Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject Aircraft talk — archives

pre-2004  [ General | Strategy | Table History | Aircraft lists | Table Standards | Other Tables | Footer | Airbox | Series ]
2004  [ Mar–Aug | Aug ] — 2005  [ Mar | May | July | Aug | Oct ] — 2006  [ Feb | Mar | May | Jun | Aug | Oct | Nov–Dec ]
2007  [ Jan–May | Jun–Oct | Nov–Dec ] — 2008  [ Jan | Feb–Apr | Apr–July | July–Sept | Sept–Dec ] — 2009  [ Jan–July | Aug–Oct | Oct–Dec ]
2010  [ Jan–March | April–June | June–Aug | Sept–Dec ] — 2011  [ Jan–April | May–Aug | Sept-Dec ] — 2012  | Jan-July | July-Dec ]
2013  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2014  | Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2015  | Jan- ]

Lists: [ Aircraft | Manufacturers | Engines | Manufacturers | Airports | Airlines | Air forces | Weapons | Missiles | Timeline ]

WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the aircraft project.
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review

US military roundels[edit]

I was looking for an article on the various roundels used on US military aircraft, but couldn't find anything at all. There is a text section at Military aircraft insignia#United States, and the historical roundels are shown in a later section of that article, Military aircraft insignia#Former insignia of national air forces. However, we don't seem to have an article like Royal Air Force roundels. (And no, I'm not gonna say that if the RAF has one, the USAF should too!!) However, I think there is enough information available to create and sustain a similar article on US roundels. Military aircraft insignia#United States does have a lengthy text history, but only one source. I do have a book, Angelucci, Enzo; Peter Bowers (1987). The American Fighter: The Definite Guide to American Fighter Aircraft from 1917 to the Present. New York: Orion Books. ISBN 0-51756-588-9.  , that has some details on the history of the US roundels that I can use to cite most of the text. DEVELOPMENT OF USAF INSIGNIA and U.S. Naval Aircraft Marking also have some history and photos.

Does anyone see any objections to creating such an article? It should probably also cover fin flashes, as does the RAF article, and I would probably use that article's format and tables as a pattern, at least initially. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a worthy project to me! - Ahunt (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I started it a while ago in my sandbox at User:NiD.29/US Insignia but couldn't find anything on the introduction of the monotone roundels - feel free to use what I started - note that there is an unresolved issue with the monotone (black/white or grey) roundels I was unable to fix - someone with more experience with the format should be able to fix the problem I am sure. Cheers,NiD.29 (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! That wil save a alot work, especially since I'm table-deficient. - BilCat (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
NiD.29, do you have any preferences for attribution, and do you want me to work in your sandbox? Would you prefer me to just copy the contents and attribute them to your sandbox link, or just work in the sandbox until the article is ready, and then move it to mainspace? Either way is fine with me, though I find it useful to have the detailed edit histories in the article, as it's helpful in proving prior work in cases of unattributed copies on other websites that claim copyrights. - BilCat (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, any ideas for a name for the article? I was thinking of United States military aircraft national insignia. - BilCat (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Good name and feel free to work on it in my sandbox - I can rename it once you feel it is ready for the move.NiD.29 (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, that is probably a good choice of names for it. - Ahunt (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I have moved it into main article space as United States military aircraft national insignia after updating some of the roundels - it still needs references galore though.NiD.29 (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Multiple Specifications[edit]

