|Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.|
|This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at
|This is Fnlayson's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Fnlayson.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10|
Before posting, please read the notes below.
Links for possible use
Try to use: new delay for interim CH-148, A160 google search, Does Comanche.., C-17 last USAF orders, MMA Approved, Boeing lands MMA, P-8 on DID, 737 Goes to War, 737 AEW&C google search, Wedgetail contract FG search, Wedgetail contract, Dec. 1999, B-1 upgrades search. -Fnlayson (talk)
The Center Line: September 2015
- —delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Notability guidelines for aircraft accidents?
You reverted the addition I made last week to McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet based on the information being "somewhat minor". I had already observed that the Accidents sections of aircraft-type articles are now (as of late February 2015, at least) nominally limited to "notable" accidents, so I've got no complaints about your revert, but it does raise the question of what criteria editors are using to judge notability. Are there guidelines somewhere on WP for determining this? (E.g., do there have to be injuries, deaths, international-scale investigations, etc.?) I'd much appreciate it if you could point me to any such criteria you're aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Most accidents are not major for military aircraft, especially fighters. See WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION. If you want to discuss this more, please use the article's talk page (Talk:McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet). -Fnlayson (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Canadian spelling issues
I noticed that you changed my word program to programme
I always struggle with issues such as this since the British spelling (e.g. programme) is correct in Canada, although the vast majority of newspapers have been using the US spelling (e.g. program) for years.
And indeed, in one of the citations I added today, the word is spelled program  So, in this case, I felt that program was the most suitable for the text too. Regards, Peter K Burian 18:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Spelling seems less consistent in Canada, probably due to influence from its neighbor, the US. The article has used 'programme' already. The spelling should be consistent within the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Reply: I live in Canada and for the past 20 years, I have noticed that virtually no publications are using the British spelling. Well, OK, a few still are but then the content seems archaic. But yes, it should be consistent; no argument there! CheersPeter K Burian 22:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Possible problem: Two of the Wikipedia entries that I have edited have received some edits that seem strange to me. Both were done by people who call themselves disambiguators. Are they legit? This is one of them: The Wikipedia page Mark Shapiro (sports executive) has been changed on
3 November 2015 by Trut-h-urts man, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shapiro_(sports_executive) for the
This is the other one: The Wikipedia page Alex Anthopoulos has been changed on 3 November 2015 by
Trut-h-urts man, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Anthopoulos for the current revision.
rounding up (and I think down) (significant figures)
For the rounding, I will keep it in mind. At least it is now 2,100 liter more accurate than before! 0.800kg/L, for many aircraft every kilogramm counts at the start.
- I just rounded to the closest number using 3 significant figures (37,854 L -> 37,900 L); for 2 sig. figures that is 37,854 L -> 38,000 L. I was not trying to round up or down. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
F-35 UK needs to be in Lede
With respect, the UK is a F35 exporter, not an importer, please see, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464629/15-234-ogel-joint-strike.pdf as such the country is the sole level 1 build partner and deserves to be in the lede as well, regards. Twobells (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- The UK text is in the lead if you check. I moved it with the other non-US operators, not deleted it. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)