Jump to content

User talk:BilCat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pats1 (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 25 May 2007 (→Tennessee Titans). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NOTE: Most comments will be archived about once a month. Critical comments are welcome, but those containing highly-offensive or profane material will be deleted immediately, and the overall content ignored.

Also, talk to me like a normal person, and don't just quote Wiki guidelines to me. (Policies are different). I consider it rude, and will likely just delete your comments, and ignore the point, as guidleines can be ignored.

If you want me to take your opinions and edits seriously, you ought to Register!

I will most likely respond to your comments here, rather than on your talk page. Also, if you are discussing an article, I would prefer to use that article's talk page. Please limit this page to discussions not related to any particular article, those covering a wide range of articles/topics, or personal comments.

If you wish to keep a matter confidential, you may use the "E-mail" feature (now activated!). I will respond in kind unless otherwise requested.

Thanks.

AND PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS!!!!

Title Case May Be Used in Headings on This Page

Me, myself, and I use serial commas.

Comments

E/F RCS

Thanks for entertaining my badgering today. I think the addition of the reference makes a big difference. Cheers,--Jonashart 20:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It took me a while to type up the info, but it explains it the best I've ever read, and I felt it addressed all the issues you raised. I'd love to find an online source with similar info, but this will do for now. I hold people's feet to the fire myself on having sources, so I can't fault you for that. Truth and verifiability are two different things, and the standard for WIki is Verifiability! - BillCJ 20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point there. Well, I certainly appreciate your effort. It's exactly what was needed in this case. Thanks again.--Jonashart 20:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris

What a sad day, eh? It's moved me off my duff to resume admin coaching...Chris has left too big of a hole in the project. A sad day, indeed. Akradecki 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, sure is. But it's going to keep happening, I'm afraid, unless the Wiki leadership makes changes, or undergoes some changes itself. When you forgot what the real product is, things like this will happen. Wikipedia has a low public opinion for a reason, and things like this will never help to improve that. Wikipedia may be the top dog now, but someday someone is going to do it better, with a better focus on the product itself rather than protecting "human evolution", users' egos, or friends of powerful admins/commitee members. MS's IE was unbeatable for years, but now Firefox and the like have made great strides in undercutting it. It took awhile there, and it may take awhile here, but if Wikipedia does not reform, something new will take its place.
Good luck on the admin coaching. There are a few other admins in WP:AIR, but no one that are consistently available the way Chris was, at least that I know of. I'll have to check my talk page and history to see if there's another admin who's helped me on project issues that we might be able to call on. User:Natalie Erin‎ is an admin who is very tough on vandals, and can probably help out with those kinds of problems, but I don't think she has any aviation knowledge or interest. I'll let you know, anyway. - BillCJ 23:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lecture series?

WTF? :-)— BQZip01 — talk 04:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was just a snide comment aimed at User talk:Hughstew, who has been leaving all those really-long posts on the Viet Nam War on your page. I thought you would get it, but I forgot you were an Aggie ;) - BillCJ 04:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing template

Hi Bill, sorry it took so long to get back to you on the Boeing military aircraft template. Looks like you got all the issues ironed out, though...it looks quite good! Akradecki 01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, and thanks for looking them over. Might be a good thing you weren't involved, as I'd hate to see someone accuse you of being in a clique ;) - BillCJ 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F6F Hellcat

You know, for a middle-school student<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F6F_Hellcat&diff=prev&oldid=127302965>, that wasn't too bad. IMHO Bzuk 1:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Aviation articles formatting talk

I've prepared some proposals for page content and started discussion at WikiProject Aircraft talk. I'll be happy to hear your comments. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 08:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YF-17 Cobra's origins

BillCJ, picture this scenario, the P-51H wing design is used as the basis of the Ryan/North American Navion as well as the F-82 and FJ Fury wings. Sure there wasn't many parts of the P-51 in the eventual P-86 straight-wing prototype but it was in a direct lineage. In contrast, the YF-17 has no clear direct lineage as the Northrop design studies in 1970 that were the progenitor of the P-530 proposal proposed as the company's submission to the LWF competition that had also been contested by the Lockheed CL-1200. There are superficial similarities in the P-530 design to the F-5, the family of the P-610 (twin-engine derivative of the follow-up P-600 design). The P-610 actually spawned the later Model 401 (YF-17) and one of the contributing factors to its loss in the General Dynamimcs Model 401 (later YF-16)/Northrop Model 401 (YF-17) face-off was that the gestation of the Northrop entry was prolonged due to the "somewhat greater complexity" ( Miller 1986, p. 3.) of the design, belying the belief that the F-5 was used as a model. No parts from the F-5 ever emerged in the P-530 or ultimately in the YF-17 which BYW was never known as the "Cobra" that name was given to the P-530 design study. I think I would like to write a small article on the P-530 as it is of some interest to me. By-the-bye, I love (maybe that's too strong) like our exchanges. :-} IMHO Bzuk 3:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