It has been a general policy to have only one set of specifications for aircraft articles, I reverted a change by User:Tom355uk to the Hawker Siddeley Trident article but was reverted back with the explanation that the Boeing 727 has such an arrangement. A not unreasonable stance but does anybody know why some airliners have this variant comparison exemption as Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content clearly has Each article should only have one set of specifications and any model differences should be described in the variants or development sections. Multiple sets of specifications are to be avoided.. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe this comes under the heading of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and does not make the 727 article correct. Perhaps the 727 needs to be brought in line with standards? ScrpIronIV 19:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it just means the 727 article needs cleaning up! This is not Janes. - Ahunt (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
But a lot of airliner articles have similar spec tables. I don't think the table is a problem. But listing uncommon specs and obscure data is another nattermatter. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
"Natter" is right! - Ahunt (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Only on this board would that make sense... ScrpIronIV 19:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Jeff on this. Most of our airline articles use specs tables, and that's a tacit consensus. For airliners, this seems to work best, so it's probably time to update the Page Content guidelines. I say this a a user who abhors tables, and can't edit them unless they arev extremely simple. - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The 'one set of specs' format should be followed, having existing articles with multiple sets can give editors 'leverage' to add more specs to articles that were following the guideline (this relates to the standard specs template). The airliner tables are a different case, where they came from I don't know. They result in an unencyclopaedic 'sea of numbers' when many variants are listed, the specs differences between them are very minor in most cases. A big disadvantage of the table format with many variants listed is the ridiculously small space left for a three-view image in the normal location. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Nimbus227, the tables ought to go and be replaced with the consensus single set of specs of one representative model. - Ahunt (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
To keep everyone happy there is room for 'variant' articles where the 'seas of numbers' could be added infinitum by those who like to do this, leaving the primary article clear and concise. Looking at the Trident article just now the table is the width of the page leaving no room at all for a three-view, Rolls Royce Spey (redirect) is linked four times (overlinking), not the best way to do it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
There is another less obvious problem ongoing in the specs sections, the header will say 'Specifications (ACME Thrunger Mk 1) and squeezed into the parameter lines will be snippets of info from another variant (Wingspan: 25 ft (Thrunger Mk V 26 ft etc)). Confusing and most likely doesn't come from the single source cited for the variant that is supposed to be described. While different standards exist edit wars will never end. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The thing with airliners is that there are usually several variants of which none is preeminent, they usually have different lengths and seating, etc. Airliners generally aren't armed, and so don't have to have armament listed, which can take up a lot of specs space for armed aircraft. Also, though not stated explicitly, it is strongly implied that only one variant's data should be listed in the specs. This is often not followed, and it would be difficult to keep the specs for other airliner variants from being repeatedly added, such as for lengths and seating. This whole issue has been discussed several times in the past by the Aircraft Project, but in the end no consensus was ever reached to remove the specs tables from the airliner articles. One problem I see with the tables is that there is no standard table, so there is a wide variety of layouts for such tables. I think our time would be better spent producing a standard table with a limited set of parameters, and permitting it to be used on airliner articles, perhaps in addition to a standard specs template. - - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Finding the representative variant for each type could be discussed on each article's talk page, clinically it could be chosen by the most airframes produced. How many variants do we list? I expect you guys know the 'Observers' series of pocket-sized aircraft books? The layout is specs on the left page for one variant and a three-view on the right page, any major variant specs differences are highlighted in the short text section that precedes the specs. What you want to know in a nutshell and they are not encyclopaedias, they are specialist aircraft publications. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, this issue has come up. It's one that has rankled with me for years, but unfortunately, it seems to do so in the opposite way from some of the rest of you. So I'm going to rant a bit.

Frankly, I strongly disagree with the present policy that an aircraft article should only have one set of specs of a "representative version". I understand the need to protect articles from obsessive nuts who would probably go so far as to add bolt torque values, but this approach has its own problems. Many ordinary readers of our aircraft articles might expect them to include reasonably complete specs for any widely used versions. I certainly do, and I've always been happy that the airliner articles have been willing to buck the general policy to do so.

When an aircraft has been produced in several different versions, each of which has been built in quantity, how do you decide which of these is "representative" and should be chosen for the specs? Looking at the 727, if you decide to cover only the -200 (the most numerous version), you still leave out the -100, about one-third of the aircraft built, whose difference from the -200 (being 15% shorter and carrying a third fewer passengers) was not minor. It's not like the -200 replaced all the -100s or anything. And that's a relatively simple case. The problem appears more acute for the Trident, for which no single version clearly dominated. And what about the B-17, which changed markedly from the early versions to the late ones? There are plenty of other examples. For the 737, well, there are now nine versions, all significant, with more in development. Similar problems come up with engines. What about the Wright Cyclone R-1820? That went through a number of generations, with its power more than doubling toward the end.

In my view, the "pick one" approach is wrong and misleading in such cases. It's better to have a clearly laid out table of specifications for all the major versions produced. Yes, this means adding more detail. But people come to Wikipedia expecting a decent level of detail (ideally, well-sourced, reliable detail). The question is how to structure it clearly.

