, calling it "possible vandalism" [1] despite the fact that I stated the reasons for that edit in the summary. I understand your concerns over the article but instead of just adding these long list of tags, it would be more helpful to improve the article even if it requires removing a good chunk of the material. I've made a start and hope that you would join in too. Adding such a huge list of tags, on the contrary, repulses potential editors from even reading the article. Hope you understand. Cheers --128.211.201.161 (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling the legitimate addition of edit tags "Highly unproductive behavior" is far more unproductive than the tags themselves. I hope you inderstand. I'm glad to see you're getting some work started, which is the POINT of all those tags. Far worse than than only FIVE tags is a badly written article, which this one is. Thanks for jumping in and starting on the article, but please don't remove tags until the problems have been solved. I think your real problem is that such tags are embarassing to the editors who written the articles, but nonetheless a bad article is a bad article. Please refrain from calling the legitimate addition of edit tags "Highly unproductive behavior" in the future. THAT is what I considered higjly insulting, and why I labeled your removal of the tags as "possible" vandalism. As to why I did not just jump in myelf at the beginning, I was giving the editors of the article time to improve it themselves. (Also, I've not had that much time to devote to the article, as I have several other WP and real-life projects that have demanded my attention.)

However, much more time was spent REMOVING the tags! So, I guess it's time for me to jump in and start removing everything that doesn't meet WP's standards. In fact, I may send the article to AFD, as the only way to fix it may be to start over, perhaps consolidating the several Su-30 article into one good article. You and the other editors have had your chance to fix the article, and instead chose to remove edit tags and pretend the I was the problem. Now it's my turn, and I WILL be playing hardball this time! - BillCJ (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I've made little contribution to this article in the past. Secondly, look at the context in which I said "highly unproductive behavior"; I said that with respect to the fact that various tags were being added without any improvements being made. That remark wasn't directed at any particular person since at that point of time I thought these tags were being added by various editors. Anyways, if you found my remark "insulting", I apologize. Thirdly, there have been several attempts in the past to merge articles on various Su-30 variants but these proposals were inconclusive because of the sheer difference among the variants. But if you really want to play "hardball" rather sorting out differences in a civilized manner, then sure, go ahead. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia does not work that way. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What I meant by "hardball" is that I will use every resourse availble at my disposal in accord with WP policy. This includes removing "anything" that is not reliably sourced, per WP policy. I'm well aware of how WP works, and never once implied I was not going to do this in a civilized manner. In fact, I have been very patient in giving plenty of time for the problems to be solved. My time for patience is now over, and I will being appling policy to the article in the next day or two. - BillCJ (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, nominating the article for deletion is not the most productive way. I've already removed a good chunk of the article which was unverified and speculative and have added couple of references. If you can do so too, great. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested the editor place Template:Underconstruction on the article. Might this help? sinneed (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Today's lecture from an IP is ended. Any more responses will be removed. I will do what I believe is best for the articel, as I always do, be that improvement, merger, or nomination for deletion. WP does not need nationalistic crap (beit Anerican, British, French, or even Indian) masquerading as an article, and It will be fixed one way or another. - BillCJ (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• In any event the Su-30MKI article looks much better now than two week ago. Good work! -Fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes

Hi Bill, you had me worried there for a minute as Template:P&W gas turbine engines came up as a redlink on my talk page! I thought it had been deleted! There is a Template:P&W piston engines, I added it to the articles a couple of weeks ago. The intention was to sort these two groups out then merge them into one template similar to Template:RRaeroengines where I agree that P&W Canada should have its own section. Applying the navboxes I came across many redirects with naming conventions and it is apparent that there is inconsistency with the turbines. We seem to have three possible naming conventions for engines across the project, manufacturer/name, manufacturer/company number designation and manufacturer/military designation. It is apparent in the P&W turbine box where the turbojets go from J58 to JT3C. The military designations are covered by the other template. It's a tricky one, we do seem to be using the names that they are best known by, and the redirects must have been created for a reason, could be worth a discussion at WT:AIR. I think the navboxes are a great editing tool, you can see the different quality of the articles at a glance and work out which ones to prioritise working on. It is amusing that some of the stubs now have more navboxes than text! A sure sign that it's time to do some typing. Anyway, its better than what we had before (nothing). Thanks for formatting the box, I think they should all be like that eventually. The German WP RR navbox (can't find it now) has the RR logo pop up when the box is expanded, looks good and tastefully done. Hope to go flying in a bit but it's looking a bit breezy. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I found the German RR navbox, have a look at the bottom of RR Merlin and click 'ausklappen' [2]. I think the centrally justified navboxes work when there are not many entries with the left justified ones working better for lots of entries, not sure where the switchover point is, probably when a line almost reaches the width of the box. It is also apparent (I keep using that phrase!) that the list of aircraft engines is becoming out of date, that's where the redirected entries came from, another job for a rainy day. It might be useful to include all the engine navboxes at the bottom of that list, I don't think that 'navbox clutter' would be a problem in there. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Went flying, not very nice in the rain! Ok, I've created a category for the engine navboxes [Category:Manufacturer-based aircraft engine navigational boxes], showing as a redlink at the moment (or invisible here if I link it properly?), seem to be having trouble with cache purging/software updating. All the engine navboxes I can think of or found in the 'aircraft navbox category' are tagged with the new cat. I have merged the content of both P&W templates here in anticipation of replacing both templates with one. We need to rename one template and add this content or create a new one Template:P&W aeroengines or similar and TFD the other two, whichever is easier, then add it to the articles, being careful not to mix up pistons and jets. Phew! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work! I am starting to lose track a little bit. No objection to the tweaks. Don't know what happened when I created the category, I'm sure I saved it. I notice in that category that some templates are grouped under a letter and others are not (have seen this with other cats), is it a problem in the template code? Yep, GE is the next obvious one and Allison as well (although that gets complicated with the RR merger). If we start at opposite ends of the P&W box we shouldn't trip over each other. Double phew! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Think I've done enough for today, eyes are hurting. Never understood football with four halves!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Four 'halves' was deliberate! I used to watch it being played at a local USAF base, great hot dogs. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The bottom sections of the RR template have disappeared, can't work out what's causing it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