I understand your point on the P-51/F-86, and am aware of the lineage. THe T-2 Buckeye is aslo based on the FJ-1 Fury to some extent, and the T-28 Trojan also shares some basic structures (including wing) with the Mustang.
As to the F-5/YF-17, the designs originated as improvements to the F-5E, enlarging the wing, LERXes, engines, in several stages that lead directly to the YF-17. THe relationship is there, even if there are know interchangable parts (Other than the pilot). Is it one step? NO, but I believe it's close enough to list under "developed from". And I have plenty of sources to back up the relationship as direct besides the one listed. Anyway, it's not worth an edit war over, and it is in the "related " field under Related content. I just like to state my case in full.
As to the "Cobra" name, I agree with you that it only applied to the P-530. However, there is a source with the YF-17 name, and so we'd need a better one to the contrary to change it, and I don't have one. "Cobra" whould not have been an official name for a production F-17 anyway as there already was a Cobra (the AH-1 family) in service at that time.
Btw, I love a good argument (someitmes the bad ones too!), esp one that can remain somewhat civil. I was raised in Jamaica, so I'm used to having LOUD arguments. It's definitley been interesting, but we seem to have a good working relationship. I ever needed your assistance on a matter, I trust you enough to ask, esp if it had to do with Canada. - BillCJ 04:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing Vertol template

I don't know if you've seen the recent news item about Columbia Helicopters buying the TC for the Boeing-Vertol 234 and 107, but they've announced that they'll be applying for a production certificate as well. I'll be adding this info to the articles shortly, as well as starting one on CH, but even though Boeing won't be the mfr of these two models, I'm wondering if we should still include them in the template since currently they are mentioned in the CH-46 and -47 articles, and since Boeing was the developer and original mfr. Thoughts? Akradecki 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd include them, as the template is covering all the related Piaseki/Vertol/BV/BH models. Feel free to add them. I didn't leave out the civil numvbers on purpose, just forgot them! - BillCJ 17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


against Wiki guidelines?

Hi BillCJ, would you please direct me to the Wiki guidelines concerning your recent deletion? [1] Regards Necessary Evil 20:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was a revert, not deletion.
Anyhoo, try:
  1. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scientific style: For units of measure, use SI units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so (for example, Hubble’s constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1). For other articles, Imperial, U.S. customary, or metric units may be used as the main units of measurement.
  2. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement: For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.
  3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content guidelines specifically allows for either imperial- or metric-first measurements in the Specifications templates.
In summary, as articles on US aircraft are not scientific articles, therefore they can use US measurements first. Hope that clears up the issue for you. If you disagree with the WP:MOS guidelines, please take up the issue there. Article pages are not the place to push metric-first/-only agendas. - BillCJ 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. US laws: "Metric Conversion Act of 1975", "Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988", "Savings in Construction Act of 1996", and "Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004" stated the metric system as the preferred system of weights and measures for US trade and commerce and directed federal agencies to convert to the metric system. Ronald Reagan didn't felt comfortable with the metric system, so he advocated keeping inches, yards, feet, miles, and pounds. A lot of old people didn't felt comfortable with new things like computers monitoring aircraft, patients etc. but it's only a transition. United States is converting to the metric system, so why are you fighting it? The longer it takes to convert, more accidents will occur; (Air Canada Flight 143 & Mars Climate Orbiter). Let the new generations grow up in a world without two sets of measurements. The US automobile industry, US aircraft industry and other are already metric.
When I was an air mechanic, I repaired Anglo-French Lynx helicopters. The airframe had mm nuts and the Rolls-Royce engines had inch nuts. The interface, between the engine and airframe was a mix, so I should carry two sets of tools. It was like if Britain introduced right hand driving tomorrow, but in the beginning only for trucks, later also for small cars!!
So the Wiki guidelines isn't steadfast inch-first. Your revert was an interpretation, like my contribution. Your revert, wasn't more correct then mine. I think that your revert was a waist of wikiresources. I rest my case Necessary Evil 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I butt in Bill? The subject is a US aircraft. US aircraft use US measurements. You can quote all the idealistic laws that you want, but the efforts to take the US to the metric system failed miserably. The US, in general, is not converting. What's more, the US system is still the international aviation standard (when's the last time you saw an altimeter in meters, or an airspeed indicator in kilometers??). Boeing is not building aircraft with metric system fasteners, ect. Bottom line, is that it's a US aircraft, with US measurements in all its publications, and US measurements are the most appropriate for an article on such an aircraft. Akradecki 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. I've worked in Aerospace for over 10 years. All flight & ground hardware drawings I've dealt with has been in US Customary units. We use US version of ASME dimensioning and tolerancing standard. Metric fasteners are more expensive than US ones, btw. Oh, I did use Spacelab pallet drawings done by BAe that were metric. I'd like to see the US start moving to a dual system. -Fnlayson 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the consensus of WP:Aircraft is summed up by ericg on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Specification_figures, "The primary units are always those which the manufacturer used. In the case of European aircraft like Airbus products, metric comes first." --Born2flie 01:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Crane pic

