Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 18

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-July | Aug-Dec ] — 2016  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2017  [ Jan-Dec ]
2018  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2019  [ Jan-May | June–Dec ] — 2020  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2021-2023  [ Jan-June 21 | June 21-March 23 | March 23-Nov 23 ]

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

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

---

Proposed changes

Boeing 787 has the "See also" as the main heading for the section, and does not use the template, as the airlistboxTemplate:Aviation lists is still a part of it. Do we want to use the template if do the split? I like it because it gives some order to what can became a fairly haphazard section. I don't like the current MOS postion of the "See also" being above the References, as a long reference section puts far too much space between the internal and external links and navboxes. For this reason, I'd rather stick with what we have, and because 3000-4000 articles is a LOT to have to change. - BillCJ (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - modify the template and re-use it. I'd also lose the link to Portal:Aviation until and unless it becomes more actively maintained. The beauty of a template, of course, is that when that time comes it would be trivial to re-implement it. I agree with you about the position of the "See also" section, but if we're going to make a change to avoid arguments, it makes no sense to replace one argument with another. As for changing 3,000-4,000 articles, that now seems like less work than continuing the debates. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd just assume make some basic changes now and do a ton of robotic changes than to discuss the MoS conflicts in the GA and FA reviews, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RL, you're right about having to re-fight the battle every few months - I finally gave up trying to save Legitimate pop-culture articles for the same reason. It seems too many deletionists translate "popular culture" as "delete me NOW", to heck with the actual merits of the articles. Now we just have to delete COD4 mentions from the AC-130 page every day, but at least the AFD-nazis stay away! (Of course they stay away - cruft in main articles is OK with them!) Anyway, I also forgot about using bots, so that should help out alot. - BillCJ (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like the options are

1. Remove aviation list template and Aviation portal from Air content template,
2. Reformat Air content template more like a Navbox,
3. Manual formatting,
4. Major overhaul, or
5. ??

Any other ideas to fix this? -Fnlayson (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the default option is of course do nothing. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yea. That looks like the leader. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • To put it another way, then: I've just created a clone of Template:Aircontent (Template:Aircontent2) and updated it along the lines that BillCJ suggested back in October. As a demo, this is what the Me 163 article would look like if the suggestion were implemented. To replicate this en masse, the steps would be:
    1. Amend the aircontent template: trivially easy
    2. Add a separate aviation lists template to every article: Easy work for a bot
    3. Change all "Related content" headers to "See also": Easy work for a bot
    4. Move the "See also" header and its corresponding aircontent parameters to the customary position on the page: This is where the real work is, since I don't think a bot could be trusted to do this reliably across the whole project.
    5. Create new navboxes to replace any designation sequences: Also a lot of work, but this is something that would probably be worth doing anyway. The priority would be the long US, RLM and major manufacturer sequences. Note that the sequence information would still be contained in the article code (rendered invisible) for now to assist with the process.

I guess I'm asking whether anyone here is opposed to putting this in motion? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tho of course I prefer the "no changes" option, what you have outlined looks good to me. As to Template:Aircontent2, is there a reason the sub-headings are smaller than in the regular template? On moving the "See also" header and its corresponding aircontent parameters to the customary position on the page, I'd go ahead and have a bot do it. Most of the pages are watched by someone, and they can sort out the problems if any occur. I have 3,400 pages in my watchlist, an a majority of them are aircraft pages, so I'm trying to opt out of helping - I intend to check most of the ones I've watchlisted.

I'd sugesst we let this sit a week, and try to make sure those who need to know about know. If their are some objections, we can run a poll. - BillCJ (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, what do we call the "see also" sub-heading"? I'd like to keep the section as it is good for links that aren't aircraft or lists. "Related links" perhaps? Or maybe "See also also"? - BillCJ (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Since the Related content name won't be used, Related links seems fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Text-size: Goof on my part - fixed now (related to implementing a workaround to the same problem that's caused breakage in section editing in recent times).

Agree that we should wait a week before doing anything.