The current specifications section layout with an optional three-view alongside is largely wasted empty space. It seems best suited to simple articles on aircraft which are poorly known, were built in very small numbers, or which existed in only one significant version. There's no particular reason why the section's contents should be restricted merely to force in a three-view which doesn't necessarily need to go there anyway. (Why not place the three-view with other images?)

I agree that a certain amount of standardization, such as a standard specs table layout, is warranted. And yes, maybe it would be best to have the detailed specs table placed in its own article, with a summary in the main article. I just think the info should be made available somehow.

Also, I can't agree with the argument, "this is an encyclopedia, not Jane's". Let's face it, traditional encyclopedias don't cover individual aircraft at all, nor many of the other topics covered by Wikipedia. If you follow that argument to its conclusion, all but a tiny fraction of the site's content would be stripped clean--no detailed articles on minor battles, tiny British villages, long-forgotten computer games, minor variants in American accents, odd magical-girl anime series, obscure organic compounds, soups of eastern Europe, peculiar amphibians of the Permian period, Apple iPhone hardware details, esoteric issues in mathematics, etc. Wikipedia is a vast gathering of specialist information from different specialties, though structured in a way to benefit the general reader. The whole Aircraft project is Jane's, in effect, though perhaps with more emphasis on history and less on details of construction and such. I can't see any substantive difference between the coverage of this project and that of the many aircraft compendium books produced, including Jane's. Indeed, this project seems to set a higher standard; many such books have specifications tables which are full of errors and omissions or which are poorly laid out.

Thanks for tolerating my rant. :) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The one-specs restriction predates my time on WP, and I've been here 9 years. When I started editing, mostly in aircraft articles, WPAIR had just converted to using a separate infobox and specs section, so it's possible that the restriction was a carry over from using a combined infobox/specsbox, where only one variant would be feasible. It might be time to reconsider the need for the restriction, especially for airliner articles.- BilCat (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I am of a similar opinion in allowing multiple specs - and have noticed that aircraft pages in other languages often have multiple specifications without undue issues. As it stands now, the only solution is to have an article on each major subtype, which isn't always feasible, especially for the less well documented types, which are often the ones that need it. I can see a problem with limiting the number of specifications when there are a lot of similar variants or if there is little other than specifications but this shouldn't come up too often.
There are pages that cover a wide range of types - Ford Trimotor for instance where there is a number of actual types covered that are not closely related but which haven't been split - having multiple specs could be what it takes to split the page. Waco Custom Cabin series covers 6 types that being light general aviation do not have much in the development or operational use sections and so don't have the bulk to cover 6 pages, but underwent considerable development that can best be seen through a comparison of the specs.
Other types such as the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress underwent major redesigns and it would be useful to see how early variants compared with later ones, especially when using those to compare it to other types that may be contemporary with only the early, or the late versions. The Petlyakov Pe-8 for instance should only be compared to the early models, while the Piaggio P.108 should be compared to the later versions.
The argument used above about "multiple sets can give editors 'leverage' to add more specs to articles that were following the guideline (this relates to the standard specs template)." is circular as if we change the guidelines it isn't an issue - if the specs are very similar then the need to be duplicated can be reviewed on a case by case basis.NiD.29 (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I took a look at some encyclopedic type aircraft books, and they all stick to one spec per entry. Where multiple specs are included they break out versions into separate entries, e.g. the major Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants. This means in practice that if a variant is notable enough to get its own article then it gets its own spec, and if it isn't then it doesn't. This pretty much works for me and unless and until we can find a viable way to keep multiple fanboy specs under control I would hate to loosen the bonds. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that in the vast majority of cases a single (representative) specification is all that is required for the prime article on an aircraft. Where there are differences between variants that warrant comparison (eg the length/seating/engines for airliners, engine/bombload in a military plane) then a table in the article (positioned suitably) is sensible. And that table should be constructed according to the articles needs: with brevity and readability the target. On a side note - I've never thought of the aircraft project as Jane's in its coverage but closer to Flight. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
For the majority of cases I agree, however there are a few that should have multiple specs and the door needs to be left open, on a case by case basis. No need for specs for every F-5 variant, but designs that underwent considerable development between early and late production versions, and airliners should not be a major problem.NiD.29 (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I concur. In the case of the F-5, a rationale could be made for splitting off the F-5E/F/Ns to their own article, but to this point we've kept them together. The AH-1 Cobra and SuperCobras (2 separate articles already) are similar cases with early/late variant specs. - BilCat (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Kawanishi E5K1[edit]