Bill, here's another one that I'd totally forgotten about. It's a brand new crane on display at the 2005 HAI HeliExpo. The long boom in the front is a water canon, specifically designed to fight high-rise fires. Akradecki 23:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alan. Any idea who the operator was/is? Spanish military, government, or private? - BillCJ 00:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On closer look, those look like Italian roundels on the fuselage. The pod underneath is in Italian, looks like "Corpo Forestale Dello Stato", which Google translates as "State Forestry Corps". The text of the S-64 page states it's being used by the Italian Forest Service, so that's probably on of theirs. - BillCJ 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

Gotta run for a while. Will pop in when I can. Watch Helicopter, Svetovid will probably be in there to give the Slovak inventor credit for everything in the whole article. --Born2flie 08:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, BillCJ! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Alright. Let me just please ask that you leave me to my own edit summaries. Of course, I will always try to avoid controversial edit summaries if possible and elaborate on my edits in as much depth as I possibly can. However, due to the restricted space we are given for the edit summaries, I can't guarantee any more than that. --Ksy92003 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depecitions of the A-Team

Thanks for your comments. You said " I usually spend most of my editing trying to keep pop-culture items OUT of articles" and this is exactly the reason for these kinds of entries. Some editors loath in popular culture sections, some love them and most are indifferent. I have been through a lot of other entries (Robert E. Howard, Houdini, Lovercraft, etc.) suggesting similar entries because there nearly almost always some kind of crisis point reached where the section is too big for the entry so people try and trim them back, others remove them altogether, others add them back in and expand them and the whole thing devolves into a messy edit war. As they are often worthy of mention the solution is extracting the lot to a separate entry. The important thing is to have a consensus on the standrd of proof and to keep an eye on things. It should go swimmingly from there ;) (Emperor 15:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Notability is a difficult one. What I try and stick to is {{WP:V]] which can be applied more strictly here. Some people throw in a book and it isn't clear from the mention or the entry what the link is. I also remove things like books which are not just redlinks but so are the authors. This isn't really making a commentary on their notability or not but that we just can't prove anything. While a lot of the entries I edit concern the person as a fictional character there can be other cultureal references that sail close to the wind. A passing mention in an episode of some TV series seems so minor as to not be worthy of inclusion - the good thing is that usually applying WP:V makes this difficult to sneak through. Quite a few of these basically need to be sorted out through aggreement by the various editors. If there are removals I'd say people put it on the talk page so if it is more important than it first seems it can be updated and added back. This also works for other entries (List of steampunk works can be tricky as people's definitions vary and sometimes and entry doesn't clarify matters but you can usually work through things on the talk page).
A working group might be a way forward. We've tended to thrash out ways of doing things that work for all but the most sceptical editors and having them clearly laid out would alay people's concerns and help editors new to the area. The important thing is to have a general consensus which is in accord with general guidelines which the majority of editors stick to. (Emperor 16:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In case you don't know

They nominated International airings of The A-Team for deletion as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International airings of The A-Team. Needless to say I'm pulling for both this and "Cultural effects..." to be kept. Right there with ya. →EdGl 20:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your reprimand regarding my correction of American spelling of certain words. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was an international website and concluded that therefore surely the Queens English should be the default spelling for the entire site. This is the spelling used by the majority of the English speaking World, of which the Americas is only a small part.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TristanTzara (talk • contribs)

Continued debate regarding spelling

I think it a pity that you feel forced to issue me with a threat. I am doing what I feel is the right thing to do by attempting to make the spelling on this site more democratic. I am saddened by this blatant show of American imperialism. I think you seriously need to review your policy and open your minds to other possibilities. In the meantime I should be grateful if you would enlighten me as to exactly what "action" might be taken against me should I persevere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TristanTzara (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Finding the "source" language for spelling

What you are advocating (using different spellings from different parts of the World depending on the nature of the article) can only lead to chaos. What I am suggesting, and I would refer you here to an earlier message of mine, is the use of one spelling throughout. This, I believe, should be the "source" spelling. In the case of English this is The Queens English. If we were dealing with Arabic, which has many variations throughout the Middle East and North Africa, I would suggest using the Classical Arabic as found in the Koran. Likewise if this was a discussion on German I would suggest we use the Hoch Deutch or High German. I'm sure my point is clear. This approach leads, in the end, to greater democracy because everyone knows where they stand. I understand that you do not influence directly the policies of this site and so I do expect you to act on my suggestions in any way, but as you did raise the subject with me in the first place I thought it right that we discuss it. It also seems to me to be an interesting topic for debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TristanTzara (talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