I wondered the same thing about "See also". I'd have liked to just move these links to the top of the section without a subheading, but that causes a technical problem of its own. For now, I've labelled it "Other". To me, "Related links" sounds a little redundant in a section headed "See also"; but I'm open to input here! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just worked out how to do what I originally had in mind. I've inserted a couple of links into the "See also" field of our dummy Me 163 article. These now display at the top of the "See also" section without any label. What you y'all think? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Nice work. Looks good to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Shuffle backed to the left - no problem with the proposal although the sequence does not show on the example. Could we still keep the sequence plus 2 and minus 2 even the US miltary sequences, or at least create a separate linked list for the US Mil designations? MilborneOne (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of the proposal is to replace the sequence in every instance with a navbox, so none of this functionality will be lost - in fact, it'll be augmented - not just three forward and three back, but jump to anywhere in the sequence from anywhere else. Is there an advantage to the current way of handling sequences that you can see? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just concerned that if the full sequences are listed they could become large and over bearing. I presume that most people use the sequence to step through one at a time and would really not use it to go much further they would perhaps look for a more comprehensive list. But that is just my thoughts I could be wrong!! and other people use it differently. MilborneOne (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I think you're right. I've now included navboxes in the demo article for other Messerschmitt aircraft and for the (enormous) RLM sequence. I should be able to tweak these to include "previous" and "next" parameters. As an aside, another advantage of the whole-sequence approach is for those manufacturer sequences where we presently have some large gaps. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the horizontal listing for the sub-headings just the way you do them, or are you trying to return to the original style? I prefer the verticle lists, as in the other "See also" sections, but if we get a consensus to go horizontally, I can adapt. - BillCJ (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, whether the links are laid out horizontally or vertically is controlled by what's contained in the article, not the template; so in articles (and I know I've seen some) where "Comparable aircraft" and "Related development" are already laid out vertically, that's how they would appear after the template update. I agree that if we're moving in this direction, we should standardise on vertical links for any new articles, but in old articles (like the Me 163) that would need to be cleaned up on an article-by-article basis. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure if this is the right place (I get confused) but the new template list of US military aircraft up to 1962 has the F-117 included and also the F-111 although I'm not sure on the timescale for this fella, probably just needs tweaking. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The F-111 was probably designated pre-1962. But the F-117 certainly was not. That was based on its callsign. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Text dump alert

We have a new user/IP dumping unsourced text into the FMA IA 63 Pampa article. I tried reverting with requests for sources in the edit summary, but was reverted myself. I was about to warn the user, but he switched from a new ID to an IP, and just kept dumping in more. Help! I have no desire to keep reverting him all night, and then have some admin block me for revert warring. My gut tells me this is a company person of some kind, as all the info is for Lockheed's new AT-63 version, but it could just be a fanboy/girl too. - BillCJ (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help from DF and Ahunt. I've got a non-WIki project I have put off for far too long, and wasn't able to put time into this. - BillCJ (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Dual Freq really identified where it all came from! Hopefully the note on the article talk page will result in more useful info being posted in the future. - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the article and within ten seconds, I also identified the original site as "defence-aerospace.com." The copyviols were crudely plagiarized. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

New article

B-3 Long Range Strike Platform has been created. This seems to be based mostly on the GlobalSecurity.org page on the B-3, which to my knowledge is not an official designation in any way. The 2018 Bomber appears to be the same (or a replacement) project, but with later info. The user has been active since Oct, but has a history of copyvios and blocks. That isn't the case here, as the only text is the short lead. If he is finally learning to be productive, I don't want to scare him off. What do we do about it? I'm not diplomatic enough to want to approach him first on this. - BillCJ (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Update: It's being AFDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-3 Long Range Strike Platform. - BillCJ (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Category renaming

For some reason I had a "blonde moment" a couple of years back when naming Category:Sports planes and its children, which should of course be Category:Sports aircraft to (a) be consistent with all our other categories, and (b) acknowledge rotorcraft and lighter-than-air machines. I just thought I'd ask here first before taking it to WP:CFD. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Aircraft" will cover any hybrids too. That looks like the place to handle it. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agree it should be aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Aircraft

Are fictional aircraft considered part of WikiProject Aircraft? Several fictional aircraft have popped into the Unassessed List (i.e ADF-01 Falken and ADFX-01 Morgan). I'd appreciate a policy clarification. Carl M. Anglesea (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, they are, tho there is overlap with whatever media the aircraft is from. For example, Airwolf (helicopter) is part of WP:AIR and WP:TV. - BillCJ (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC) (late signature)

I think we've always unofficially adopted them, but never endeavoured to make them conform to any of the norms that we generally apply to articles about real aircraft. I think the last thing that any of us want is for any of these things to be mistaken for real machines! --Rlandmann (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a bit of a minefield to me! Certainly some entertaining articles in that category and perhaps some real aircraft that should not be categorised as fictional. The Tallmantz Phoenix P-1 was a real aircraft for instance and flew as it states in the article even if only one was built. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually think that Tallmantz Phoenix P-1 should not be categorised as a Fictional aircraft, as it it actually flew, perhaps something different like Aircraft built for films/tv which would also be Airwolf which actually flew. Then the fictional aircraft cat could be just that - made up unreal pretend aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Slightly different cases, as I see it: The Tallmantz Phoenix P-1 was a real aircraft and should be categorised as such (I've removed the "fictional" category and categorised it as our catch-all "special-purpose"). The Airwolf article contains details of both the converted Bell 222 and the fictional aircraft portrayed on TV - I've therefore left the "fictional" category in place, but added "special-purpose". --Rlandmann (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Airwolf (helicopter) was somewhat of an experiment. Another user on the Airwolf talk page wanted to create on for the helicopter, so I tried to get him started in the right direction. I never saw him on again, so I really don't know what he had in mind. We had a lot of Airwolf info being added to the 222 page, and the TV show page had a section of the real 222, so I thought it best to combine the info on one new page. I just copied the Bell 222 page, and converted it. AIrwolf is a popular subject, but I was really surprised with the interest in the Airwolf (helicopter) page. It seems to have worked well. To be fair, both Jeff and Alan helped out a lot on getting it together, and have helped watcht the page since we put it up. I think it works as a hybrid, but I welcome any advice for improving it. Oh, if anyone is ever in the Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge TN area, there's and Airwolf mock-up in the helicopter museum there, and some pics of it would be nice. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

