# User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 7

## Lowfield Heath

Hi, and thanks for your note and Barnstar. I had been meaning to write it for ages but finally got the inspiration for it after a long research session at the new Crawley library the other day. Look out for a steady stream of Crawley-related articles this year, mainly on historic buildings. I'd better do the George Inn next, I think! Happy New Year, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

## AF7775

You removed the crash from the Air France article stating that it belonged to Régional Compagnie Aérienne Européenne, but there is no mention on that article that they operate F100s or indeed of the crash! What's happened to the details? Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I added it the Régional Compagnie Aérienne Européenne before I deleted it from Air France, and in the fleet list it says they operate nine Fokker 100s. Are you looking at the same article? MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I'm looking at the right article. The text is there if you click on "edit page" tab at the top, but it isn't showing on the page1 :-S Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Might be a browser or cache thing, looks ok using Firefox. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I've cleared my cache and it still ain't showing. Oh well, I can see it's there from history and edit page. Maybe my Firefox will catch up later. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Strange I just had the same problem with another article with an edit not showing! MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be a synchronisation problem with the wikipedia servers. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

## Cat name correcting

Hi! thanks for correcting the cat name for "Accidents and incidents involving the British Aerospace 146". Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! Yes, the cat for the Boeing 767 was also in error. Woow. A systematical brain error. I corrected it also. However, I see that the lead of the article "Turkish Airlines Flight 634" has benen mutilated now. Why? Or, is my English insufficient to understand that it is good enough? CeeGee (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to tidy it up and make it clearer after another editors edit, sorry if that is not the case. I will have another look at it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you have an interest in following this article. Despite repeated warnings to discuss instead of edit warring, User:Watkinsian has not done so and keeps reinserting text he was asked to discuss. If you check [1], [2] and [3] you will see his continued insertion of "unincorporated" constitutes three reverts within 24 hours and is a violation of the three revert rule. Can you please have a look at this and take the required action? - Ahunt (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

## Military Aircraft Specifications template

I cannot find the template for the specifications sections of combat aircraft articles, I would like to sort out the specifications section of the JF-17 article. I looked in the wikiproject aviation page but could only find templates for infoboxes. Could you please point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hj108 (talkcontribs) 13:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, found it. Hj108 (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

## Watermark

Thank you for that information! I have added it to the instruction page at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

## User:Magus732

Would you mind assisting this new user with some sources and references for the numerous RAF squadrons he's recently tackling? He's had a bash at No. 109 Squadron RAF, No. 87 Squadron RAF, No. 166 Squadron RAF and a whole bunch of others. I would assist but my books are 12,000 miles away (yes, I'm one of THOSE colonials) and RAF units are not really my specialty anyway. Buckshot06(prof) 21:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem I will see what I can do. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
On similar lines could you add a note for the reference source for the Merlin variants table, the figures are being 'corrected' for want of a better word by the same new user. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
OK forgot I will add it in later today when I get home, dont have all my books at work! MilborneOne (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
And now he's copyvioing bits of the RAF website [4] and [5].Nigel Ish (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I have left him/her a slow down message and asked them to ask first create later. MilborneOne (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
He's also had a crack at Nos 604, 256, 88, 93, 250, 167, 217, 115, 114, and 153 Squadrons - put them on your long term list of things to do list if you get the chance. Regards and thanks, Buckshot06(prof) 13:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

## Humble thanks

Milbone,

In my thumb-fisted expansion of the WWI aces list, I left numerous code errors either because I did not realize they were errors, or I was clueless as to how to repair them. I am awed by your patience in cleaning them up after me--I mean, 10,000 freaking lines!

If I had the capability, I would award you a Barnstar for patience way above and beyond the realm of reality. As it is, I can only render a heartfelt thanks for your tolerance and good work.

Georgejdorner (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed your comment! I looked at that wild bot edit earlier but had to think about it for a while - glad you fixed it! It occurs to me that all aircraft have a location - it just varies a lot, unless they are in a museum! - Ahunt (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably a bit of a dumb bot - not sure why it thinks organisations and aircraft have a fixed location. MilborneOne (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

## An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted {{Findsources3}}:

Find sources for Azerbaijan National Guard : ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

1. List the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
2. You can request a mentor to help explain all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
3. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
Here is a list acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
4. You can vote to merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

## What is the name of Azerbaijan National Guard in the Azerbaijani language?

I suggest searching for the name Azerbaijan National Guard in Azerbaijani. travb (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I did find the name in Russian and I added it to the article. --Friejose (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Milb1, would you take a look at this diff, and tell me if I'm far off-base here? As I understand it, the No forum tag is to help us keep the fan-boys in check, not to quell dicussion on any tangental point. I'm going off-line for awhile, and I'd like to file an ANI against this guy when I get back, unless you think I'm out of line here. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

He's filed the ANI at WP:ANI#Forum-type chat on article talk pages. - BillCJ (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The two discussions deleted and reverted do have some relevance to article and apart from a few daft comments probably not bad enough to be deleted, probably more appropriate just to archive with Template:Discussion top and Discussion bottom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and if you classify my comments about the animals as "daft", then I'm guilty! Your solution is acceptable to me. Btw, I can't get into ANI right now for all the editing, but I do need to go offline now, so I can't responds there now. - BillCJ (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I haven't left yet! Anyway, ole pig-boy think my request here is "partisan", what ever that is supposed to mean. Amazing how he throws out AGF on my page, but yet doesn't actually read what I wrote here! I'm moving on, as it's not worth the wasted time. However, if this new "interpretation" of the forum rules is enforced, it's going to lead to a big conflict on many talk pages! - BillCJ (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

## Westland Sioux

Hi Milborne. I don't want to argue about the Sioux Operators. Just look at the Flight International I have specified. I also found it hard to believe. Regards Slapsnot (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bell 47G-2 was also built by Ball and Agusta. I've seen nothing in my sources about Westland building Siouxs for the US Army. It's not unheard of for the US forces to receive aircraft, tho it is rare. An example is the Canadair Sabre, some of which were supplied tothe USAF during the Korean War to help replenish war losses. - BillCJ (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks BillCJ, Just looked at the source quoted by slapsnot [6] which says the US Army has 600 Bell Sioux nothing about any Westland-built Sioux. I think Slapsnot you have been confused by the fact that US military Bell 47s were also called Sioux it was not exclusive to Westland built examples. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry guys, my mistake. Ive got confused! Thank you Milborne and Bill! Regards Slapsnot (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

## Potez

Hi MilborneOne and Happy New Year :)

I'm missing part 139 of the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft, so I wonder if you could please take a look and tell me if it has anything on the Potez 53 and/or Potez 60? (or just go ahead and create the articles if you're so inclined!)

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks RL, I have created a starter Potez 60 from the reference but nothing about the Potez 53 in the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks --Rlandmann (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

## Short Type 166

Well done! I have added a bit here and there, mostly from Barnes and James; some specs, a ref. to Barnes&James, introduced a Design section; and amended the Shorts template accordingly. I have been neglecting Shorts recently, for a serendipitous reason! While in France last year I came across a couple of postcards on a market stall: One was an artist's impression of the Cuxhaven Raid (which now graces that article), the other of the Lebaudy Patrie airship. This I had never heard of, but its shape intrigued me - hence the new article! I have just today submitted it for A-class assessment - any comments very welcome! Keep up the good work! --TraceyR (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

## Praga

While we're in Issue #139, does it have anything on the Praga BH-41 and/or Praga E-241? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Very little A refined and slightly larger version of the B.H.39 for use as an advanced trainer, with a 300hp (224kW) Vee engine, had the designation B.H.41 - The last of the company's pre-war designs was the E.241, an advanced trainer of biplane configuration which, powered by a 340hp (254kW) Walter Pollux engine, had a maximum speed of 143mph (240km/h) - if that helps. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

## (RC) Flyglobespan, Scottish/British ... and the surprisingly controversial nature of things UK :)

Hi. As a stupid American :) recent-changes patroller -- who is only recently learning about the surprisingly controversial nature of (some) things UK (e.g., the Ulster Scots language, Scottish parliament, etc) ... my real concern with the matter of Scottish/British is whether an edit is one of a sequence of edits which seem to be inspired by one of those controversies I don't quite understand all the valences of yet. :)

Excuse me if it seems I'm thinking too hard about this minor issue -- but it turns out that this is the kind of "minor issue" that brings a new recent-changes patroller to a halt ... until they formalize their understanding of a certain class of changes.

lol I'm pondering whether calling a company (or a person) who claims to be Scottish, British, against their will :) ... is somehow something that must be taken into consideration "in the balance." Still thinking. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: I have changed it to your suggestion. It's not my island. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(Thought I'd changed it. Didn't process.) Now it's changed. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

When you do so, please remember to add to the Holding zone where appropriate. Cheers,LeadSongDog (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes apology LSD I should have moved it, thanks for the reminder. MilborneOne (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
We aim to please:-) It does get a bit repetitive, but it all helps in the long run.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

## JF-17 article vandalism

Hi mate, if you take a look at the bottom of the JF-17 talk page I listed a few IP addresses of vandals. The first one (24....) is just the guy who keeps changing TWR to 7.8 and Max Speed to Mach 2. The other three have been doing stupid stuff like changing numbers in the article (PAF will buy 2500 JF-17, that kind of thing) and adding Indian Air Force to the Potential Operators list. Who do I have to contact to get these IP addresses banned from making edits? Hj108 (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Refer my message at Talk:JF-17 Thunder. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Cheers mate. Hj108 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