CH-46

I've expanded this page as part of adding material on Columbia's usage, which will also include an article on CH. A look-over would be appreciated! Akradecki 19:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been watching it, and it looks good so far. There was another editor talking about making an article for CH, but I don't remeber who right off. I'll try to check around. MIght be about time to get one created for it, esp given the acquisition of the 107 and 234 types certificates. - BillCJ 19:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a copy of the rather extensive history that Vertical did, so will start building over in one of my Sandboxes. Akradecki 21:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail from Erickson

Good day Sir, as you know we've had quite the interesting day in regards to the Erickson Aircrane Article. When I got home from work I had the following e-mail in my home account:

Hello! Thank you so much for referencing Elvis to "Swordfish". He was definitely used in the film for static ground shots, as the bottom picture of our press release shows, but it is N154AC (Georgia Peach) that was filmed in the air and is the aircrane you see in all the aerial shots -- you can see the flying crane is an E-model (single-wheeled landing gear), and Elvis is an F-model (double-wheeled), so while both can be credited in the movie, Georgia Peach should get top billing since she did all the heavy lifting. ^_~ We are currently crafting a press release we will add to our site that details our fleet and each crane's notable accomplishments so we will have proper references to link to soon. I just wanted to let you know that once that is up, I will be adding back Georgia Peach's contribution to "Swordfish". Thank you again for your efforts to make sure Erickson's Wikipedia entry is accurate. Best Regards,Deborah Grieves Media Services Erickson Air-Crane

I am curious of your thoughts an any advice you may have to give on it. It just kind of seemed weird on the timing. The e-mail was sent at 1753 in the afternoon here in Oregon which was quite a bit after our discussion with Dennis. Thanks, Jeff --Trashbag 01:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might add it was sent via Wikipedia e-mail --Trashbag 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK. Sounds like Dennis had a talk with Deborah, and she's being rpoactive on the issue. I've recommended a couple of times that they list their aircraft on their own site, which is not only appropriate, but good marketing for them. It seems they are going to do this now. I think they were kinda using Wiki as a place for info on their aircraft rather than making their own page on their site, but their own site is a much better way to do it, WP:COI and WP:ATTR isues aside. Now they can add pics, info, whatever to their stisfaction. I think we may have lit a fire under someone at Erickson due to some of the employee complaints today. I suspect someone there has probably wanted to do a page on the copters for awhile, but someone aboce them said No. So now that they see a reason to post there own info, they are going to do it. I don't foresee a problem linking to that kind of page, as we often link to manufacturer and operator pages. Boeing has quite an extensive site on their airliners, and we link to those.
As long as the information they give is verifiable in outside sources, we can use it here. For example, we have sources that the S-64E has one wheel on each main gear, while the S-64F has two. It can probably be confirmed from pics and film footage that Elvis is an E-model, and Georgia Peach an F. Hence that info is accurate. If we can find a verifiable source that the 2 copters were in the movie, such as IMDB, then I would have no problem using that info from their email. - BillCJ 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of envious...I wish Northrop-Grumman would be as accommodating to Wikipedian's needs! Here's a question I'd like to bring up here first to test the waters...is there really a need for a separate article on Elvis the helicopter? Akradecki 12:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ALso, I've been thinking we might add some info on Erickson's helicopters in films to the S-64 page in a "Popular culture" section, with sources of cource. In addition, the info on the the CN tower and Freedom statue could be put on the Elvis helicopter page for the time being. - BillCJ 01:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, works for me. I just didn't know what Wikipedia's standards are (I'm relatively new here) if Erickson published things just for Wikipedia's purposes. I think a pop culture field would be great. --Trashbag 14:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actully, they'd be publishing things for themsleves. THey have their own site, and they should use it to promote themselves. Up iuntil now, the Wiki article has been used to post the list of Erickson helicopters, which is contrary to WP:COI. We're not telling them what to do, just suggesting that their own site is more appropriate, as Wikipedia is only for verifiable, outside sources. - BillCJ 14:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing RC-135

I just reverted a highly speculative, potentially very controversial conspiracy theory addition to this article, and it probably won't be the last we hear from this IP. I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for most of the day for some FAA paperwork trainging (groan!), so would you mind keeping an eye open there? Thanks! Akradecki 12:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing before I go...in regards to this as well, would you mind having a look at Korean Air Flight 007 and comment on my split idea at the bottom of its talk page? Thanks. Akradecki 12:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Aircraft

Hi there. You recently reverted my edit to the above mentioned infobox, when my edit was actually reverting edits that had broken the infobox on all the pages that use it. I'm sure it wasn't intentional but your edit actually changed it back to the wrong broken version. Ben W Bell talk 18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry, noticed that you've also noticed. Ignore me. Ben W Bell talk 18:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. I didn't pay attention when I refreshed the page, and revertd your reversion by mistake. Sorry! - BillCJ 18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Core Values" section on United States Air Force

Hello. If you have any opinion, would you please leave some feedback on my comment at Talk:United States Air Force#Core Values Section? Thank you. johnpseudo 19:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WZ-10

hi Bill,

Understand that you removed one paragraph from the WZ-10 article on the China Medium Helicopter program. I inserted the para there because it was reported in JDW as well as the reference Janes Helicopter and Aviation Week.