- BillCJ (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vickers-Armstrongs

I just stumbled on the Vickers-Armstrongs article and felt that the name was not right i.e. it should not have an 's' on the end. Another editor has noticed this and left his explanation on the Talk:Vickers-Armstrongs page. I notice that it has cropped up in the edit history and has been redirected from 'Vickers-Armstrong', it just does not sound right to me. If someone can confirm that this is the correct company name then perhaps a note in the article text would help avoid any future confusion. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

All the reference books I have have show the bit of the company involved in building aircraft as Vickers-Armstrongs (Aircraft) Limited. MilborneOne (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) It appears that the current article name is correct according to this reference from BAE Systems (successor of the parent company): [1]

It still sounds wrong to me for some reason but it seems the case is closed! Nimbus227 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to prolong the closed discussion but it was interesting that a wiki mirror site with old content was used as reference for the wrong spelling! MilborneOne (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just goes to show you can't believe what you read in the papers, I worked on the VC10 for five years, a fine Vickers-Armstrong(s)? product, anyway this herror does not cause me to fall from mushrooms, :-) Nimbus227 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Aircontent

Hey all - It's been a week now, so with no further objections made here, I've updated Template:Aircontent along the lines previously discussed. I've also updated Template:Aerostart and the Page Content Guidelines to reflect the changes, and am arranging for a bot to split the Aircontent template on existing pages into "Aircontent" and "Aviation lists". Until that's done, it's probably best not to do this split manually on any pages, to avoid having the same template load twice. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that now all the sequences have disappeared.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Only until we replace them with the appropriate navboxes! I've already done all the RLM designations. --Rlandmann (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Back from a wiki break, I noticed the bot has messed up numerous changes with various locations of external links, commons, portal, see also's, and sequences. Not sure where the problem(s) have been created, but the new "See also... former Releated content... External links" orientation looks terrible. I suggest revert all the bot changes, and re-write the bot to take care of all the various subtle differences of all the av articles. I bet the general public/wiki users are scratching their heads wonder what has happened. LanceBarber (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• It'd be easier to get the bot to rearrange the sections as they are. There will still be some things to clean-up after the bot is done though. It can't cover everything. I've done partial fixes in several articles so far. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot made a real mess out of the nav box locations in many articles - plastering them all over the place. It was very inconsistent between articles, some are okay, but about 90% were wrong. I have manually cleaned up a huge pile of them on my watch list, so I think that reverting the bot and starting again is probably not as useful at this stage as a manual clean-up. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Has the bot completed its work, or should we wait to finish the corrections? I just want to be clear on that before I start the clean-up on my watchlist, since some work was to be left to the bot. - BillCJ (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't done anything since 0541Z, which was about 15 hours ago - hopefully it is done! - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The main problem that people are seeing is the result of when templates such as {{wwi-air}} or {{Lockheed}} were nested into the "see also" parameter of the {{Aircontent}} template. All that needs to be done is to cut the nested template out of "See also" and place it at the foot of the article with the other navboxes. The bot's owner is preparing a list of all articles so affected, but it's really not that many in the big scheme of things, and it's easily and quickly fixed. This can be done at any time - whether the bot has processed the article or not - so if you see any examples, please go ahead and correct them.

All the bot did was add an {{aviation lists}} navbox immediately following any {{aircontent}} section that it found; it wasn't supposed to move anything, and I haven't seen any examples where it has - if someone knows of any, please let me know straight away.

In my own checking of articles, I've found a few where a navbox has been inserted in the middle of an article. This is because the article's {{aircontent}} section was located there in the first place (possibly by someone trying to make it conform to the customary position of the "See also" section). Again, this is not the bot's fault; and it should be manually corrected wherever it's encountered.