## Review of Lebaudy Patrie

Could I enlist your help on the review of the Lebaudy Patrie article? I'd appreciate it if you would have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Peer_review#A-Class_review to check the state of the Lebaudy Patrie assessment. I've been beavering away at this article for some time and think (in my not-so-humble opinion!) that it's potential GA material. Not having any experience in such things, though, I'd like a few expert opinions on what needs to be done to the article to improve its rating. I would appreciate your help some time, when you can manage it. Many thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

## Scenic Airlines Accidents

Scenic Airlines has had five fatal accidents. They have also had accidents that resulted in injuries and hull losses. I have posted these accidents which are "notable' and follow the guidelines on the Scenic Airlines page and you and others continue to delete them. Why??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canyonair (talkcontribs) 05:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied at talk. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
G'day from Oz. I had a look at the article in response to your message on the Project page; what's your opinion on this now? I have just left a message on Canyonair's talk page replying to a message from him; I really don't think that the 207 crash is notable, but I see that you edited the article recently and left it in after removing it previously. I am quite happy to take this as a form of consensus and leave it in. We seem to be sailing pretty close to edit war territory and I don't want to go there. YSSYguy (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
When you get a moment, please check out Canyonair's talk page. He has become abusive. YSSYguy (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Dont think that the 207 is really notable but probably leave it for now as they are far more important things for us to do! At least the long list of non-notable accidents has been removed. I have left Canyonair a warning about being uncivil. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
MilborneOne: Below is a copy of of the latest text I recieved from YSSYguy. Maybe you can send him the same warning about uncivil?--Canyonair (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[[Instead of wasting time with abuse and assuming incorrectly what my nationality and domicile are (oh, you are a pilot - domicile means "Where I live"), how about setting out to verify the information that you know to be true? As you are a pilot I will make it easy for you. You say Grand Canyon has seven Twotters and a Grand Caravan, and I accept that this is true - you are there; however in accordance with Wikipedia policy you need to reference this. I know plenty of stuff about the airline I work for and the airlines my friends work for, but it doesn't make it into the articles because it can't be referenced. Are there registration records to back the fleet numbers? There is a link to the FAA civil register at the bottom of my talk page. You know the registrations - look them up. Are there recent photos of the aircraft in question? Do a google search for each registration e.g. "Twin Otter NxxxGC photo". Say there is a pic from December last year of the Grand Caravan; you can then legitimately say that as of December 2008 the fleet includes a Grand Caravan, and include a link to the photo as a reference. I am not going to waste any more of my time on this; I will go back to my daily activity of fixing pilots' xxxx-ups (which I suspect I have been doing since you were shitting into a nappy) and contemplating ways how to spend my six-figure salary. Goodbye, and I hope I never end up sitting behind you in an aircraft paying your wages. YSSYguy (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)]]

## Zlín 22

Jane's has Zlin 22, but both the RAF Museum Thesaurus and the NASM Directory have "Z 22". I've left it where you put it without the Z (but changed the i to í) and created redirects until someone gets the chance to do a closer look for something definitive. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

## #139 again

...and finally, I can see from the index that there's at least something in #139 about the PWS-12, PWS-14, and PWS-16. Would you care to do the honours? :) --Rlandmann (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. I went ahead and moved the PWS-12 to the production version. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

## Spelling

No problem - that is the value of collaboration! I do try to read the newly posted aircraft and engine articles, in case I have photos for them. You may want to use Firefox as a browser for editing Wikipedia, it comes with built in spell-checking on all forms, including Wiki pages! - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

## A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

## Removal of galleries on Air India

During last week few attempts had been made to remove Gallery of Tata Airlines timetable covers, reason given behind this was galleries are not encyclopedic and Galleries are for wikicommons. They are not encyclopedic.

Notabley there is one more gallery present on the article i.e. Gallery of superseded liveries which was never altered.

If there is any logic and rationale (I couldn't find any in Gallery template page, help page, etc.) behind removal of the said gallery both galleries should be removed. On the contrary featured article like Flag of Belarus, Flag of Canada, Postage stamps of Ireland, etc contain Gallery (which means Galleries are accepted even in Featured Articles not to say about unfeatured ones).

As you have been active on this article you are invited to discuss this issue here on talk page.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

## Glider, gliding

The problem seems to be that Jmcc150 has got it into his head that glider = sailplane (only) and gliding = sporting flight by sailplane (only). He's repetitively editing the wikipedia to try to enforce this narrow view, and to try to force a single use of the terms, but the wider aviation community uses the terms in a much wider and more varied way. This results in nonsenses like 'glider' being defined by the FAI (a sporting body) rather than even the FAA or NASA or standard dictionary definitions even.

I mean the wikipedia is not narrow thing, it's supposed to encompass essentially all knowledge, and the fact that, say, the space shuttle is a glider and engages in gliding flight is not supported by this narrow view as a sport; and that birds/hang gliders/paragliders engage in gliding and soaring also doesn't fit at all well with his view either.

Jmcc150 really is trying to get consensus (really wikiality) to force these terms to be used by the wikipedia and presumably the wider world. This cannot be anything other than ultimately harmful; and does not agree with historic or likely future usage of the term for gliders such as SpaceShipOne.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is whether the technical meanings should override Wikipedia:Naming conventions of using the common name. To Wolfkeeper gliding is an article that should also include flying squirrels, and glider includes airliners with engine failure. He also believes that gliding includes hang gliding and paragliding, despite the classification used by the world governing body for air sports, the FAI. He is constructing a duplicate article called Gliding (flight) which I suspect ultimately he will try to use to replace Gliding. JMcC (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
No, the dispute is over whether you can sensibly define in the wikipedia that glider=sport gliding of sailplane (only) as well as gliding = sport gliding of sailplane (only) and then desperately continue to edit to remove any and all other uses without people laughing at you for long. Is landing the space shuttle a sport? Is gliding a hang glider not a sport? Is SpaceShipOne a sports plane? The FAA definition says these are all gliders. At least two of them are certificated, as gliders.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments noted but the place to discuss this is on the Glider talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

## ICAO eight five eight five version 146

Hi Millborne, do you have ICAO eight five eight five version 146? Or a later version? If not, shoot me off an email, and I will give you a link where you can get eight five eight five version 146 from. Don't want to post it in the open. --Russavia Dialogue 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Russavia but I use the Eurocontrol webpage which is at 146. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! (See User talk:Rlandmann#Template:ADF Aircraft for more.) - BillCJ (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

## Sex discrimination controversy

I think that pointing out that at least two other airlines have a similar "sex discrimination" policy to Qantas#Sex_discrimination_controversy regarding seating unaccompanied minors next to adult men adds some balance to the comment. Without it, it appears that this is a pecularly Qantas policy or perhaps an Australian cultural sensitivity when it is actually not that uncommon for other airlines to do this (either openly or discretely). I won't put the comment back in but perhaps you can consider my reasoning. 84.9.34.201 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with your reasoning, but it didnt seem reasonable (under NPOV) to point out other airlines in a Qantas article unless their was some evidence of a wider discrimination policy linking them all. The references (at the moment) give no evidence that the policies of the other airlines had anything to do with the Qantas policy. If you find a reasonable proven link between their actions then I dont have a problem with the comments (hence my remark it may be an unproven OneWorld policy). MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

## Request

I think HAL Tejas shouldn't be included in the list of 'comparable aircraft' of any fighters. It has still not operational and some Chinses and Pakistanis are trying to wage a propaganda war over it. So, it's my request that until Tejas is fully operational and gets inducted, it shouldn't appear in the the 'comparable aircraft' list of any aircraft. I hope you understand. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a neutral news source (Defense Industry Daily) that states they are comparable. Comparable does not mean they are exactly the same, it means they have specifications that are similar, hence the term "comparable." I have been told many times that if there is a neutral source provided, what it says must be assumed to be fact unless another source counters it. johnxxx9 has not provided a source that counters the source provided in the article. On the FC-1 talk page he has not mentioned LCA is not operational, he has repeatedly stated that the aircraft are not comparable without providing any source. I suppose there is no need to have LCA on the list, so I will remove it.Hj108 (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me going over what must be well trodden ground. I notice that your page on the Short Silver Streak has been enhanced with a pair of images from Wikimedia Commons and originate from Barnes' book. They are labelled IWM - Crown Copyright in Barnes, and clearly were taken before 1957 so copyright has expired. My question is, does the fact that the image has been digitised from the book have any effect on the copyright issue? If the answer is no, as their presence in Commons suggests, then any image in any book, whenever published could legally be scanned into Commons so long as it has a Crown Copyright note and was taken pre-1957. Many aircraft pages are severely limited by the absence of an image, and not having to go via the IWM etc would save a lot of time, though maybe the latter route would give better resolution.TSRL (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I didnt actually add the images to the article but if they are clearly marked as crown copyright and before 1957 then they can scanned and added to commons. Main problem is that a lot of the images are presumed to be crown copyright but may in fact be manufacturers or images taken by others. But if the provenance of crown copyright can be proved it is OK. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2009

(UTC)

Thanks for that.TSRL (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

## Royal Air Force - Rivet Joint

Hi... I deleted the para about the Rivet Joint under the "Reconnaissance aircraft" section because there is an almost identical para under "Future aircaft" (hence my "redundant" comment), not because I didn't think it was going to happen. Letdorf (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC).