JDW Reference:

  • Robert Hewson, "China’s Z-10 helicopter built on Western expertise", Jane’s Defence Weekly, date posted 6 April 2005.

Janes Helicopter Market & Systems

If this provide sufficient reference, do let me know before I revert the changes.

Koxinga CDF 05:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you incluse your sources in the material, I don't have a problem with it being there. But it must have sources to be included, especially when it contains that much speculation. I do understand that due to the secrecy of the PRC government, we don't have much concrete information on the helicopter, and that's why it's even more importnat that the material be attributable to a verifiable source. If you aren't sure how to properly cite/footnote the material, just add everything you have there with the item, and I or someone else can format it it for you. - BillCJ 17:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I understand where you are coming from.

Koxinga CDF 12:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardier_Canadair_Regional_Jet

I have answered in User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Bombardier_Canadair_Regional_Jet. Thanks. Anthony Appleyard 07:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communication

I am not sure if this is the way to contact you. I want to discuss posting photos etc., and than k you for your kind comments. W. T. Larkins 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yes, this is the best way to contact me. I can answer here or on your page, whichever is easiest for you, bit you don't have to answer on both pages. I'm not an expert on posting photos, but I will try to help you as best as I can. If I don't have the answer, I can probably find someone who can aswer it. - BillCJ 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HH-60G ref fix

Bill, Thank you for fixing the AF Almanac reference. I see how you did that, and is much cleaner than the standard referencing... learn something new every day. For those article sections that do not use the template, how does one do the same method? LanceBarber 19:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Ref field in the Specs template is nice. To my knowledge, there's not a way to cite whole sections. We just have to cite at the end of the sentence of first mention. You might scan through WP:CITE and see if they have something else there. - BillCJ 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check out my new subsection, created my own sectional ref line, do in a pinch. LanceBarber 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That'll work for now. THere are other places where that would work too, but I can't remember where they are! Oh well, when I do find them, I'll forget where this one is! - BillCJ 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created a few section refs, I remember where, and I'll fix them. The WP:CITE uses a "detail|abc123" template that can be used with a little mod I think. I'll sandbox it. (Got some new articles started off-line, but then get side tracked on changes and fixes fron one Watchlist... it certainly snowballs.) Hope all is well with you, I'll get back to you later, thanks. LanceBarber 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related content (B-47)

BillCJ, I'm assuming that you're not familiar with the page guidelines for WikiProject Aircraft, which state:

Related development: are those that this aircraft were developed from, or which were developed from it. Many aircraft will be stand-alone developments with no relatives, in which case this line should not be used. eg - For the P-51 Mustang, "Related development" would include at least the F-82 Twin Mustang, CAC Kangaroo, Cavalier Mustang and Piper Enforcer.