I recently created Kawanishi E5K but it has been nominated for deletion by User:Petebutt on the grounds it is a variant of the Yokosuka E5Y. It would have perhaps be more sensible to discuss if a redirect or otherwise is needed but there appears to be some confusion as both types used the Navy Type 90-3 Reconnaissance Seaplane designation but dont appear to be exactly the same. Dont have a problem with a redirect (either way) but has anybody got reliable sources on these types to work out whats going on, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The E5K does seem to be a variant of the E5Y according to Mikesh and Abe's Japanese Aircraft 1910–1941 (p137 and 278-9)Nigel Ish (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Try Mikesh, Robert; Shorzoe Abe (1990). Japanese Aircraft 1910–1941. London: Putnam. ISBN 978-0-85177-840-2. . Both E5Y and E5K had a common progenitor in the Yokosuka Navy Type 14-2 Reconnaissance Seaplane. The E5K / Type G was merely a variant of the Yokosuka Type 90-3 Reconnaissance Seaplane. They are to all intents and purposes the same aircraft, with minor modifications and differring engines. As with many Yokosuka designs, the Type 90-3 Reconnaissance Seaplane was sub-contracted out for production.--Petebutt (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that the E5Y article doesnt have any inline references and probably could do with more work, both articles claim 20 built, did they build twenty of each or is it really only 20 total? Dont have a problem with a redirect but it cant be done with an active AfD, perhaps you could consider withdrawing that Pete. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
According to Mikesh and Abe, there appears to have been 17 E5Ks, and "about 20 E5Ys" although this may include the E5Ks. The source isn't crystal clear. It isn't helped that the prototypes were named Type 14-2, which would suggest more of a link to the Yokosuka E1Y (or Type 14 Reconnaissance Seaplane) than actually existed.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if I can withdraw the nom, but a consensus for merge in the discussion would realise the desired outcome. More than a little confusing at first, but from Mikesh; the total built seems to be 20; no direct relation to the Navy Type 14 Reconnaissance Seaplane; the Navy Type 14-2 Reconnaissance Seaplane was a clean sheet design; a variety of engines were used; 17 production aircraft built by Kawanishi. (N.B. when you use the long designation you must write it in full or it is meaningless!!!)--Petebutt (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Template:DC-9 New template has just appeared on DC-9s, does it add any value and if it does will they spread to other types? MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, templates like that add a lot of article clutter. It should be converted into a simple navbox instead. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Concur that it's better as a navbox footer, though I really don't see the need for it in the first place. Note that the user is fairly new. - BilCat (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Every new element that gets tossed in the pot adds to the complexity of maintenance and requires new sets of rules and standards. For the sake of project maintenance I would recommend against opening the door to this. ScrpIronIV 17:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I've removed them from the airliner articles, with a note in the edit summary to see this discussion. In some cases, the sidebar was pushing other photos way down the page, and causing squeezing issues with left-aligned photos. A footer is definetely preferable. - BilCat (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It does not need an image if it is placed right under Infobox. It should be fine as a footer or navbox (I'm not sure of the difference). Naming it something like "Template:DC-9 family" would be better, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, navboxes can be placed anywhere n an article. This navbox is designed as a sidebar, while the ones at the bottom of an article are footers. - BilCat (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As the creator of the template, I have now removed this sidebar from all pages where it is used. I have now tagged this template for speedy deletion G7.Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The template has been deleted. Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The consensus here was basically to convert it to a footer navbox to go at the bottom of the page. Would that be satisfactory? - BilCat (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

737 variants[edit]

The end of the Variants section of the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 article currently states:

For later DC-9 variants and derivatives, see McDonnell Douglas MD-80, McDonnell Douglas MD-90, and Boeing 717.

Whereas on the Boeing 737 article, information about the newer generation variants of the 737 (737-300 to 737-900) is also mentioned, and information is duplicated on two separate articles.