Any other problems or questions, again, please let me know, with specific examples if possible. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed that the bot is done. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

Is it considered ok to take text verbatim from the body of an article to create or expand a lead section or do the same words need to be rearranged? I am thinking in particular of the F-104 Starfighter lead as it was commented that it is too short, it only needs one more para perhaps. I am trying to get the article bulletproof for another crack at GA. Nimbus227 (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Taking text from the body of the article would be a good start. I don't think it'd be a good idea for the text to stay the same. WP:LEAD only says it summarizes the rest of the article though. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, just wanted to check. It should'nt be too difficult to rearrange some words. I am also plodding through the references, my understanding is that only possible contentious sentences or claims need to be individually refd, I would have thought one ref per para should be enough for GA. I think you have done a lot of this recently for the 747 article. Nimbus227 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. It helps to have more comprehensive references, such as books and reports. The 747 article uses many web pages (press releases & articles), which resulted in like 100+ references. I'll see if I can help you with some copy editting. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Great, I have enough books on this thing to sink a ship, the other Italian references can be replaced in time. I am still not happy that the GA reviewer did not spend much time on it and was not particularly constructive, it did not bother me that it failed but the apparent way that it failed did. Onwards and upwards! Nimbus227 (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tu-95 clean-up

After a few months of relative peace, the Tupolev Tu-95 page is once again being subject to unsourced additions on Cold War-era intercepts. Actually, the user has restored previously-deleted info this time. I've reverted the user twice, and warned him for adding unsourced info. If he reverts again, I will warn him for 3RR, but I won't revert. In addition, the whole article could use some reorganization and rewriting. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I just had a quick look and you are right of course. I spotted a reverted unsourced story a few edits back about getting the crew to crawl back and forth, possibly true but the last words cracked me up, 'These stories are unconfirmed'! I hate to sound snobby or elitist but there are people working here because they know about aircraft through years of working with them and others who only read about them on the net. 'Missile with a man in it' a quick fact from me' was a recent one we saw....yes, thanks very much! It must get frustrating here and I have only just started my voyage. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it on "watch" too. - Ahunt (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

IAMI F/B-44 (Iranian Lion)

Just wondering if anyone here knows of any reliable source as to whether this programme exists? The only things I can turn up online are various forum posts. Unless we can find something reliable, this will have to go. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, unless more solid evidence can be found, the article should be removed. I doubt that there is enough solid evidence out there to support an article, however the author should be given the benefit of the doubt and a search for more credible sources should be conducted. Spot87 (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with RL that this needs to go. He gave the author the benefit of the doubt by not deleting the article outright, as he can do as an admin. In addition, it is up to the contributor to provide reliable sources, and by even discussing this first, and conducting his own serarch prior to posting here, he has given the benefit again. Rather than a CSD, as is allowed in this case, let's just AFD it, and let it run the full week, with no speedies. - BillCJ (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I'd give the contributor (and anyone here) a day or so, and then PROD it. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the first reference, which links to the Iran Defence forum, has a knowledgeably written article by "AryanShah" (from another web forum) about Iranian fighter programs. It should be noted that this writer himself expresses doubt that it exists. It has always been hard to pin down accurate specifics about Iranian fighter programs, so it's impossible to say whether there is or is not such a program or even whether it's in development or just on paper. At this point, I think there is too little reliable information to work with for a Wikipedia article. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Burl’s Aircraft LLC

I would like to have some editors have a look at this new article and see what they think. Is it a legitimate avaition article, or just a "non-notable" attempt to promote a company? I have had a quick run through it and put some tags up, but I think it needs an objective consensus review. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like an advertising vehicle for a parts supplier to me, linking to the company website. The suspension system mentioned in the external links seems to be from another company and is effectively another advert. Not particularly notable. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a non-notable engineering company, I have removed a lot a cats that were not applicable. It makes an iffy statement about acquiring the design of the Aeronca Sedan it could claim notability if it had successfully made and sold any of these aircraft, or one of the inventions was in some way notable. But their is little evidence of that in the article.MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It does appear that Mr Burl Rogers does hold the Aeronca Sedan type certificate and is actually trying to sell it from a short search. It should be somewhere on the FAA website but I could not find it easily. All holding the type certificate means really is that his company can approve modifications in conjunction with the FAA and that documentation like flight manuals are kept up to date as I understand it. The reference to this in the Sedan article has just been put in on creation of this one. Seems to hinge around notability and advertising. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks non-notable to me. They'll need some third-party sources to prove otherwise... --Rlandmann (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Burl's does down the Sedan TC (and apparently have been shopping it around). I'll admit that I'm of two minds on notability as it regards aviation (or maybe it's in regard to notability generally). On the one hand, I'm swayed by the argument that just owning the type certificate only goes so far toward notability, and certainly doesn't constitute "substantial depth of coverage." On the other hand—and yes, I know it's not a matter appropriate for debate at this location—I personally value completeness; part of me desperately wishes we did have an article on the Hockaday Comet.

When I wrote the initial Sedan article, I included a reference to Burls (without a link), certainly thinking it was worth mentioning there. A little history of the Sedan situation is that Burl's does support the design and produce significant sub-assemblies (though no complete aircraft); this support is indeed a benefit to owners who weren't receiving any factory support, so far as I know, pretty much since Aeronca ceased production. (I can search my personal library to see how much of this I can document from sources, but it's not going to happen this week.) —SkipperPilot (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter?