Sorry Letdorf you are correct, I have reverted my change. MilborneOne (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

## Thank You

Hi, MilborneOne! It is really very kind of you to 'reward' my contributions re UK and other aviation articles in Wikipedia. Thank you! I have frequently noticed your name attached to worthwhile Wiki contributions, also. Will try to keep up the 'improvement campaign', alongside yourself, as other committments permit. Please amend my narrative wherever you see the need to do so! RuthAS (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

## Bombardier Dash 8‎

Milb1, do you think we could get away with a semi-protect Bombardier Dash 8‎ page? There have been well over a hundred edits since the news broke last night, and the majority of the IP edits have had to be reverted for one reason or another. It ought to slow down in a day or two, but even with at least 3 hidden notes in the article, details and duplicate posts keep getting added. It's OK if you don't think it's warranted, but I thought I'd try anyway! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

## Proposal on glider article

Thanks for you comment on the Project page. There is a proposal (see below). I wanted comments before putting it on the Glider Talk Page. However your input would be appreciated in advance. As you suggest we need to get the Glider article sorted, but the new attack on Gliding also had to be dealt with. I would prefer a clearer statement with a 'support' or 'oppose' to Wolfkeeper's suggestions, rather an indented response to mine.

I have a proposal to end the glider debate with a new name and then I will explain how and why it should be done. I cannot make a decision on behalf of all other interested parties and this proposal may not be greeted with universal approval, so your input would be appreciated. Part of my reason is exhaustion. Although this should not be the way things are decided, I have to think about life outside Wikipedia. If someone else would like to argue for the status quo, they have my best wishes.

I propose that the term used to denote most non-foot-launched unpowered aircraft used for recreational purposes is 'glider (sailplane)'. Primary glders fall outside this, but we can manage. I have contended that the word 'glider' be used for the most common type of these aircraft. I maintain it to be a position that is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. However it does give rise to difficulties. In particular there is no doubt that many other unpowered aircraft are technically gliders, even if they do not have this as a common name. The intro to glider has to become complicated (at least it had before Wolfkeeper edited it recently) to explain which aircraft are being described. There are also a few occasions when all unpowered winged aircraft need a name. 'Glider (sailplane)' preserves both worldwide and US terminology. It also allows the continued use of the word 'glider' in all the hundreds of existing articles. It isn't what the knowledgeable majority wanted, but I have to make a practical decision based on how Wikipedia operates.

As I understand it, a simple move will leave the word 'glider' as a redirect. The vast majority of articles link to 'glider' as sailplanes (I have checked them all). If the word glider is re-used for an article with a more generic definition, all these links will be misdirected. If possible a bot should be used to rename everywhere there is [[glider]] to [[glider (sailplane)]]. There will be a few places where this is not appropriate eg 'primary glider' but it would be easier to change a few rather than many. If a bot is not possible, then we will have to leave 'glider' as a redirect and think of a generic name for for all types of glider. I dislike 'glider aircraft' as tautologous. 'Glider types' I suppose is a possibility. Whatever the generic article is called, I hope it does not become another 'cut and paste' duplicate. JMcC (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but most editors have really given up with the constant repeating debate about gliders. It may be worth a try but the talk page still has no consensus to change and glider (sailplane) sounds a bit daft. If Glider is to be changed then I suspect those involved in the discussion will not want be the ones to change the hundreds of links. And whatever the argument for Sailplanes I dont think most people would accept that primary and wooden training gliders are not sailplanes. Thats an idea how about Training Gliders and Sailplanes and abandon Glider to the furry animal and space shuttle supporters! MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

## Glider

Hi MilbourneOne, I have a new suggestion up at Talk:Glider#Arbitrary_beak. All suggestions and comments are very welcome. Regards, AKAF (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if User:GliderMaven/glider aircraft is related to User:Mavigogun who appeared on the glider talk page earlier. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we must assume good faith without evidence that the user is not a WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not saying otherwise, just an observation as it was queried how a new user could produce something like this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

## Tireless Contributor

 The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Congratulations on your 500th aircraft article! Rlandmann (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

## oneworld page

Hi MilborneOne,

I have updated the oneworld Member Airlines, Future Member Airlines and Former Member Airlines sections, the new table format I got them from the ones in Star Alliance and SkyTeam. Hence, they will be consistent, informative and easy to read. Can you reconsider not to undo them? Aviator006 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hadnt noticed the others, they look bad as well! I will get a second opinion at WP:AIRLINES. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey MilborneOne, I have made another version of it by removing 2 of the columns, namely Million Passenger Per Year and Fleet Size. Now it just has 5 columns and I have had a look at it under 800 x 600 resolution, it looks alright. Check it out, I have done it in my Sandbox... User:Aviator006/Sandbox. Aviator006 (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that i remove by original objection. Will you make the other alliances the same? MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I will update them as well as soon as I can! :) Aviator006 (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Changes made to all oneworld, Star Alliance and SkyTeam Member Airlines tables to remove Passenger and Fleet columns, and standardised look and feel (similar to oneworld tables) to ease viewability under lower resolution completed.Aviator006 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Aviator06. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

## Blackburn aircraft

Evening MilbourneOne: couple of queries.

i) Bearing in mind what you said about the naming convention for British a/c, I wanted to move the Blackburn F.1 Turcock to Blackburn Turcock, but am blocked because I had previously added the latter name as a redirect. As an admin, could you remove the redirect page then move then make the move? If you can, thanks.
ii) You'll know of the Blackburn Monoplane/Biplane C.A.15C. The point of this pair was to compare monoplane/biplane performance and Jackson gives the numbers, side by side in a table. Now we normally and rightly allow the specs of just one variant per page. Two separate pages does not (it seems to me) make sense here, so would it be OK to set up a special table for this one pair of aircraft and ignore most or all of the standard template? I can probably do this if you agree it's the way to do it. Any alternative would be fine, so long as it enables the comparison.TSRL (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Turcock moved as requested. I think you are right about the C.A.15C a side-by-side comparison would be in the spirit of the Monoplane/Biplane idea and as you say should be dealt with on one page. I have no problem with the idea. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for a fast move and helpful response:I'll go ahead with the C.A.15C before long.TSRL (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

## Template

I think its deserving of a template because it cant be split out into the 3 Carriers and there really isnt enough to justify a category. --HereFord 22:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Legacy_Carrier. MilborneOne (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

## Varga 2150 Kachina

Thank you for helping with 'Wiki format' etc re this new article. I just dont have the know how to insert info boxes and type formats etc, but can add to them when they're there. Will continue to add historic aircraft photos and narrative, which is my (comparative) area of strength! RuthAS (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

## Asian Spirit flight 321

Why is the info not notable to merge into the NAMC YS-11 article (it already has been!)? If an airliner is written off, then IMO it should be notable enough to mention under operator, airport and aircraft articles if it doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. This particular aircraft is likely to be uneconomic to repair given its age. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Some accidents may not be notable enough for an article and I would agree that some may warrant mention on other pages, but this accident was nothing to the with the aircraft was not notable and in my opinion not worth of mention on the YS-11 article. But considering all the other non-notable accidents on the YS-11 page it probably want be noticed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
All accidents I added to the YS-11 page (with the exception of the latest) were confirmed airframe write-offs. I agree that not all of them are sufficiently noteworthy for their own articles, but they are at least noteworthy enough for an entry on the YS-11 page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talkcontribs) 21:22, 20 February 2009
I would argue that a hull-loss is not always notable and most aircraft articles do not list every hull loss, but I think this is really a debate for WP:AIRCRAFT. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've raised the issue there. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I have noted the guideline allows hull-loss in aircraft articles! MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

## Eclipse Aviation

Hi MB1: I don't know if you read the exchange that User:BillCJ and I had on this subject at Talk:Eclipse Aviation, but the understanding we came to there was that the history is worth retaining, should be split into a new article and that the Eclipse Aviation article have its history reduced. You seem to have already done the latter. The comments there on the talk page delve into the significance of this story a bit more. Unless you have any objections I would like to go ahead and create a History of Eclipse Aviation to take up the extra detail. Wikipedia is the only chronology of what Flying magazine indicated is the most significant story if its type in memory. - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem with that I was just trying to put the story in some sort of order as the time line was all over the place. MilborneOne (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

## easyJet now larger than BA

Hi,

I saw you undid an edit on the British Airways page that stated easyJet is now larger than British Airways.

easyJet is now larger than BA, easyJet is the United Kingdom's largest airline. There are numerous articles on the web about this now and easyJet use it as a marketing tool - an example is at http://www.easyjet.com/EN/News/innovation_award_business_travel_show.html .

## easyJet bigger than BA: More passengers, better fleet utilisation

The reason easyJet is now bigger than British Airways is that easyJet carry more passengers due to high aircraft utilisation.

Also, they are expected to make a profit this year where BA will make a loss.

Traditionally, airline size is measured by passenger numbers though.

Not really relevant to article as it does not claim BA is the largest, just one of the largest, suggest you add the fact to Easyjet rather than British Airways. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
(copy of text added to IP user talk page). The lead in the article does not claim that BA is the largest UK airline, your comments are welcome on the articles talk page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

## Avro Tudor

Hi, Milborne! Have added material to the Tudor article which you've contributed to. Have included photos of Super Trader and Tudor V. Both are copyright 'free'. The heading photo of a BSAA Tudor 2 seems to have a less-than-free copyright status. Do you wish to make a substitution or deletion? Regards RuthAS (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I have removed the iffy non-free image and put your Tudor V in the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

## British Airways Page - Thanks

Thanks for the edit on the BA page, you managed to word the opening sentence much better than I could with regards to larger fleet but less passengers than Easyjet. You made it sound much more balanced.