Cheers --Rlandmann 12:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm very familiar with the guidelines. But as I said in the edit summary, we now interpret those guidelines very loosely to reflect any connection at all. These include grandaughter and great-grandaughter designs, and designs utilizing only certian features, such as swept wings and podded engines. You may disagree with that practice, but alot has happened while you were gone. I think you'll find that hundreds of articles now follow that pattern. For example, check out Boeing 2707 listed under B-1 Lancer because of its shared swept-wing heritage (a bit a of stretch, I admit, but I already tried deleting it! See the talk page). Also as I said, now that we have the "developed from" and "variants" fields in the Infobox, we show more leeway in the Releted contents field. Maybe it's time we proposed modifying the guidelines to reflect the consensus by usage of the Project, rather than engaging in revert wars article by article to conform to the letter of the guidelines.
IMHO, "Related development" in and of itself, is vague. We're not talking C-130 and MC-130 here, we are talking about related development. As such, it casts a wide net and the aforementioned topics SHOULD be included. see my comments on the B-47 talk page — BQZip01 — talk 17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grand-daughter and great-granddaughter designs were always OK - consider the relationships in the P-51 example; or the Me-163 article that was suggested as a model at the time.
It's never good practice to justify ignoring a guideline just because you've seen some other article(s) ignore it as well. If you really believe that the guideline no longer reflects consensus, then build consensus and change it.
FWIW, I don't see "hundreds" of articles that use this line in the way that you're suggesting; I've seen a few. Furthermore, I think that adding aircraft here with no shared design heritage suggests a stronger relationship than really exists, since the "related content" field is quite prominent, relative to the body text of an article. If the B-47's podded engines were a feature that proved influential on later designs, then the article should say so (and it does). --Rlandmann 20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) PS - please don't patronise me with "alot has happened while you were gone". I find that really condescending.[reply]
Don't worry, we will be building a consensus to change to the guidelines to reflect current practices, and I have no doubt that it will pass. If it does not change, however, I will abide by the consensus from that point on. I'm sorry if you feel my remarks were patronizing and condescending, but not for saying them. Based on my observations of your behavior since your return, they are accurrate. - BillCJ 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, as an active WP:AIR editor since Sept. '06 with nearly 10,000 edits under his belt, who also stated WP:AIR is only that strict with the infobox's "developed from" and "variants" fields; we show much more leeway in Related content section now (showing a complete awareness of the guidelines), I certainly find the comment I'm assuming that you're not familiar with the page guidelines for WikiProject Aircraft to also be patronizing and condescending. As you probably disagree with my assessment, maybe we can get on the real issues here, and stop worrying about hurt feelings. - BillCJ 21:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you felt that way. I'm aware of your activity and was only assuming good faith. I'm also aware that the relevant section of the guidelines is buried a fair way down, and I really couldn't be sure that you were familiar with it (the quote you reference above is far from definitive on that point). From my own experience, I know that I'm regularly surprised as hell by various precedents and guidelines that I see people citing on a range of subjects here. The body of lore/law on Wikipedia is vast and not always obvious or easily accessed. So honestly, there was no malice or sarcasm intended.

I'm not here to trade blows with you, BillCJ - I just wanted you to see that what I understood from your remarks was an opinion that I couldn't possibly be disagreeing for any intelligent reason but only because I was somehow incapable of adapting to the changes over the last two years. It may surprise you to learn how genuinely happy and excited I am about the progress of WikiProject Aircraft in that time (the reason I returned in fact).

And likewise, have no fear, if consensus builds that a guideline no longer reflects current practice, then I'm all for changing it. In my experience, this is the only effective way to implement policy on Wikipedia (which is why I believe that the raft of proposals currently being discussed would be doomed to failure if they ever were adopted - guidelines only work if they're descriptive of what's already happening, not prescriptive as to what an editor or group of editors thinks should be the case). The only concern is that what people cite as "common practice" really is that; we're all human and we all have blindspots and make observational selections.

Anyway, I've rambled on quite enough. I think that we both know that you and I share a common purpose here, even if our understanding of that may vary at times! --Rlandmann 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC) BTW - love where you're going with the Hughes 300, but, as you know, I'm a "splitter".[reply]

Points take, and my apologies for being contentious.
As to the Hughes 300, that's the page I had originally set up back in Dec while working on the MD 500 and MD Helicopters pages. At that time, the Schweizer 300 page had only scant coverage of the Hughes 269/300 history, so I created the Hughes 300 page to cover that. Born2flie convinced me to merge the info into the Schweizer page after long negotiations, the result of which was the unorthodox Schweizer (Hughes) 300 page name. However, I don't think the 269C/300C are different enough to be separate from the Schweizers, whic I determined today trying to set up the page. I'm consider retooling it to cover the TH-55 only, and the 269A/B models, probably at TH-55 Osage, while leaving the 269C/300Cs on the Schweizer page. While need an admin to move tho ;)
On a side point, I placed the 330/333 models on the 300 page at that time because we really didn't have enough content to sustain a separate page, but I wanted to see those models get some coverage anyway. I don't know if we have any usable pics as yet, but we may have enough info to sustain a separate article for the 330/300 now. I am impressed by your work on the Dauphin 1 page coverage, and will be supporting keeping it separate at this point. I'm also in the process of splitting off the S-61R models from the H-3 Sea King page, with the valued help of a couple of other editors, at User:BillCJ/Test Article 3. So I guess some might call me a "spltter" too! - BillCJ 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback on the Dauphin "1". I had noted that out of the various parties who had commented on the proposed merge that you were the only one who bothered following up. The irony of it all is that it's a type that I'm not really even interested in; but I believe that a separate article fits better with the general schema for how Wikipedia's aircraft content is covered and I wanted to make sure that if it was going to be merged back, it wasn't going to be because of those who simply felt that there wasn't enough material to justify a separate article (an argument that I strongly disagree with in a not-paper encyclopedia; when I click on an entry in the List of aircraft or in a category, that's the aircraft I want to know about and I don't want to have to pick the information out of an article that lumps several types together... but I digress!)