I was wondering if a project newsletter would be useful. With the template upheaval for instance, some editors are trying to alter the navboxes in individual articles which seems to be causing problems, could also help for collaboration and article reviews. Would need someone to take it on of course, any thoughts? Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea, and it's something that would address the problem I think that even this question demonstrates; how most project members here are unaware of the potential ways to communicate and interact with the entire project. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Outreach, which has the framework setup for a newsletter. When I set it up the only one I was able to produce was October 2007. The boilerplate for the newsletter is here. If you want to take over, I'll be glad to help contribute to it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, I knew I had seen something. Only six members subscribed? It looks like it is all there ready to use. I would love to take it on but I am really not very good with wiki formatting (mess up all the time) and am a bit busy working (roll on retirement). All the project members are listed (in a category?) are'nt they? Is it possible to send a newsletter without them signing up? Nimbus227 (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the policy on that sort of thing, if its considered spam or what, but there are a number of bots around that do newsletter deliveries. Several projects use User:Anibot for automated deliveries. The military history project puts a link to the newsleter on everyones talk page, but only delivers the entire thing to those who specifically request it. See:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Outreach#Delivery_options. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for UH-1 Iroquois now open

The peer review for UH-1 Iroquois is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Boeing 737 now open

The peer review for Boeing 737 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Quit a very good article - worked on the PEX 737-100's (ex-Lufthansa) and remembered all the data plates were in German - the 737-100 all had electric folding airstairs on the aft left rear entry. The 737-200 had an option for a folding stair unit on the fwd left door (simular to the DC-9 series). the 737-100 used JT8D-7 engines not -1's. The 100&200 were fun to taxi (the JT8D spooled up faster then the CFM-56's) so a quicker machine.The first three 737-100 in PEX colors $01PE, 402PE & 403PE were all prototypes many parts were different then the rest of the series. 401PE was considered haunted by many (lights were on when no power on the aircraft - aircraft was often colder then the rest of the fleet) - aircraft was hijacked when operated by Lufthansa - when aircraft was stormed by the police, the hijackers threw a handgranad down the down the center aisle - hijackers also killed the pilot while on the ground (just an interesting sidebar) think there still might be several ex-CO 737-100's sitting in the desert - heard that several also were sold overseasDavegnz (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Boeing Yellowstone Project

The article is being questioned again at Talk:Boeing Yellowstone Project#Article should be removed. I think it's time to review all the available sources, and see if we can add better sources to what is there, in case it is AFDed in the near future. - BillCJ (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's now been PRODed. I'm considering removing it, as an AFD is more appropriate. I've removed it, as PRODs are for "uncontroversial" deletions, which this is not. - BillCJ (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I could use some admin help here. He has re-added the PROD tag twice, and I removed it once. I had left an explanation after the second addition, but apparently to no avail. I won't remove it this time, and while I could replace it with an AFD tag, I HATE doing those things! Too confusing! - BillCJ (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I could do it for you if you'd like. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boeing Yellowstone Project has been posted. I made an attempt to find citations via ProQuest. I did put what I found here. The short version of what I found is several articles that refer to the future 787 as "Yellowstone" and the over all project as 20XX. Nothing I found referred to a Project Yellowstone with Y1, Y2 or Y3. I did find one that talked about 20XX having a P2 (not Y2) aircraft code named, yellowstone, but that was the aircraft that became the 787. The author of those articles seems to be very reliable as he is an aviation focused reporter in the Seattle area. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

{{wwi-air}}

I've been encountering this template when adding navboxes to World War I-era aircraft; does anyone feel that it's particularly useful? It doesn't actually link to any specific aircraft types and doesn't seem to have been widely taken up (mostly being added by one or two contributors). I guess I'm mostly concerned about the precedent it sets for similar endeavours. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be just a loose collection of articles that are related to the First World War aviation - dont think it needs a template. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Boeing Chinook (UK variants)

A newish user has moved Boeing Chinook (UK variants) to RAF Boeing Chinook can somebody sort it out and move it back please. Not sure that a simple undo will take the talk page back. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess the user ignored the discussion on why Boeing Chinook (UK variants) was chosen as the name. I thinks the reasons given their still stand. - BillCJ (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved back. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert review

I'd like to ask a project admin or "senior editor" to review my talk page revert per this diff. I just don't think the overall tone is appropriate for a talk page, among other things such as being off-topic to some extent, but would appreciate a review. If I'm off-base, then revert me, and I won't challenge it. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:56, 16 January 2008 (GMT)

I'm sorry, O, but I've missed your point entirely. Could you be more specific? A link to a guidelines page with many points and comments tells me nothing, other than perhaps you think I should read it! I hope that's not what you meant. - BillCJ (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• The comments you removed were in no way involved with improving the article, which is mentioned on WP:Talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Fnlayson. (I was backlogged with some business to take care of.) On a related note, I have seen two isolated cases of this happening on different talk pages, but both were not nearly as serious as this. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 05:50, 16 January 2008 (GMT)

Thanks to both of you for looking at this. I haven't checked the user's other contributions as yet, but perhaps that's worth a look too. - BillCJ (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User 63.215.26.148

I've been refered here by BillCJ.