{Undent)Morning Bill (well it is here, and a soggy snowy one!). The French engine situation looks complicated and I am no expert on them either. It appears that SNECMA hoovered up lots of companies along the way (including Turbomeca) and are now themselves part of Safran which I had not heard of until recently (through the WP article). This merger is not reflected in the merged company articles (yet). There does seem to be only a handful of 'pure' Snecma engines. Just had a look at the French WP and they have a Safran company group navbox [3] but don't appear to have any engine navboxes which might have helped. I would treat Gnome et Rhone separately as they are from a very different era and a relatively well known make. It's a bit blunt or a 'cop out' perhaps but I wonder how long a Template:French aeroengines would be? The many joint ventures/collaborations make it difficult to decipher as well. We could always wait until a nice French WP editor makes the navboxes but I think we could be waiting a long time. Planning on concentrating on one article today, the Rolls-Royce Crecy as I have had a couple of books turn up from RR Heritage Trust and it is a very interesting story. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff! I just found List of aircraft engine manufacturers by country, don't know why I didn't see it before. A lot of redirects in there or links to the wrong article, it needs a trawl through. I think we've got the bigger US companies now. One of the great things about making the navboxes is that you learn as you go along, all I was doing originally was taking articles from lists and making a box although most of the engine names were familiar to me which at least confirmed I was on the right lines. German and Russian next? I spent all day on the Rolls-Royce Crecy, not a lot of extra text, it's the reference reading and working out how to phrase things that took the time, but it was fun and still a little bit more to come. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm editing at a very strange time (off work on holiday for a week but I really must get some other stuff done!). Difficult to write without references although the current AfD list would indicate otherwise!! I did have an external web reference to the list of US military piston engines, will see if I can find it again, there were a lot of them. I saw two 'O-360's', Lycoming and Continental, one to come back to. One of the Continental engine articles (O-200?) refers to the Rutan Voyager liquid cooled engine in the text, completely different to the air cooled beastie. Japan is another learning area for the future, as is Russia. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Garrett

Done! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What was done?!! Must have a look, I'm losing track! Bill, I've replied on my talk page (gravity is pulling at my eyelids) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefanomencarelli&diff=252457990&oldid=219358886 ... it could get interesting. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Lycoming nav box

Nice job on the Template:Lycoming aeroengines !! It was needed! - Ahunt (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Nimbus and I are working on templates for the major US aeroengine companies. Continental will need to be done too, but I need to do the Garrett-AlliedSignal/Honeywell family first, along with starting the articles for the engine divisions.

I had a look at all the existing articles, and most are stubs or a complet mess! All but one need infoboxes too. I used the product list on the Lycoming Engines page for the template, but it may not have all teh existing articles, as it was missing the LST101. If you find any more articles, please add them to the list. Also, if there is a another way to organize the list, please share. I know next to nothing about GA aircart or their engines, which is ironic since between ages 1 and 3, I spent alot of time in them being flown around the in the Turks and Caicos Islands (probably little Cessnas).