FWIW, as far as the Hughes 300 family goes, I'd agree with the breakdown of the material that I think you're suggesting: one page for the 269/TH-55, another for the 269C/300, and a third for the 330/333. One day soon when I'm feeling energetic, I'll be looking to split the Agusta A109 from the A119, since (as you've pointed out elsewhere) there's certainly enough of a difference there to warrant it and because I think that's a better fit as well. --Rlandmann 08:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I joined Wiki in Aug, there was little coverage of lesser-known helicopter types, with some manufacturers ignored altogether. Born2flie has put together the Rotorcraft Task Force to try to address those deficiencies. For my part, I started a number of articles on helicpteres, and even put together the MD Helicopters article, to try to broaden the coverage. I placed the A 119 with the A 109 as a temporary measure, just as I did with 330/333.
Just a note on Born2flie's philosophy on articles: He usally loooks at them with a mind to achieving Featured article status, another goal of the Task Force. Smaller articles with skimpy coverage have less of a chance of achieving FA status, and this is what's behind his keeping some models together on one page. My threshold is usually content, but I don't mind creating a stub for a aircraft with no relatives. Part of that is my perfectionist tendencies, as I don't like creating stubby articles with hadly any content (one reason I keep putting of making the Boeing-Vertol XCH-62). Anyway, I'm doing more splitting than merging now, but I'm always aware of wht I call the "deletionist-/AFD-nazis", who spend all them time ridding WIki of what they consider non-notable articles. Anyway, enough of MY rambling. I look forward to working with you here to improve Wiki aircraft coverage. - BillCJ 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I'm wary of the AFD-nazis as well, especially because I spend so much of my time contributing off-the-beaten track types. There's bound to come a day (maybe not far off) when one of them is going to list an obscure aircraft as "not notable" and WP:AIR will need to come up with a formal notability guideline for aircraft. --Rlandmann 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

Bill, I've removed photo because there is very little text in that section. This image exceeded line generated by the next header very strong. Piotr Mikołajski 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted the same explanation on F/A-18E/F Super Hornet talk page. Piotr Mikołajski 18:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AgustaWestland EH101

Great job in cleaning up the AgustaWestland EH101 page. I tried a bit a few minutes before you did, but you did a much better job. Cheers!--RobNS 01:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been meaning to separate out the history and operators sections, and your edits reminded me of that. I was't sure how you'd take it, so I'm glad you like it! - BillCJ 01:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bill, I've made serious cleanup and copied some info from "Operational history" to "Operators" section where it fits better. Could you make some cleanup and copy edit redundant information? Thanks, Piotr Mikołajski 07:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F-16 Viper

Hello, I was the one who said F-16 was not refered to as "Viper". I saw your change to the USAF page and did a search. Sure enough, its called a Viper. I spent lots of years on F-16's and never heard of this term. My bad. Guess pilots call it "Viper" and mechanics call it "Lawn Dart". Hopefully you know why we call it that... the single engine, poops out and it hits the ground like a lawn dart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.53.130.219 (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Talk:Panavia Tornado edit

As well as your many substantive contributions and vandalism reverts, thanks for providing me with a laugh! Mark83 00:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! When I saw your summary, I was afraid I was in for a rebuke! Sometimes I go too far in my attempts to be funny, so I'm glad you liked it. - BillCJ 00:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AgustaWestland AW119

Hi Bill - I split this article off today, then realised when I looked at "What links here" that I may have inadvertently stolen your thunder. If so - sorry! Could you please cast your eye over it in any case? Most of my print references are too old to include anything really useful on this type. Cheers --Rlandmann 04:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, you just saved me alot of legwork finding text and references! I found the new page just before you posted you message (like about 3 minutes! It looks good so far, and if there's anything I can add from my sandbox page, I will. I assume the AW119Ke specs are enough, but I have the original if we want to add them. (Yes, I know the guidelines say only one set of specs per article, but esp. when we double up models - not the case here, but in A109 before split - we bend the guidelines just a bit now!) :) (Actually, Ididn't have the A119 specs. Oops!) - BillCJ 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Orbitalcraft I and removal of AfD tags by the creator, I'm not trying to trod on your perview as an admin, just trying to back you up so they know you aren't the only one on their case on this. I'll back off if you ask me too. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Commander toad

It looks like you were right about User:Commander toad being the same as User:Sirhan Kennedy... mere moments after you'd left me the message about checking for a pattern, I saw that this user had attempted to recreate the Orbitalcraft I article. I blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet (and protected the article), so I assume that any unblock will be met with a checkuser to confirm this. The contributions seem to speak for themselves though... but we'll see. --Kinu t/c 05:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-29 article