I think someone who is a more experienced Wikipedian than me, who has more knowledge of airplanes, and who has more time, should take a look at the activities of Special:Contributions/63.215.26.148 I can't really figure out what he's up to, but it doesn't look all that productive. I first noticed him on this article: Controlled flight into terrain, and then when I looked at some of his other contributions I discovered that he had taken a perfectly good redirect page and turned it into something completely different: Hansajet. I've reverted both of those articles, but I don't have either the time nor expertise to understand what he's doing or do anything about it.

Hope somebody else can figure it out and, if necessary, do something about it. --RenniePet (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Boeing Yellowstone Project

An article that you have been involved in editing, Boeing Yellowstone Project, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boeing Yellowstone Project. Thank you. - BillCJ (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my AfD nomination as I am convinced by teh evidence provided that it is real. However I do feel that Y3 needs a source. It may also need more sources in general as I had never heard of Yellowstone despite reading alot of aviation magazines. I know other people who have also never heard of it. Ill be happy to help with finding sources and cleaning the article up. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pitts Special

WP:COI 'You expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing'

I think a recent edit could be a conflict of interest. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I did some editing on that page - did that address your concerns? - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. It did not occur to me that it could be regarded as Spam, probably the best way to treat it. It was fairly blatant advertising. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help! It seemed like the easiest solution! - Ahunt (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical question about The Right Stuff article

Started in 2004, the article deals with both the film and book in the same article. A question arose recently as to splitting the article and when no one took up the cudgel, I created: User:Bzuk/Sandbox/The Right Stuff (book) and User:Bzuk/Sandbox/The Right Stuff (film). Now that the heavy lifting has been done, how can these two sandbox projects get converted into articles? (I have never done this operation before and would appreciate some assistance.) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

• The main thing is moving each article from your user article to a main one, e.g. User:Bzuk/Sandbox/The Right Stuff (book) to The Right Stuff (book). Do that with the "Move" tab at your user article. Seems like The Right Stuff should be moved to one of them or made into a disambigious page. Doesn't seem difficult to me, so ask if I left out needed details. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That was way too simple. Isn't there incense or rubbing of elf's foreheads involved? LOL, it worked! Bzuk (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

Looks good, BillZ! I'm suprised I never thought to look this one up, since it's one of my favorite (tho not necessarily the best) movies. You did a good job with the split, and it was definetly needed. I recently started the split on the "V" series, as both TV-mini-series, the the series, and the books were ALL covered in one article. Another editor has been improving those articles since the split. Anyway, this is one of those things that happens on a Wiki - people just keep adding info, and no one realizes the articles need to be split, or at least take the inititive to do so. Both articles look good! Congrats - BillCJ (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:UAV

Does anyone object to this template being moved to Template:Infobox UAV, which would be the proper title for an infobox template. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No objection - but I think we should deprecate it. There's nothing peculiar about UAVs that warrants forking the infobox for them. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'll put a TFD notice on the template and then after a few days start replacing it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft names

Big question what defines and aircraft name. Example the USAFM has going to get the NASM B-17D - AFM is more then likely to restore it as a bomber which means the aircraft will be called by its original name Ole Betsy what does this do to the name Swoose (which it was named as a transport) - same with Sho Sho Sho baby - when she was OD she had three Sho's, in NM she had only Sho's which is correct... Now if we go with what the pilot named his aircraft this screw's up the Enola Gay - Tibbits was not Enola Gay's command pilot - as group CO he could use any aircraft in his inventory and was not assigned one specific aircraft - from research, this B-29 command pilot walked up to his aircraft and asked "What the hell is an Enola Gay !"Davegnz (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Very simple - Wikipedia Naming conventions say we go with whatever name is most prevalent. If and when The Swoose becomes best-known by the name Ole Betsy, then the time will come to rename the page. Shoo Shoo Baby seems to be best-known under that name (probably because of the song), so that's fine just where it is. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