I think that many people (including the press) traditionally and wrongly assume that British Airways carry the most passengers of any UK airline which is now not the case, despite having the largest fleet.

I think through the information you added, it will help many to understand the big changes in the aviation industry in recent years and how I guess it seems that passenger preferences are changing with regard to air travel in the UK.

Thanks.

No problem it was just a matter of getting a balanced and neutral set of words. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

## Multirole combat aircraft

• Hi, How are you? I`m Mohamed Salim From Egypt. I have a question for you, and i found you the best one to answer it as u have that HUGE knowlege about aviation. The question: in article Multirole combat aircraft
"A multirole fighter is differentiated from a strike fighter in that the multirole fighter was designed to equally perform both aerial combat and ground attack, while the strike fighter is typically a fighter aircraft that can also employ air-to-ground munitions"

then

"Multi-Role Combat Aircraft was the title of a multinational European project in 1968 that became the Panavia Tornado aircraft."

but the Tornado is used in many airforces as a Strike aircaft? thx محــ سالم ــمد نشوان (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The MRCA project was for an aircraft that could perform both aerial combat and ground attack the resulting Tornado aircraft has two versions the IDS version which is a strike aircraft and the ADV which is an air-defence aircraft. So each version has a different role the aircraft itself is multirole. Most air forces that use the Tornado have both IDS (strike/ground attack) and ADV (air defence fighter) versions (UK, Italy and Saudi Arabia) and Germany has just the IDS strike version. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Very Much. محــ سالم ــمد نشوان (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

## Sipa Minijet

Hello Milborne. Thank you for your helpful suggestion re adding future new type articles to the 'new aircraft' list - which I'd not heard of before. I'm not an experienced user of Wikipedia methodolgy and don't know how to 'call-up' the various aircraft templates - hence the 'homemade' (but informative) format I used for the Minijet. As I may have said before, my relative strength is my knowledge of aspects of aviation history, and accumulation of own photographs over many years. So please bear with me as I try to learn how to best make my worthwhile input on aviation history. RuthAS (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

## Nationalities of passengers

I have responded to some of the points you've raised in Talk:Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. If my comments on the talk page came across a bit harsh, I apologize, I didn't mean to insult you. Aecis·(away) talk 00:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

## Battle of Britain

Please check the ongoing back-and-forth reverts taking place right now. It appears to be an editor new to the scene but who is introducing new material. I have suggested to use the talk page for a review of consensus decisions as to the infobox. FWiW I do not want to make any more changes as it will appear to be making things more tense. Bzuk (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

OK I am watching for more edits against consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Check the M.O. as well, it seems to be a pattern of confrontation and aggressive behaviour, as well as a "crusade" to right some grievous wrongs, something that is covered in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC).\

OK Whatever that picture has been there for like 2 year I even forgot about. So why the hell bring it up if something is wrong do something about it

User talk:Alexcaban

Thank you - you are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2009_March_1#File:AirCanada_787-8.jpg. MilborneOne (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

## DYK for Gloster Survey

 On March 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gloster Survey, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

## The Aviator

Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

## flags being added to Iraqi Airways destinations

Zaps93 is adding flags unecessarily to the destinations list to make it more colourful, in his own words, kindly tell him not to, wikipedia isnt meant to be coloufully delghtful, Thanks.116.71.47.223 (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I will keep an eye on it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, he's also adding colour to the fleet list table, why is there need for colour in wiki articles?>116.71.53.176 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont think we have any guidelines on the fleet list table, it is really needs to be a talk page discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There should be guidlelines, this is an encyclopedia that should be as close as possible to what it would be in book form, presenting information in a mature way and not being unecessarily colourful and childish looking, but thanks for giving him a note, I have addressed the issue in his talk page.116.71.45.1 (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This guy Zaps93 is now placing flags at other airlines destinations lists, Lion Air and Air Moldova.116.71.32.114 (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

## Edgar James Kain

Can you help in re-directing this name to Edgar James "Cobber" Kain? I tried but made a mashup of the change. Now I'm really confused, I have seen his nickname spelled both ways, as Kobber and Cobber. FWiW Bzuk (talk).

OK done. MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Mil, See: Request. Can you help here? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC).
Not that good with templates but having both Allegiance and Nationality may be a bit of a target for revisionist/nationalist tendencies. The location of birth is clear from the infobox and in the two examples you give they could both say Allegiance British Empire. Although Fisk was an American he would have sworn allegiance to the Crown. 17:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The revisionism is saying that Fiske is not American but in fact British. To my mind he is clearly American. The problem is that people are getting confused with the person and the organization. The RAF has an allegiance to the King, not one country. The person has an allegiance to all sorts of people, primarily his country. The concept of allegiance is confusing, and I think it should be axed, relating to people. Wallie (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I have to disagree no doubt that Fisk is American but he would have sworn an allegiance to the Crown when he joined up. If he didnt they would have shown him the door. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The Crown is not a country. The allegiance shows a country in the infobox, which I believe is incorrect in this case. I think the whole allegiance heading is fraught with issues. Also, you said "Fisk is American but he would have sworn an allegiance to the Crown". That is absolutely and legally impossible. The two are mutually exclusive. By the way, his name is Fiske. Wallie (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you say it was legally impossible but it is factual you join up you pledge allegiance to the crown whoever you are. Perhaps you misunderstand that in the UK nobody in the forces takes allegiance to the country only to the Crown. Also note the instruction for Allegiance say the country or other power the person served. MilborneOne (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
According to this, the instruction the country or other power the person served is both wrong and misleading, when related to allegiance. As stated, it has nothing to do with the Oath of Allegiance, which as you say is to the Crown. In the case of New Zealanders seconded to the RAF, the country would be New Zealand, not the United Kingdom. This is a very important issue, and must be resolved. Wallie (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Your are welcome to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to get a wider view and any possible change to the guidance on allegiance in the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I am trying to resolve the issue there. I think it is very very important. Wallie (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

## Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

## A-20 article

• I was just wondering if anyone at wikipedia has a clue regarding how screw'd-up tables make an article look. - nothing is in line, information is being lost and the article does not look professional or well written. Wikipedia table do not work - when I first created this series 2 years ago, I tried tables but you could not get then to look right - you end up with things that look like
A-20-5D
O
44-12
345
• and this is the first column -

* Try looking at these pages on a 17" screen

• As far as the proposing a change - this is a joke - I often proposed a change (held lengthy discussions) and people like BillCJ just ignored everyone elses comments and just did it his way and as an administrator you just let him get away with his nonsense..
• As an administrator, you do not have any common sense of what is right or wrong - you often agree with my point of view then ignore you own common sense and just revert back to something that you know is either wrong, or just does not work.
• Why do you not try working with me for once - I am the one that struggle and fought for this series in the first place. I am the one that standardized the format - should not my opinions count in how my ideas are destroyed..
• Do not mention "your writing to be edited mercilessly" if this is the case then my reverts have just as much importance and anyone elses - I have no problem with editors making changes when they are for the betterment of an article, but when information is lost and the article is unusable and unreadable then eith it get reverted back to the original format of it gets deleted... Davegnz (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a little less of the personal attacks would help. I dont have a particularly preference for the table but it was preferable (in my opinion) to the format we had before. Dont get me wrong I dont have a problem with the survivors series but we have to remember this is a general encyclopedia and the over use of abbreviations and specialist information would not mean anything to some readers. I will use your User:Davegnz/Bell P-63 survivors as an example, it is not that bad but the the things I think need looking at are the use of condition abbreviations if it is on Display then why not just say Display, long list of serials and registrations just need a bit more text and explanation again so that none warbird fan can understand, also the block numbers are not generally notable and meaningless to most readers. I think we have covered no external links before. From your example

• P-63A-7BE c/n 33-380 42-69080 (N94501), accepted: 8 May 1944, SOC: October 1945, ex-Cal Aero Technical Institute, ex-The Air Museum, ex-Planes Of Fame, " Fatal Fang ", Yanks Air Museum, Chino, CA (D)
• P-63E-1BE 43-11728, WPAFB Museum (D)

perhaps something like

• P-63A 42-69080 named Fatal Fang accepted by the USAAF on 8 May 1944 and disposed of in October 1945 with the civil registration N94501 to the Cal Aero Technical Institute, latter to The Air Museum and then the Planes of Fames now on display at the Yanks Air Museum, Chino, CA.
• P-63E 43-11728 on display at the WPAFB Museum.

Not sure if you have the USAF serial that the construction number is notable, normally registrations are not notable but with preserved aircraft I dont think it is a problem. Any thoughts or middle ground. MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets talk about c/n - there are numerous occasions where sister ships on the line would have considerably different s/n:
P-63C-5BE
s/n 43-11133 - 43-11717 - c/n 33-1/33-585
s/n 44-4001 - 44-4427 - c/n 586 - 1012

If you did not know that the c/n then you would assume either different blocks or different line numbers - c/n (construction numbers are a more accurate way of keeping track then by the military (random) serial number..

• * *

As far as expanding the information blocks - my attempt is to keep the excess wordage down to a minimum - get in, get the information and get out.