Would it be a good idea to consolidate all information about the variants on their respective articles? That is, the Boeing 737 article would only contain information about the -100 and -200, plus small sections for each of the generations, directing readers to these articles with {{main}} hatnotes. The Boeing 737 Classic article would contain information about the -300, -400 and -500 variants, the Boeing 737 Next Generation article containing information about the -600, -700, -800 and -900 variants, and the Boeing 737 MAX article containing information about the MAX.

Note that information in the Accidents and incidents, Aircraft on display and Specifications sections of the Boeing 737 article mainly consists of specifications of the main 737. My proposal would reduce the hassle of updating two articles at the same time. Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The Boeing 737 article covers all the 737 variants. The accidents section does summarize all the variants, but only lists the -100 and -200 accident entries to prevent repeat of the entries for the later variants. The specifications do cover all the variants in a summary manner. It would be better start a separate article on the original variants than rescope the main 737 article, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
An IP has tried to create Boeing 737 Original, but it's been reverted twice already. It's probably best to discuss a split on the 737 talk page first. I don't see the need for another 737 article at this point. - BilCat (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I should explain: these sections should be removed from the Boeing 737 article, because they are redundant to the same sections in the Boeing 737 Classic and Boeing 737 Next Generation articles:

  • 737-300
  • 737-400
  • 737-500
  • 737-600
  • 737-700
  • 737-800
  • 737-900
  • Boeing Business Jet

-sovereign°sentinel 06:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The Boeing 737 is the main article and can repeat some info covered in other articles per WP:Summary style. So removing all repeated info as you suggest is not appropriate. Boeing Business Jet covers 737, 747, 777 and other business jet versions. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • With that said, the 737 Classic and NG variant sections did not really follow Summary style. So I cut of the details. Boeing 737 should be in better shape in the respect now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Piper J-3 Cub[edit]

Needs some eyes, possible edit war brewing over one user wanting to overpopulate the page with images of British "Flitfires". I commented on that persons userpage already, as have others.NiD.29 (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The section is completely over the top, and needs to be trimmed right back to avoid WP:UNDUE issues. Also, many of the photos that are being edit warred over are of dubious copyright status. I have nominated two for deletion on Commons. Nigel Ish (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I've trimmed the section back and removed the excess photos. Of course, now the Flitfire article needs serious work.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
And the editor has reverted the changes to the article - claiming I am "not longer an active user"! and that they have initiated a "talk" somewhere although it is unclear where.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Nid.29, that's not quite right. What I stated was that Nigel Ish, who was heavily editing my work, was no longer be an active user, as he claimed on his user page. I was confused by the contradiction of Nigel Ish's words versus his actions. However, that point is now moot to me.

Anyway, I got on here tonight because I have changed my mind about being a member of the WikiProject Aircraft. Please let me know how to un-join this group. It's much too Gestapo-ish for me. Thank you.

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There are rules, as there are in all communities, which are necessary to facilitate collaboration, and yes it does take time to understand them all. It isn't Gestapo-ish in the slightest. I think everyone runs afoul of some of them from time to time, myself included, but all rules are created and maintained by consensus - and not by popularity or by fiat but by strength of argument. If there is a divergence of opinion, we discuss both the reasons for the current rules, and consider changing those rules, if adequate reasonable arguments are put forward that support those changes. Some rules have been put in place to ensure the usefulness of the pages (having a lot of images has been shown to impair accessibility and readibility), some to ensure all positions are treated with due weight so some minority argument cannot be confused as a common argument (balance - if there are several positions they all need to be included), and the words that are chosen need to be neutral so as to not seem to be taking a position. Also, as a part of this, excessive details on one specific use are discouraged unless there is something to counteract it - a 1000 words on the flitfire might be appropriate if the whole article already has 25,000 words but not if the article only has 2000 words. The key is balance. FWIW there is no need to unsubscribe from anything but you can un-watch any pages you have made changes to, including this one, and can turn email notifications off in the settings. I hope eventually you'll change your mind about leaving. As for whether someone is an active user - it isn't relevant as editors are allowed to take breaks any time they feel like it, however if you had looked at his list of edits, you would have seen he was very much active.NiD.29 (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Accessibility of lists[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Accessibility of lists for discssion of an accessibility concern. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)