de Havilland Gipsy Moth

I have been expanding this article and working on format and references. A user on the talk page proposed to rename the article de Havilland DH.60 Moth which I think is very sensible as then all the variants of the DH.60 (Cirrus Moth, Hermes Moth etc) can be included but I see that this article name has been used for a single variant. There has been similar discussion on that article talk page. Is this a case for a merge? Many thanks. Nimbus227 (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, there is a disambiguation page De Havilland Moth, just to add to the confusion. The DH.60 is very clearly a range of aircraft even if one aircraft type was actually called just DH.60 Nimbus227 (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good candidate for a merge and expand, I say. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the De Havilland DH.60 Moth and de Havilland Gipsy Moth could be merged into de Havilland DH.60 (redirect to Moth at the moment) and leave the Moth dab page alone. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to discuss it on the talk pages or can it be done by an admin? There seems to have been a minor war in talk:de Havilland DH.60 Moth over this very issue. This would be the preferred title as they were all called 'Moth' of one kind or another. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur that de Havilland DH.60 Moth would be the best name, since it was the base type. The names of the other subtypes should be then indicated in the top infobox. Take a look at the talk pages - if there are editors who seem to have been very active on the article (especially in the recent past) it might be courteous to notify/discuss with them. The merge does not need to be discussed ahead of time if it appears to be uncontroversial (see WP:Merge). Nor does it need admin assistance. In this particular case, all you need to do is cut the content from the Gypsy Moth article and paste it into DH.60 Moth article with the edit summary merge content from [[article name]], then turn the Gypsy Moth article into a redirect. Admin help is only needed to merge page histories, usually only to fix the result of cut-and-paste moves, or a recently created duplicate article. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I have posted messages explaining the proposal on two user pages and on both article talk pages, I can't see that this is contentious at all and can only improve standards and clarity. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, everything can now be found at de Havilland DH.60 Moth. Still a lot of work to do in there but I think it is much more logical now. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work in there folks. Last comment (promise!) Some Canadian chap recently pulled me up for consistency, across the project the de Havilland type abbreviations can be seen as (for example) DH.82, D.H. 82 or DH 82. An original manual I have says D.H. 82. Most of the articles seem to follow DH.82, which is how the lists are formatted. Not bothered either way although clarifying this trivial point could avoid confusion. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Chap checking in! Us Canajans who know no better can point to a zillion variations on the terminology: DH.82, DH. 82, D.H. 82, D.H.82, D.h. 82, D.h.82, DH 82 and on and on... Although there is certainly a large number of different designations, the "standard" as such that was adopted in the United Kingdom after the Second World War was to eliminate the "period" in military designations, for example, "Mk. IX" became "Mk IX" and DH. 108 became "DH 108." Dependant on the date of publication, you will continue to see a wide variation in the so-called standard, but [2] and [3] give examples of current use. It probably matters little because the first authors/editors influenced the use of designations in the articles but if you check De Havilland Aircraft, you will notice the preponderance of "DH" designations compared to "DH." From this point on in historical research, the use of the "DH." prefix will gradually disappear, despite the efforts of some "purists" who will continue to support the older convention. Not that there is anything wrong with being a "purist" in the best Seinfeld tradition of not really taking a stand. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC).

So I guess it is what an editor feels like using on the day then! I note that Mr Stuart McKay, author of many Moth books and secretary of the DH Moth Club uses the format DH.82 in his books. No worries. Nimbus227 (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maximum reported B-17 & B-24 bomb loads

This looks unencyclopedic at best and WP:OR at worst (synthesis). Can anyone think of a reason not to AFD? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No - not convinced that the bomb load comparison of two random aircraft has any value, also agree with you about possible WP:OR. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Question of scope

Are rockets and missiles under the scope of this project? Are they under the scope of the Aviation project? There is an inactive project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry and I'm wondering if there is enough interest here to have that project re-done as a aviation project task force. To take a sampling of articles that link to {{Infobox_Missile}}, V-2 rocket and AGM-65 Maverick are currently tagged under the Military history project (just like (B-17 Flying Fortress). Perhaps is should be a shared task force with them, just like the Military aviation task force. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In the past, some missiles have received attention from WP:AIR if they (a) fly through the generation of aerodynamic lift (i.e. have wings!) or (b) if they're air-launched (i.e. an "aircraft weapon"). But I don't see a reason why a ballistic missile should necessarily fall under WP:AIR's purview. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Great resource!

Just found this - Flight magazine's online searchable archive of back issues! Looks to be a goldmine for historic types stretching all the way back to 1909. Thought it might be useful to others here too :) --Rlandmann (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! Fascinating stuff. Nimbus227 (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

D****t, there goes this saturday! :D --MoRsE (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

But can we use it (having just read the F-4 discussion)?! Nimbus227 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - Flight is a journal, the articles contained within are therefore not self-published. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuel starvation?

The specification templates I've seen for fighters (& maybe other aircraft) don't include fuel capacity. I'd suggest they should... I also notice there's some confusion if you try & add type of propellor, which attaches (in the template) to the engine, rather than coming in on a separate line. Trekphiler (talk) 11:10 & 11:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason fuel capacity is not included is probably on most types it is not notable and most reference sources do not quote it. MilborneOne (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Capacity and its relationship to endurance can vary wildly due to power settings used. Fuel capacity is generally known for more modern aircraft and it might be useful to have somewhere to put it in. There is no reason that you could not put it in the text somewhere I suppose. In many cases Flight or technical manuals would have to be used as references which are not available to everyone. Good point and maybe worth considering that we add something about fuel load in some aircraft articles. Nimbus227 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry when I said not notable it was a comment about other sources I dont have a problem with including fuel data if a concensus is gained. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MilborneOne above; there's an almost infinite range of specifications that we could include, but the ones included in the template are intended to highlight those that are the most commonly cited in general reference works. Fuel capacity isn't one of those. If the fuel capacity of a particular aircraft is notable for some reason, then it should definitely be mentioned in the article text, but there's no need to try to include it for every aircraft we cover. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Propeller question