If we can figure out a real table (ie like word) I would have no problem with that - its just that wikipedia's table's, to be polite, suck big time. Wikipedia adjusts the tables to fit the users screens and the information get screwed-up (just does not work). As I mentioned earlier, I wanted to do tables (like {http://www.warbirdregistry.org/b24registry/lb30-am927.html] but never could get the columns to remain usable and readable.

• * *

Even if I did come up with a usable format that would appease a majority (which my initial survivors series did) you still would have people bitching and moaning that it did not work for them and we would be back to the same old nonesense - my effort would be waisted and the 1 percenters (including BillCJ) would just keep doing what ever they like and do not care what the majority agrees works... Davegnz (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think that if we all made an effort to gain a consensus rather than constantly reverting then the project would support it. You have BillCJ wrong he is a big supporter of the aircraft project and is only trying to protect the encyclopedia in his own way. He has had many really stressfull involvements and has been attacked in the past while supporting the project and its goals, true he will tell you he does not like it but it is not his way to go against consensus once it is clear. On c/n's I understand what you say but sometimes wikipedia is not the right place for this sort of information. If we give a reliable reference to a source on each aircraft then it should not be confusing, but I would say it is not a show stopper for you to include the c/n. Perhaps it is as you say your attempt to keep excess wordage down that is probably the main problem. As this is an encyclopedia it is nice sometimes to have words and the overuse of abbreviations and acronyms is what alienates the none specialist. Agree about the wiki table width think but you can fix the table widths (from WP:TABLES):
Name Effect Games Found In
Poké Ball Regular Poké Ball All Versions
Great Ball Better than a Poké Ball All Versions

Have to be careful about too many columns, I would ask that you try and come to a comprise that we can take to the project and I am sure that other editors would agree we would rather have keen and experienced editors helping us rather than in constant battle. You have to remember that all of Wikipedia is a compromise, somethings we do I sometimes think are a bit strange but after suitable discussion whichever way decisions are made I would be first to defend the project consensus. So we are not as bad as you think (even BillCJ) we just need a bit of give and take on both sides. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you a compromise - for the present, revert back to original format (so it does not look screwed up and is usable) and I'll work on the A-20 page using columns in the sandbox (I'll make it my next immediate project) and see what I can come-up with so everybody is happy.
The other big question is if I do come up with a usable solution, who is going to go back to the other 12 Survivors series articles and change them????

Davegnz (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, if we come up with a solution then in time I am sure we all will help convert the articles. I will leave a note at aircraft project probably best if I revert the article! Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

## Australian airline callsigns

G'day from Oz; I just have a couple of comments regarding your recent changes. I don't know whether we are to list only ICAO-assigned callsigns in airline articles or not, but the larger Australian airlines do all use callsigns. Eastern Australia fly exclusively under the QantasLink banner, and they were the first to use the Q-Link callsign when it was introduced a few months ago. Regional Express uses Rex as its callsign and has done so for years. I hear these guys on the radio every day using these callsigns, which I know is more-or-less original research; nevertheless the callsigns have been in daily use. Any thoughts? YSSYguy (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is normal to list the ICAO allocated callsign in the infobox even if the airline operates for somebody else as in theory the other callsigns are allocated to a different user. Perhaps it should be noted in the article somewhere. I appreciate that Australia does not appear to register all its callsigns with ICAO (hence the slightly iffy use of VIRGIN by Virgin Blue), have you a none-OR source for REX, I presume the Aussie authorities still must have a non-icao list somewhere (as it appears New Zealand has!). MilborneOne (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

## vandalism - wiki airline destinations articles being removed

An increasing number of airline destinations lists are being removed and replaced with collapsable menus on the main article page of the airlines with colourful headers and flags, please help stop this practise, SriLankan Airlines is the worst example, go see what they have done there, I tired to correct it and one registered editor reverted my edit labelling it vandalism, wikipedia is becoming a joke, when these things corrected accrording to format are being called vandalsim.116.71.52.93 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines on destination lists as I dont think we have a clear consensus. You are welcome to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I will comment there, by the way the person undoing my edits is called Bobo.116.71.52.93 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

## Article names

OK I know this has been rehashed numerous times - over and over again - but why is the English Wikipedia backwards in the naming conventions of the aircraft articles...

Vast majority of the other wikipedia uses aircraft MFG then designation then name as the title of the articles (ie Bell P-39 Airacobra) vs US (ie P-39 Airacobra):

Even the world authority on naming (Janes) says MFG then designation?? The US MIlitary does not consider the aircraft names as the designation... Davegnz (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question I think it is just a relection of the original american-bias in wikipedia most of the original aircraft articles were US aircraft because the information was readily available. But whatever we think, the consensus is as detailed in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). It has been questioned as recently as last September but without a clear agreement we end up with the status quo. Nothing stopping it been questioned again, it would be nice if we had a convention for all aircraft but that might be a step to far at the moment. You also have to remember that anybody can create redirects using the Man/Des/Name format that points to the current article so it has not been seen as a high priority. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

## A-20 tables

As I promished here is my idea

A-20 Survivors - OLD STYLE TABLE
Designation Serial History Condition Notes
Boston III AL907 Allocated the RAF serial AL907 but then passed to the Netherlands East Indies Air Force as 24 and then to the Royal Australian Air Force which allotted the Boston to 22 Squadron. Coded: DU-J RAAF Museum, Point Cook, Victoria Display Manufacturers serial number (MSN) 3839
A-20 Survivors - NEW STYLE TABLE

DESIGNATION SERIAL HISTORY NOTES
Boston III
• s/n: AL907
• c/n: 3839
• NEIF: 240
• RAAF: A28-8
• Allocated the RAF serial: AL907
• Transferred: Netherlands East Indies Air Force: 240
• Transferred: Royal Australian Air Force: A28-8
• Assigned: 22 Squadron - " DU-J ".
• Currently on Display: RAAF Museum, Point Cook, Victoria.
Somewhat cleaner, easier to edit (still do not like tables).
Do you know how to lock the size of the columns in this format - right now, the columns size floats
• I have converted it into wikicode rather than html
 DESIGNATION SERIAL HISTORY NOTES Boston III AL907 c/n: 3839 Allocated the RAF serial: AL907 Transferred: Netherlands East Indies Air Force: 240 Transferred: Royal Australian Air Force: A28-8 Assigned: 22 Squadron - " DU-J ". Currently on Display as A28-8: RAAF Museum, Point Cook, Victoria. [13][14][15][16][17][18] A-20C 44-12356 c/n 98765 Delivered United States Army Air Corps in 1939 Sold in 1955 as N123AB On display since 1977 at Pima County Museum as Sally Two. ref
I suspect that this would generate less flak if the history (which could possibly have a different name - Comments or Description? as its covering the current condition of the aircraft as well as its past history) was in sentence form rather than in bullet or list format.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree that the table is hard to handle how about something like this:
• Boston III AL907 (c/n 3839)
• A-20C 44-12356 (c/n 8999)
• Delivered to the United States Army Air Corps in 1939 as 44-12356
• Sold in 1955 to a private operator as N123AB
• On display at the Pima County Museum as Sally Two
• Vickers Watsit G-AAAA
• Delivered to British European Airways in 1955 named Spirit
• Modified in 1966 as a Super Watsit
• On display since 1988 at the Ace Aerospace Museum.

It provides some of the detail that Davegnz wants but presents it in a more readable way. The refs can go at the end of each line. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it - Just wonder how the people insisting on tables (and stirring up contrivery are going to like it)... I think part of the problem with tables was with the frames and it was just a mess to work with. OK let me try the A-20 article and see what type of reaction it generates--- Davegnz (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The new Douglas A-20 survivors page is up and running - let me know what you think Davegnz (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for co-operating with this, still not sure about using block numbers but the format is OK and it seems reasonable to go back to project for opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Reference for c/n numbers
Airport Data)
(Warbird Registry)
(airliners net)

I like the airliners net format - you can click on the c/n and get all the pictures for that particular aircraft (and avoid all the different N401 aircraft)

(airframes) Davegnz (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I told you that this would not work - same bullshit as before -Fuck Ken and the rest of the assholes... Davegnz (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Kens attitude and lack of commonsense is the reason wikipeedia is the a laughing stock of the aviation community
Tried compromising and you continue to do what you do best - shit all over me - I worked on this idea for a standard format and you sided that Ken and only Ken can do his way (sorry for my rank but I am so pissed - tired of being the only one to compromise Davegnz (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

## Fame at last!

One of your photos on Commons has been used by the Daily Mail I know there's a tag for Wikipedia articles that have appeared in the media, but is there one for pictures too? Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, not seen any of mine used before, at least they acknowledged the copyright! not sure if commons have a tag. MilborneOne (talk)
If they don't, maybe it's time they did! Maybe Signpost would be interested too? Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

## Keith Park

Hi. It says this about Billy Fiske. William Meade Lindsley "Billy" Fiske III was the 1928 & 1932 Olympic champion bobsled driver and, following Jimmy Davis, was one of the first regular serving US pilots killed in action in World War II. He is one of the most famous pilots in World War II.

Fiske's efforts relate to the Battle of Britain, and Keith Park was in many more battles. Also, Park is nearly as well known as Fiske in the Battle of Britain too.

Google search. Keith Park : nearly 8,000,000 hits Billy Fiske : 325,000 hits.