The previous deletion was because the author had blanked the article -- that wouldn't apply to the new one. Thanks, NawlinWiki 17:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just put some notes onto Nawlin's Talk page about Dave. LanceBarber 18:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OUCH! Chris just put the formal nomination for deletion in on new recreated Survivors page!! LanceBarber 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good! I'm stepping back from most of the Dave stuff for the sake of my sanity, but glad to see others stepping in. - BillCJ 18:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dave hasn't gotten the clue yet, I even did an initial cleaned up his B-47 Survivors page, to show him how to lead-in an article, back direct to main article, footnote/refs, add cateogories, etc. Ya think he'd learn and recreate the 29 survivors with the necessary details... including keeping the already referenced history on 10 29's, notable or not. None of us like seeing our tedious work go to waste. You've seen me learn, make mistakes, fix, back-off, move-ahead, and take charge. New editors are now communicating with me, like I did initially with you. There is a lot of learning, value, and hard work maintaining articles, and personal satisfaction, too... regardless of pain-in-the-necks and vandalism. Hopefully, we (you, me, Piotr, others) along with Chris and Nawlin, can come up with some WikiAv/Hist guidelines for survivors, variants, and operators break-out articles from the main one. (Listening now to F-16s circling above my house and doing touch and go's at Buckley!! Sounds effects are great, B-29s would be awesome!!!) LanceBarber 19:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, have you seen his disclaimer [here? Total lack of understanding of what citing sources is all about. He has added links on placenames, and calls that sourcing!
Guidelines for breakout articles would be good. We might want to include the ever-controversial pop-culture spin-offs too. I could do without any pop-culture references at all, but as long as they are allowed, long sections should be allowed to be spu-off without the AfD nazis jumping on them for merely existing. the Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture‎ services the four Harriar variants, and I live in fear of it being discovered by the AfD nazis. Most of what is there is notable. I delete "Solid metal gear #" just about every day now, and other non-notables too. Anyway, it would be worht considering anyway. - BillCJ 19:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Sea 129/EC-121

Cool. I wrote that late last night (I work all night) and admittedly got a little pressed for time. You did a very nice job reorganiziung the information I added--usually my specialty! I will be finishing the Air Force section tonight and at that point the article goes into the polishing stage. Thanx for the assistance and the kind words.--Buckboard 04:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. - BillCJ 05:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-Team - fiction header

No offense, but "no clear distinction"? It says so right there in the first sentence of the article. Kusonaga 06:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then obviously I'm not talking about the first sentence, but the rest of the article. Not all of the articles are a problem, but some sections do need work. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) carefully, as it may have some pointer you can apply. - BillCJ 06:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New helos today

Just spotted these - want to do some cleanup? Robinson R66 and Boeing-Vertol XCH-62 --Rlandmann 22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defineitly, thanks. I have a sandbox on the XCH-62, so I'll see what I can move over. THe R-66 may be a bit premature, but oh well, I thinbk it can stay for now. At least they got the names right, so we know there not sockpuppets of a certain over-aggressive user ;) - BillCJ 22:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm someone beat me to the R66. What isn't mentioned, and what I'll be adding when I have time, is that the RR300 is being specifically designed for use in the R-66, although now Enstrom is talking about building a helo around it as well. The R-66 was announced with a lot of fanfare at Heliexpo, and has received a lot of press coverage in the latest issues of the various industry mags. AKRadecki 22:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does the 300 compare to the 250? Is it a replacement or complement? Any idea? - BillCJ 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Visually, it looks like it is an evolution in design. I have an article on it at work, will try to find more. AKRadecki 23:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed Robinson R-66 to Robinson R66 per Robinson's pattern on the R22 and R44 on their web site. - BillCJ 23:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Titans

The consensus among NFL team pages has been to leave all the "fansite" links off the pages, as they are simply endless and no more than advertisements. Pats1 02:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware the Titans Radio Network was a fansite. I don't know about the other one. Please remember, most vandals don't leave edit summaries, so it's helpful if legitimate edits use them, makes life easier for ediots editors who watch pages for vandalism. - BillCJ 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the Redskins go, I have yet to do the NFC - I only did the AFC yesterday. As far as leaving edit summaries, I was making multiple edits on a mass scale (16 articles), so I had to leave them out in the interest of time. As far as the Titans Radio Network goes, I'll have to look into that specific site. Pats1 10:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Redskins' links for you (I was going to do them today already), and added the appropriate template (Template:Linkfarm) to the links section - the same template that was on the Broncos' (or Steelers, forgot) and Redskins page, mind you. Also take a look at the See Also section for that template's page. Pats1 10:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The TItans Radio Network is the official site for the network, not a fan site. Most of the NFL teams' radio networks don't seem to have sites (I know the Falcons don't). - BillCJ 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's fine. Just remove all of the other fansite ones and then remove the linkfarm template. Pats1 19:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scout.com is a bit sketchy, too. Most of them are independently operated and maintained. Pats1 23:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilCat&oldid=133523499"