(template question included in fuel starvation ? from above)

In the old spec template it used the term type of prop actually was for type of engine nothing to do with propellers. It is not a problem in the newer templates refer to {{aerostart}}. MilborneOne (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Military Aircraft Unit Cost

sorry, this is poorly worded but i was thinking off the top of my head (first appeared on Eurofighter page):

"i don't necessarily think there is something wrong with the unit cost of the Typhoon, or the F-22 and Rafale for that matter.... but i personally do not believe the unit cost of the 3 can be so similar... one source i find says one thing, another gives a completely different unit cost... etc etc...

therefore i propose we have a set standard for how we measure unit cost on all military jets (but in particular western ones) on wikipedia... for example, do we factor in development costs for the programme? do we include other factors such as upgrades into the unit cost? do we include infrastructure upgrades (ie if the X sells Y 50 aircraft, but also provides the infrastructure upgrades for Ys airfields and training programmes for Ys pilots too)

also export price v "actual" unit cost. for example it is possible for us to have a pretty good guess at the eurofighter's export cost buy using Al Yamamah and the Austrian export deals. but since the F-22 isn't up for export and the rafale as far has no customers we can't really guess at their export price. now, what i mean is when Ford sell me a car i doubt it is worth anywhere near what the sell it to me for, they want to make some money. i would imagine BAE Systems and the other companies involved in the other programmes, like the F-22/Rafale would provide the Eurofighter/F-22/Rafale at a much lower cost to their respective nations air forces than they would to Saudi Arabia.

using cars as a point too, i pay extra for a car with air con than a car without... would country X pay more than country Y if their aircraft had a superior air to ground capability

see what i mean, sorry if that sounded like a confusing rant but there are so many factors to consider. i think we should all agree upon a set standard of what we include in unit cost calculations now and use that from now on..."

so, basically what is the procedure for unit cost? Using the Eurofighter and F-22 as examples (why must we always compare those 2 aircraft!) because it seems odd that with BAE test pilots and other figures claiming the F-22 costs "3 times more" than the eurofighter that wikipedia lists the costs of the respective aircraft as US$137 mil and US$122 mil. seems odd that, with the development costs and the massive differences in intended procurement numbers of the 2 aircraft that the unit costs can be so similar...

so, please, can we have a solution to this. i am hoping for some help from experienced wikipedians (something i am definitely not) rather than a pointless US v Europe spam war Pratj (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're in luck! We already have a set standard for how we report unit cost: we use the basic flyaway cost. To see what this actually means, take a read of User:Askari Mark's excellent guide here. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

great. so now it is just a matter of finding better data and adding it... thanks Pratj (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Maximum reported B-17 & B-24 bomb loads

An article that you have been involved in editing, Maximum reported B-17 & B-24 bomb loads, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum reported B-17 & B-24 bomb loads. Thank you. Rlandmann (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on Conflict of Interest

Are there any guidelines concerning conflict of interest? I'm an engineer with Carter Aviation Technologies, the company that built and flew the CarterCopter. I could edit the current article on the aircraft, but wasn't sure what the policy was on that. (I apologize if this is the wrong place to put this - I imagine someone will clean it up quickly if it doesn't belong here. I'm new to Wikipedia, and there's a lot of information spread out on many pages on guidelines & what to do, and it's a bit overwhelming.) Ztkl40a (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are adding factual information that can be verified and you can add reliable sources it should not be a problem. It would be WP:COI if you tried to add information or promote the product. Others may comment but I would suggest it is OK if you stick to reliable verifiable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Basically you need to edit with a neutral biased (as we all are). Whatever you add should have public sources so it can be referenced. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for details on that. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What he said, and a very big thank-you for actually taking the time to ask first! Many others would just have jumped in regardless. Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy doesn't actually forbid someone in your position from editing an article that they're so "close" to, they are strongly discouraged and policy asks for a great deal of caution. In particular, any contributions must be balanced to present the product's failings and shortcomings as well as its strengths and benefits; and above all else, the article must not come out sounding like an advertisement! If you feel confident that you can contribute to the article in a balanced, neutral way, you're still more than welcome to go ahead and do so (and I, for one, hope that you do). In the interests of transparency, it might also be worth leaving a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Cheers! --Rlandmann (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is also appropriate for you to create a 'draft text' of your suggested corrections in a sandbox (or if the article has a slow talk page you can put your suggestions there) and allow others to review for conflict of interest / bias and then allow one of them to add the updated material to the article if they deem it appropriate and well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk • contribs)