I think Park is famous as well as Fiske. Do you not think so? Wallie (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

## Maurice Charles Hollis

Yes, I agree it should be deleted. Bashereyre (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

## Cardiff Airport

Hi there, I've put the flag situation up for discussion on Talk:Cardiff Airport. Please don't revert anymore until the matter has been settled there as it could cause an edit war. Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

## P-82 survivors

Please refrain from modifying the survivors section of the F-82 article in the manner you employed. Your modification deleted all relevant information on the aircraft's display history and current issues. The current section is consistent with the "Survivors" section in other articles. In addition, the modifications you made do not permit editors to add relevant explanations and background of the aircraft's condition and display. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think you need to send him an note that this is the new format for this information Davegnz (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
To be fair to Ken keisel it is only a proposal it has no been agreed by the project yet and also this is not a stand alone survivors article. So we still need to get others to agree. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at the before and after - in Ken's article the aircraft are not organized in either s/n or production order P-82E before XP-82 etc..., missing information, disorganized. Has been cleaned-up and organized - references added.. Davegnz (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I just posted this on the Wikipedia aviation talk page, and wanted to send you a copy. Davegnz has contacted me and informed me that this was all YOUR idea, and he is just following your format rules.
• Since this is starting to impact me as well I have to pipe in here. What Davegnz is doing to articles constitutes vandalism, plain and simple. Not only is he implementing his "policy" while editing under an unregistered i.d. (see F-82), he also claims that the idea of having the "Survivors" section as a table is MilborneOne, not his, and has told me so. The "Survivors" section must be kept in a simple text format for several obvious reasons. First, it allows the individual aircraft's "story" to be told in a clear, easy-to-read format. A table is incompatible with a section that is meant to tell a story, or provide a history. Second, the use of a table limits the ability of other editors, particular inexperienced editors, to add their own information to the article, and discourages them from doing so. I just found out that the CAF's F-82 has been dismantled and is being shipped to the NMotUSAF in Dayton because an editor with limited experience on Wikipedia was kind enough to update the survivors section on the F-82 with this breaking news. I contacted the museum in Dayton and have found out that it is all true, so good work to the new editor!! Had the F-82 survivor section been formatted as a table there would have been no way for a new editor to add this information, and I'm sure we wouldn't have it at all. A simple text format for the "Survivors" encourages such additions, giving folks like me the opportunity to research the accuracy of information, and if it's true, have new information that we otherwise wouldn't have had. This is the whole reason for Wikipedia in a nutshell. On the other hand, I can't think of a single good reason in defense of having the "Survivors" section as a table. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I worked on a compromise solution to stop edit warring on the survivors articles, this format was discussed on this page and Davegnz modified the A-20 survivors article to reflect the discussion. It is NOT a table. This was then brought up on the aviation talk page for discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Ken should find out from the CAF that there is a lawsuit against the USAFM [19]

From the CAF:

Of course, the Judgment will be obeyed”, said Brown. “And it will be a sad day for 9,000 active CAF members and those before them, who have poured tens of thousands of dollars and man-hours into saving this airplane. How ironic that our founders Lloyd Nolen and Marvin “Lefty” Gardner saved this airplane (and many more) from the Air Force’s destruction, just to have the Air Force Museum repossess it in order to ‘preserve’ it.”

“However, now we will continue forward with the Appeal. The Appeal is a de novo review, in which the Appellate Court is not bound by the trial court, but reviews the entire case. We are hopeful that the Appellate authority will see things differently,” Brown concluded. Davegnz (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Davegnz, I am well aware of the current legal situation involving this aircraft. There is no "pending" lawsuit, just an appeal of the court's decision granting custody of the aircraft back to the USAF. I have the greatest amount of respect for the CAF and its members, and have long watched their efforts with this aircraft. I do need to correct you on a few counts, though. Your claim that they saved this aircraft from destruction is completely false. The aircraft had been one of two F-82s on display outside the gates to Lackland Air Force Base. The CAF asked if they could have one on loan, for restoration to flying condition, and to operate at airshows. The Air Force generously agreed, and the CAF did a fine job of bring the aircraft back into flying condition and operating it. Unfortunately it suffered a hard landing in the early 1980s, and the unique props and landing gear could not be replaced. The CAF has tried for over 25 years to restore this aircraft and failed. Finally they attempted to trade it and another aircraft for a flyable P-38 they badly wanted, regardless of the fact that the F-82 was still owned by the USAF. The USAF has seen enough rare warbirds destroyed in crashes in the last few years (see Chuck Yeager's comments in "Smithsonian Air & Space" magazine three months ago) that it has decided to take the aircraft back to prevent it from being made flyable. It will be displayed at their museum, probably as "Bucket of Bolts", the first aircraft to shoot down a plane during the Korean War (this is still being decided). In addition, since the crash in the 1980s the plane has gone through a partial restoration, but was basically "set aside" when it was discovered that the landing gear and props were unavailable. I can assure you that 9,000 hours has not been spent on the aircraft SINCE the crash, and its condition has remained largely unchanged for the last ten years. Incidental, the other F-82 that was alongside this aircraft at Lackland is still there, and in much better condition than its former partner. So much for saving it from destruction. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting stuff but better suited to the P-82 talk page then on mine. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I'm not sure why Dave posted it on your talk page. I actually thought I was replying to comments he had made on the F-82 discussion page until I saw where it appeared. I've added my reply to Dave's talk page as well, but he's been wiping it clean every few days lately, and I'm sure it won't last long. I've restored the F-82 survivors section again (third time). If he continues to reformat it as a table despite our comments I'll join the bandwagon to have him blocked, at least from aviation articles. I don't understand people like this. The survivors sections have worked well for years, why does he suddenly feel he needs to reinvent them? - Ken keisel (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem - I think that new editors dont always realise that articles are the way they are after years of consensus and effort by a great many authors we then regularly have to explain to these editors how wikipedia works! MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

## Olympic Airlines

Hi MilborneOne. FYI I gave a notice to the user who keeps inserting the forum info against WP policies. Dr.K. logos 18:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for letting me know. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure. Thank you for your great work. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 21:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
The question begged is: what is an opinion website? It could mean a site expressing the owner's personal opinion OR a site which offers rankings based on the collection of different people's opinions. For example, the Wikipedia articles of several airlines (see e.g. Cathay Pacific) mention their skytrax evaluation. Should one delete these too? Even more, a good deal of Wikipedia articles about universities mention (and have links to) rankings in international publications that are based on the collection of personal evaluations. Should one delete these as well? My interpretation of the rule is that one should not mention (nor link) PERSONAL websites that cite their owner's opinion. Skytrax is not one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.130.18 (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The guideline says Do not include un-encyclopedic opinion web sites but I have taken it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines for opinions. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good. Now I wish that Dr.K. refrains from any editing war of his own until the issue is settled. For the moment, however, Dr.K. is sending me threats of blocking editing... My suspicion is that Dr.K. is not so much interested in abiding by rules of proper conduct but rather in supporting Olympic airlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwertleite (talkcontribs) 16:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest you read WP:AGF the only message Dr.K. has given you is a standard warning because you keep reverting the article, it is just a friendly warning to give you a heads up that you could get blocked if you continue, you need to discuss the change on the relevant talk pages. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

## Move revert help

Milb1, a user has moved Bombardier to Bombardier incorporated then to Bombardier Incorporated, all without any discussion beforehand. I attempted to move the page back, but it's now stuck at Bombardier incorporated. I'd actually prefer Bombardier Inc., which the Company uses on its own website, as this is in line with our Corp naming conventions, with Bombardier (disambiguation) then being moved to plain Bombardier. However, the pages are edited enough that discussion should take place first. Would you mind restoring the company page to Bombardier? I'll then hold a move discussion per my comments here. Thanks. (I have added a DB-move tag to Bombardier, but other admins sometimes don't want to revert undiscussed moves. - BillCJ (talk)

OK moved over to you to sort out the discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks much! Btw, the same user moved Joseph-Armand Bombardier to Joseph-Armand Bombardier (Inventor)! I was able to move it back, and hopefully it will stay! Are you diplomatic enough to leave a good note on the user's talk page about moves and DABbing? I know I'm not! - BillCJ (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what he/she was actually trying to do buy I have left a message to discuss on the talk pages. MilborneOne (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for messaging me. I will be running more things by you if need be.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

## UK Independent Airlines

Hi, Milborne! Have noted your recent contributions on this subject by accident. Can add period photos to Air Charter in the next day or so, but will first wait to see if you've finished adding narrative. Is there an equivalent 'new articles' noticeboard for airlines, as exists for aircraft and manufacturers? RuthAS (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question I dont think we have one for defunct airlines, some of the bots run reports like User:AlexNewArtBot/AirlinesSearchResult but it can be a few days behind. I will let you know if I create any more UK airlines as we still have a few missing although some of the small operators are not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reply, Milborne. A 'noticeboard' for 'new' current and defunct airlines worldwide would be a good idea, I think. Re which airline, defunct or not, is or is not notable - there are, for example, many Wiki articles on long closed UK railway stations in the back-of-beyond, which some Wikipedian or other wished to mark (and lament) its existence and passing! Also, some of the current air operators listed in Wiki are tiny and could be argued to be 'not notable'. RuthAS (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

## Aircraft engine

Hi MilborneOne. On 18 March I edited Aircraft engine by adding a link to an external website with an article about fuel mixture theory. The article is dedicated to reciprocating aircraft engines. On 19 March you deleted the link, commenting that it dont appear to be relevant to a general overview article.