Btw, I assumed the "I" in "IO-233-LSA" in the Lycoming article list means "Fuel injection", so I listed it as Lycoming O-233, what I assume is the base designation. Do you know if this engine is a slightly modified O-235, or a new or heavily modified variant? If just slightly, it can probably be covered on the Lycoming O-235 page. Also, I assumed the Lycoming TIO-360-EXP was a variant of the Lycoming O-360, and therefore didn't list it in the template. Thanks for double checking me! - BillCJ (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill: I think you are right on all counts. The IO-360 is an O-360 with fuel injection (hence the "I"). With Lycoming and Continental engines there should be just a page for each number (ie 360, 320) and not for each sub-type (ie O-360, IO-360). The numbers and letters to the right of the main number (displacement) are just sub types (ie O-320-H2AD).

The master list for the modern flat (ie non radial) pistons engines is really on Lycoming engines and lists the following families:

• 235 Series
• 320 Series
• 360 Series
• 390 Series
• 540 Series
• 580 Series
• 720 Series

- Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur, there are 'extra' articles out there of variants of the same engine, might be some merging needed. I have a Lycoming book given to me on a course which has good info. I have worked on O-360's and 540's and regularly fly aircraft fitted with them. Will have a look through the 'extra' articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they've been redirected now, which is good. Should be able to get a photo of an O-360 quite easily. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Had a good bash at the O-320, promoted to start class. It still has problems (claims that need referencing or removing) but it's acceptable for the time being. Time to look at another one. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good work with the engine articles and related articles. I'd try to help if I had any good sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Continental

Hi Bill: Yeah it needs some serious work. Let me know when you are done and perhaps I can take a kick at it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again: I found a couple of refs and added a new section to the article at Continental_Motors#Continental_aircraft_engines. I thought maybe it would help you design the nav box. - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The new Continental nav box looks good! Let me have a look at that merger! - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I struck a little bit of gold tonight, I was looking at Continental R-670 and remembered that I took some photos of a Stearman hanging from the roof at Duxford two weeks ago, wasn't confident at first because a lot of Stear(men?) don't have that engine fitted but...I looked in my Janes and it is an R-670, duly uploaded the image and added it. I saw a 'Continental R-975' in commons, going back there to check it out. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

False alarm, it's a Continental built Wright R-975 tank engine, was worth a look. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

NXT

I see you've jumped into this...thanks for the help! How are you at specs? I keep messing the templates up. There are specs at the Relentless site, would you mind taking a whack at it? I'm hoping to go down the ramp in the next few days and see if I can get Jon Sharp to give me an interview. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gripen flags

Hi Bill, I'm editing from time to time when I see some errors or badly coded pages. In Gripen case I just wanted to remove subsections and flags were posted due to my laziness. Of course it can be edited, removed etc. ;o) Regards, --Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there are too many subsections in that area of the Gripen article. I'll try to put some more under the "Others" subsection. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge FYI

I've posted a request elsewhere but so far got no response (tho maybe it was ill-placed). I understand in case of a merge, cut & paste is not preferred, so if you get a chance (unless you think a delay is apt), can you do the merge? (Or have I overestimated your authority? ;D) It's requested here & raised here, with the preferred text here. Also, any help with the Terraine notes mentioned would be very welcome. Thanx. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Trek, sorry, but since I'm not an admin, I can't do history merges. To my knowledge, the restrictions against "cut-and-paste" only apply to moves, not merges. Merges usually involve articles with totally separate article histories. As these histories generally overlap, history merges aren't possible. In this case, we can just copy the new text to the preferred title, and convert theother one to a redirect. Simple. I'll wait until the other discussions you've started reach a conclusion, then see what can be done. In the word of our brethren across the Black Pit, Cheers! - BillCJ (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary should state where the text came from on merges so it's there in the history. I have sorta done that, but did not know if was suggested until recently. I believe this is stated at Help:Merging and moving pages. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RB162

Hi Bill, yes, I'm actually working on Rolls-Royce RB162 in the sandbox at the moment and was hoping to add it to the project tonight but something has cropped up and I won't be able to (maybe later this week, hopefully). Some redlinks were already there, I was just altering them to match the article name so that they would fill properly. No worries if the Mirages get split, would help to understand the different versions. I have Dassault Mirage IIIV as an application at the moment. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I lied! Had a push and got it done, no picture though. Bill G says the RB.193 used the Spey airflow but that it was a different design, seems more related to the Pegasus with the swivelling nozzles etc. There is another missing RR type, the RB.141 Medway which did run but I don't think that it ever flew, it was planned to be used in quite a few aircraft. Information is a bit thin on them, could make stubs I suppose. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree.gif		Merry Merry Christmas!
		Wishing you happy Christmas. Hopelly this makes your Christmas better! Cheers, and happy editing! TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! Btw, it's Thanksgiving Day (today) that Americans celebrate on a different day than Canadians, not Christmas! ;) - BillCJ (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I do know that. (I'm Canadian, not an idiot. ;D) I do think Americans are a month behind, so maybe it's really Christmas here. (It has snowed...) ;D Besides, I didn't want to forget. And somebody just gave me one, so I'm regifting. ;D TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, our version of the Grey Cup is about 2 month late! Again, thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bill, Trek, hope you had a good Thanksgiving/early Christmas. ;) I should have commented before. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

re: AP-3C Orion

Hello, BilCat. You have new messages at Nick-D's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've finally started responding to messages on my own talk page ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I've greatly expanded the article - what do you think? (I think that this is my first attempt at writing an article on an aircraft more or less from scratch). Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Balzac