I am curious as to why you did that, and why you classify Aircraft engine as a general overview article. In particular, I am curious as to whether you read the article Mixed Up About Fuel Mixtures?, or whether you simply read the title. I will assume you did not read the article before deleting the link, but please let me know if my assumption is incorrect.

In my experience, the world-wide web contains a surprisingly small amount of authoritative information about aircraft engines. I have been working closely with the article Mixed Up About Fuel Mixtures? and found it authoritative, credible, and well-written. I assume that many readers interested in reciprocating aircraft engines will find Mixed Up About Fuel Mixtures? very useful. It is certainly one of only a few web-based articles dedicated to aircraft engines that are both simply-written and credible.

You have written that Aircraft engine is a general overview. The article is certainly comprehensive, covering fuel, all manner of shaft engines, turbine engines, diesel engines, and all manner of new designs of aircraft engine. However, it also refers to hi-tech concepts such as octane ratio, tetra-ethyl lead, and others that defy the classification of general overview. I don’t agree that Aircraft engine is so elementary that it has been improved by deleting the external link to Mixed Up About Fuel Mixtures?

Aircraft engines presently has only three external links, and only five in-line citations, so it is definitely short on citation of suitable sources of information to ensure verifiability of the article. External links are valuable to Wiki editors because they enable in-line citations to be created, pointing to readily-accessible sources of information.

If you agree with me that denying readers of Aircraft engine access to Mixed Up About Fuel Mixtures? has not improved Wikipedia’s coverage of aircraft engines, I would appreciate it if you would restore the link.

Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message it is always appreciated when one is asked why rather than starting an edit war. I have copied your message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines and asked for a second opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Raising the subject on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines is a judicious approach to resolution. Let's give it seven days to see what opinions materialise. I will leave a similar note on Talk:Aircraft engine. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A week has now passed since you posted your message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines. I accept that the consensus among interested users is that Mixed Up About Fuel Mixtures? [7] is too specialised for use as an External link at Aircraft engine.

Of the three long-standing External links at Aircraft engine, one is clearly appropriate – labelled Aircraft Engines and Aircraft Engine Theory (includes links to diagrams)

However, given the consensus among interested users, the other two links appear to me to be clearly inappropriate. The first is highly specialised, and the last is off-topic.

I would appreciate it if you would have a quick look at these two. If you agree with me that they are inappropriate please delete them. If not, let me know what you think. Regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience on this Dolphin I will have a look at the other links as you suggest. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the above two external links on 6 April 2009. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem - and apology I didnt get round to look at it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

## Bombardier

Hello, Thanks for informing me of the edits. My plan with the page about Bombardier as a company was to move it to fix the name, as the company is really called Bombardier Inc. and I was going to have it so when you search up "Bombardier" you get This page so you can search through the pages dealing with Bombardier. I am also currently re-writing the article on Joseph Armand Bombardier, and have it as a User-Sub page. Suggestions and feedback on All my edits is appreciated!--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We dont normally add the Inc or Ltd on company articles unless it to tell the difference between similar companies. It is usual to have the more common name as the main article with a note on the top to the disambiguation page. The main article is normally a result of discussion and agreement between editors. You will need to convince them on the relevant talk page if you want to change it. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, As discussing on the talk pages goes, if you look at the talk pages for the two articles, you can see that I have been posting suggestions there for a couple of months. They are now inactive. I am the only person currently working on those articles.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

## Bmibaby

Please explain how “consensus was reached” to use lowercase throughout the Bmibaby article. Consensus is not based on a vote count (not that there is actually any margin of victory supporting the use of bmibaby over Bmibaby). Consensus is determined by weighing up the arguments for and against. Considering the use of Bmibaby is supported by WP:MOSTM whereas the use of incorrect capitalisation is not supported by any wikipedia policy or guideline, please do explain where this consensus appeared from. Regards Nouse4aname (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry not involved in the use of the name in the article only the change of article name requested by the move, comments indicated that the lower case was the more common name (as per WP:NAME)and that lowercase could be used for the article name. As far the use within the article I suggest you bring it up in the talk page but I suspect the same common name argument will be used. Also note that WP:MOST just says try not to use lowercase trademarks at the start of sentences nothing about not being able to use them at all. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Items in full or partial uppercase... should have standard capitalization

Bmibaby is the same search term as bmibaby, and so the common name argument does not apply - this is for cases such as Bill Clintion not William Jefferson Clinton. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Furthermore, there were several arguments against using bmibaby, which you seemingly ignored when prematurely declaring the discussion closed, when there were several issues that had not been addressed. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK perhaps you should continue this discussion at bmibaby. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I was trying to, and believed that I had provided substantial reasoning for the use of capitalisation, however I was continually reverted by Zaps93. Further, you have concluded on the talk page that the lowerase name is correct in the face of all the evidence against this, thus making Zaps93 feel he is justified in his reversions. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I based it on the comments from users who supported it and the fact the the lowercase version is more common in the real world. But I accept you points about continuing the discussion. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

## Redcoat

Have added what little extra I can. Had forgotten they had a CL-44! The only photo I have of a Redcoat Britannia is not my copyright, unfortunately. RuthAS (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

## Bmibaby

I have now summarised the argument against the use of bmibaby in the article at Talk:Bmibaby. I trust that your will review my comments and see that the weight of the arguments favours the capitalisation of the name. Regards Nouse4aname (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

## Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

## bmibaby or BMIBaby?

You have previously participated in a discussion at Talk:Bmibaby. If you care, please weigh in again at Talk:Bmibaby#Closure again. — AjaxSmack 19:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

## Shoreham Airport

Actually, there are numerous examples throughout the UK pages of Wikipedia where "within" has been used to describe location. On the Scottish pages you will even find "outwith"! Skinsmoke (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe other stuff exists is not a valid argument! - it doesnt read naturally, and it is not what a normal english writer would use and I think best avoided. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not arguing with your edit - just pointing out that your statement that Nobody uses... is not correct. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK good point my mistake. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

## Cobber Kain and Sailor Malan

We have to be consistant here. Cobber Kain has an allegiance of Commonwealth, but Sailor Malan has an allegiance of South Africa and the Commonwealth. Why the difference? Wallie (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably because we can only look at one article at a time, and other stuff exists is also not a valid argument on wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

## British Airways

You deleted the information regarding the commercial Paul Arden produced for British Airways. I believe he contributed a lot to the development of BA by his campaign. And while it is not relevant he died last year... How would you insert this information? Berskin (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The article already mentions the involvement of Saatchi and Saatchi under marketing as The advertising agency used for many years by BA was Saatchi & Saatchi, who created many of the most famous advertisements for the airline. Although unreferenced it is already mentioned at Paul Arden and Saatchi & Saatchi no need to repeat it in the airline article. I am not sure in the thirty odd year history of the airline the producer of an add campaign is really notable (to the airline). MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, usually, I confine those kinds of changes to situations when it's clear someone just hit the space bar one too many times... but obviously unnecesssary spaces, they got the axe, yes... an administrator once told me that extra spacing at the beginning of sentences was optional, and since optional doesn't mean mandatory, I got rid of them... Magus732 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem I have with that; there is no issue... the rulebook wants the spaces, but they don't add anything of worth to the page... you know what, fine, fine... I'll take up my grievence with someone who can do something about it, aside from quoting me the rules... Magus732 (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No, what I need to do... is apologize to you... look, I've been stressed out, and I was taking out on you... look, if it makes you feel any better, I'll look through the pages I've edited and re-include the spaces... Magus732 (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

## Vision Air International

Hello! Just so you know I'm not trigger-happy with the tag buttons; this is what the article looked like when I tagged it. I used to just clean everything up without tagging it. But a while back, I was going through my ancient history and noticed that the tags placed on my early articles helped me learn how to write! Anyway, just wanted you to know I wasn't crazy... cheers!--It's me...Sallicio!${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$ 21:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem - if it means the article has to be reviewed by somebody else it does no harm. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

## Current template on Cougar Helicopters Flight 91

Just curious - I'm not going to re-instate the tag, since the consensus seems to be against me, and to avoid a 3RR - but why not have the current template on the article? I'll concede the event is almost two weeks old now, but we're still seeing 2-3 new news items per day related to it (Google News shows 6 new items in the last 12 hours as of time of edit here), so I'm not convinced it's no longer a current event. I definitely do not agree with Yellowdesk's stated reason for removal; the number of edits per day to the page has nothing to do with it being a current event. I checked his/her edit history and talk page, and it seems he/she has a penchant for removing these tags, often without discussion.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation: Yellowdesk is definitley pushing his own limited POV on disclaimers: "The template is at all times optional, and at all times is redundant to the standard Wikipedia:General disclaimer." WHy do we even have these templates if one user is going to push his POV that we should not ever use them! Isn't that what TFDs are for? Very odd indeed, since the general discalimer is not actually posted on articles anywhere so most readers can see it, jsut a tiny link at the very bottom. While I agree the time has "probably passed on the Cougar article for the template, Yellowdesk is not really objective on the subject either. - BillCJ (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
OK understood, I just thought it was time to remove it as per Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or two, occasionally several days I didnt look into the motives of the other editors. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

## Thanks!

Just dropped by to say thank you for the help with Cessna and List of Cessna models. It looks much better now!! Captain n00dle T/C 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

## Random question

Bit of a random question, (not having ago) but do you watch everything I do? Just seems when I edit pages you always alter that edit or remove abit withing 30mins. No worries if you do, just like to know. Best Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, certainly cleared that one up. Thanks again, enjoy editing, nice to see someone following the rules. Best Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

## 419

The ones named in 419 scams are The Lakes and Thompson (has his own article) - The others have nothing to do with 419. I was the one who created many of the redirects, but people have decided on RFD that most of them should not be there, so I stopped creating redirects for most of the people involved on these flights. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

## Caribbean Airlines edit

Hello,

I have a question regarding your edit on Caribbean Airlines. You removed the flags from the Destinations section citing WP:AIRLINES, but I don't see anything in the style guide barring the use of flags (it just isn't mentioned). I didn't add the flags but personally I think they look better with the flags than without. --  R45  talk! 01:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point it is has been discussed many time but the page content guideline does not mention it. I have brought it up on the project talk page. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

## Image deletion

Milb1, RuthAS has added a free photo to the Westland 30 page, so File:Westland 30-100-1.jpg is no longer useable under fair use rules. I originally uploaded the file, and I've removed the Fair-use rationale now. There should be no reason this one can't be deleted immediately, but I don't know what DB tag to use on it. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A very lengthy exchange has now taken place on both my talk page and User talk:Wallie's talk page regarding the status of Paddy Finucane:

Why did you reverse out my edit, saying he was not in the RAAF. He was. You also said I made contraversial edits on this article. What were they? Wallie (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
So does that mean I can change it back? Wallie (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I never said he was Australian. I said his allegiance is Australian. He was with the RAAF. He remains Irish, but his allegiance is Australian. Wallie (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
You are saying exactly what I was saying in the past. I was later told that allegiance is tied to the country of the unit you are serving in, in this case the RAF then the RAAF. By your reasoning, someone who flew initially with the RAAF and transfered to the RAF would always have an allegiance of Australian. Wallie (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
you said: 452 Squadron had some British personnel during the Second World War, from the Royal Air Force as well as other British Commonwealth air forces and other nationalities, including Poles. One of these was the Irish ace Paddy Finucane. If a member of 452 would be serving with an RAF unit, it would be "on exchange" unless that individual actually became a British subject, and transferred to the RAF. FWiW, as much as I can determine... perhaps others can elucidate on the subject. Bzuk (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC). Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallie"
This is getting far too complex. As the current situation stands, and as it was explained to me over and over, if you are in the RAF, your allegiance is British. If you are in the RAAF, your allegiance is Australian. That is the way it works for everyone else. Wallie (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
He was still in the RAAF was he not. I can get references. It is even in his Wikipedia article. Wallie (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I say again. Was he in the RAAF or was he not? Yes or no? Wallie (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My responses:

Although Finucane in April 1941 was posted as a flight commander to No. 452 Squadron RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) that does not automatically make Finucane an Australian. That would be like saying G/C John A. Kent was Polish because he led 303 Squadron RAF or G/C "Johnnie" Johnson was Canadian because he was in charge of the Canadian Wing stationed at RAF Kenley. Don't think it happens that way... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
Or if you consider the same statement above, Finucane was a British officer serving with an Australian squadron, Kent, a British officer serving with a Polish unit, and Johnson, a British officer serving with Canadians but in all cases, the individuals would not have "allegiance" to anything other than their Royal Air Force standing. None of the individuals had to take an oath or anything like an oath to serve any other air force. FWiW, Kent is Canadian, born not far from where I presently live. Bzuk (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
452 Squadron had some British personnel during the Second World War, from the Royal Air Force as well as other British Commonwealth air forces and other nationalities, including Poles. One of these was the Irish ace Paddy Finucane. If a member of 452 would be serving with an RAF unit, it would be "on exchange" unless that individual actually became a British subject, and transferred to the RAF. FWiW, as much as I can determine... perhaps others can elucidate on the subject. Bzuk (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
Paddy Finucane remained a British officer attached to 452 Squadron, a not-uncommon occurrence in the Second World War. His status would remain the same throughout. FWiW, the reverse also applied. When the RCAF did not have flight engineers when the units progressed to "heavies" such as the Halifax and Lancaster bombers, RAF flight engineers assumed that role. However, these personnel remained RAF attached to RCAF squadrons. Bzuk (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
Paddy Finucane remained a British officer even though he served in 452 Squadron (RAAF). 452 Squadron had a number of British personnel from the Royal Air Force during the Second World War. Other British Commonwealth air forces and other nationalities, including Poles, also served in 452. I am not sure how else to put it? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
Finucane was in the RAF not sure why anybody would think he wasnt! MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I said he was in the RAF. I just asked if he was in the RAAF also. I think that is a fair enough question. Wallie (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You may think I am going on about Paddy Finucane, but I am trying to establish the principle of allegience, which seems to change from person to person. I thought we had established the principle that the allegiance is the national flag of the service the person is attached to. Now the concept of transfer has come into play. Were Commonwealth pilots who came to the UK to fight in fact transferred too? They were trained in their own countries and sent by their governments to the UK. Is this not correct? Wallie (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

## New editor bent on crusades

M, take a look at some of the edits taking place which remove large amounts of text complete with cites, see:this FWiW, it does not involve the above editor. Bzuk (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

OK noted I will watch activity, User:Akradecki has left a polite note on his/her talk page and they have not edited since. We should AGF but they know a lot of wiki talk for a newish user. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

## List of Battle of Britain Pilots

Thanks for all the work on the List of Battle of Britain pilots - it's great to have someone else working on it! --KizzyB (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem glad to help I will probably do a bit more at the weekend. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

## some airline destinations lists being vandalised

Editor Jaspel with no profile information to his username, is adjusting various airline destinations lists layout to suit his own preferences see SriLankan Airlines destinations though I have reversed it, he used to do this in the past as well but was stopped, kindly issue him a warning again, while another unregistered editor is undoing regions in Asia for destinations lists of some airlines, you can check him by his ISP in Etihad Airways destinations article.116.71.35.87 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please handle this guy Jaspel, hes constantly interfereing in other airlines destinations articles and messing them up, while meticulously maintaining articles related to Indian carriers.116.71.41.243 (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
OK I will have a look - problem is we still dont have an agreed format. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

## Request for help re: Terminology of Battle of Britain

The designation: "Battle of Britain" is normally capitalized, and it was my understanding that the use of the term thereafter if shortened, as in "the Battle" should also be capitalized. The RAF use this form, is it correct? This stems from an anon that insists that only the full term be capitalized. See:Battle of Britain (film) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

## Probable unfree image

Milb1, File:USA Lakota.jpg was previously deleted as File:UH-72A Lakota1.jpg because it is not a free image, per this Army page. THe uploader, who ceased editing about the same time he uploaded this second version, claimed to be the photographer, but provided no proof. Can you look into this? I don't know what DB tag to use on this one. THanks. - BillCJ (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a pic from the http://www.thenorthspin.com/page_people_dan_s.html, which claims copyright. There's a thread about it and other similar images at WP:ANI#Copyvio report assistance. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

## F-86 operators?

Why is it that the Canadair Sabre gets a mention in the operators, but the Australian and British variants do not? Please excuse my ignorance, I am unsure if Canada also used North American Sabres as well. Hayden120 (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK I understand your edit was done in good faith, I have raised it on the related Talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you give the Etihad Airways article a look over? There problems with unsourced expansion of fleet size (raised at WT:AVIATION). Also maybe a friendly warning to Druid.raul (contribs) about ownership and appropriate edit summaries as I feel he is getting too involved with this and other aviation related articles. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK sorted out fleet - will keep an eye on it. MilborneOne (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

## Battle of Britain

I can make no sense out of your last edit commentary. Can you please explain to me what you meant? Thanks.--Npovshark (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hitler did not invade the Low countries, one person cannot invade a country. Only one person can invade a country. What is your objection?--Npovshark (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Its a turn of phrase - but that was not why the addition was reverted - please take to related talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

## Ruth Manning-Sanders

Thank you SO much for the terrific additions and edits to the Ruth Manning-Sanders biography. I appreciate everything, and anything you might be able to add there in the future. Otto1970 (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

## De Havilland Albatross

I put in a fleet list of the type, it's a simple first example to do as there are only 7 aircraft, and I have these lists in spreadsheets for all pre-war airliners, but it was deleted within 10 minutes. Given the conflicting information sometimes given in Wikipedia, factual details such as this would seem to enhance the value of the information. Bartle1 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would still feel there was a case for this information. Firstly a numer of Wikipedia pages already have them (eg the Short Empire). Secondly the pre-war aircraft were produced in small quantities, not mass-produced as nowadays, so a lot of space is not involved. Thirdly a production list shows hard detail that is often missing or inaccurate in written paragraphs. Fourhly pre-war aircraft were more often known by individual names rather than registration, in the fashion of shipping, and a list enables all of these to be shown for reference by others Bartle1 (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

## Operation Yellow Ribbon

I'm a bit surprised by this undo. I don't think you would have preferred 226 nearly-identical articles for each forced diversion. How would you suggest the matter be addressed?LeadSongDog come howl 15:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think that the diversion of aircraft is particularly notable for a list of accidents and incidents as per the page guidelines but happy to take it to project for a second opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Understand its not an exact fit, but it was an extraordinary day. Will raise it at the project.LeadSongDog come howl 16:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

## Court line

Re Vikings - accept what you say, but it can't be the Vikings that the link is point to surely!Cj1340 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted - I did not notice it went to the wrong Viking - now corrected thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)