Hi Bill, I just dipped into it really. At a quick read of the German article there is nothing else important missing. Good news is that I've got a set of specs from a 1964 book (it has a smell all of its own!). Dimensions differ by a couple of feet and the first flight date by one day, other two dates agree, will put all that in and cite it. It will be quite a bit later as I've got an all-day drive to do. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Back safely, have put all the numbers in available from the reference. The specs I have are in Imperial units so I put them in as 'alt' units but the template seems to be working the other way around. Added endurance at the bottom (15 mins!) but that is not displaying properly either, needs an expert to fix it! Is this an old version of the 'specs' template? I added an external link which also gives the first flight as 12 October as the article did, guess we have to stick with what the book says though. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

AP-3C

Thanks for the heads-up. Obviously, I didn't know that there was a discussion underway. Since 99% of the article was already contained in the P-3 article, I just assumed it would be an uncontroversial merge – sorry if I've "put my foot in it"! Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

UH-13J

According to the book "United States Air Force Museum" (1975 edition) the two UH-13J were unique aircraft specially designed as enclosed four passenger transports exclusively for presidential use. I don't know if you've ever been to the Museum in Dayton, but if you see one, you would never think it had any connection to a Type 47. It actually looks more like a small UH-1, with sliding doors on each side (note the weight - 2,800 lbs). According to the book the two aircraft were purchased by the Air Force in March 1957, and the first aircraft was used to lift President Eisenhower off the White House lawn on 13 July. No information on callsigns, though if the AF One callsign was in use at that time then they would certainly have had to use it. The book says they were retired from presidential use on 1 March, 1962 and used as VIP transports until being retired to the National Air & Space Museum and the Air Force Museum in July 1967. Hope that helps. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I did some research on my own as well, and while the production numbers I got were different from yours, I do agree that the H-47J Ranger was a production model, of which the two UH-47J were essentially VC versions of the H-47J Ranger. This raises an obvious question as to how different an aircraft must be from other version to warrant its own article. Wikipedia should not be constrained by manufacturers who are simply conservative in changing Model codes when they develop new models. If this were the case than the Tu-22 and Tu 22M would be incorporated into the same article, even though they have no relation to each other except the reuse of the model number. On the other hand, the Mig 23 and Mig 27 have so much in common that they are really just versions of the same model. One has to disregard model codes at some point and let common sense take over when deciding if two different models warrant their own articles. I noted that not only do the VC-137's have their own article separate from the 707, but that each of the two VC-137's have their own individual pages as well. This is not only warranted, as each aircraft has an important history, but should be the standard on aircraft who's duties are historically significant. The same goes for planes such as "Memphis Belle" and "Flak Bait", even though there was nothing unique about them from a construction standpoint. I guess I'm taking the position that the more articles the better, as long as there is a good reason to separate a model or individual aircraft from the rest of it's ancestry. With regard to the UH-13J, I believe that the same holds true for them as the VC-137 and VC-25, that they have an important place in history as Presidential aircraft. I do also believe that there should be a separate article on the H-47J Ranger series, as this aircraft is so substantially different from the earlier Type 47 that it warrants its own article. I'm also not opposed to your article on the Type 201 so long as it stresses the unique differences of that type. I find I'm more likely to click on a linked article, and learn something new, when someone has taken the time to write an article explaining why an aircraft like the Type 201 is different. Otherwise the Type 201 would just be lost in an overly long list of Model 47 variants, and that does more to defeat the purpose of Wikipedia than too many articles would. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have enough resources to write an article on the H-47J Ranger. Hopefully you or someone else does. Until that is accomplished I would strongly recommend starting with my article on the UH-47J, and expanding it from there should the resources become available. I do argee that the H-47J is significantly different enough from the Type 47 to warrant it's own article. Personally I also believe an article, even a relitively small one, just on the UH-47J in presidential service is warranted as well in an effort to give each VC aircraft type its own article for reference. I guess my final take on the subject is to say let's put the UH-13J article back up and hope it gets expanded into a full article on the whole H-47J series. At least the article would be off to a good start, and it fills a gap in the presidential aircraft listings. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

BaesballBugs

Hi BillCJ, I didn't know BBugs was keeping that post, sorry. --Tom 22:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries! I think I've removed it once myself! - BillCJ (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)