Talk:Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / British / European Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft

I don't understand why the advantage of the deal is that there will be more jobs in Germany. Is this badly writtern or is the MOD pandering to European nations to support their industries? 217.7.209.108 11:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make any sense....Airbus, partly British or Boeing, not British at all. Given the degree of integration that has been taking place within the European defence industry (Eurofighter, Meteor, MBDA, Stormshadow, A400M etc), the Airbus solution does seem more advantages. Also, more work would be in the UK with NEW aircraft because they will need new wings (UK built) and new Engines (UK built). Matchrthom 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article - not for discussing the issue in general. However since the issue has been raised - What is the alternative? Is there an all-British, modern, large airliner in production that I haven't heard about?? Also a lot of the content of Airbus airliner is British, and a lot of the value is RR engines. The refuelling system is British too. Mark83 20:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That rude word

WP:NOTCENSORED suggests we should report the aircrew view uncensored - FSTA = Fucking shortage of tankers again. It seems there is another view, that the offensive word should be censored to F*cking, or some variant. Views?

For my self, I prefer to see the original, and find no merit in censoring. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no merit in censoring, and no precedent for doing so. See articles such as FUBAR and RTFM. pablo_hablo. 11:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While my personal opinions differ, we still have to go with the policy. Is there any reason not to? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient with new users! I'm all for free speach and all that but where do you draw the line? I didn't remove the quote just amended the word i think should not appear in an online encyclopaedia which children can easily access. Seems the consensus is that its OK to offend but not to censor, even for good reason.

There are other examples of this word being changed on this site (not just a band including “f*cking” in their name) so find the inconsistent application of a policy just as wrong as my ‘edit warring’ for which I now apologise and only plead ignorance as my defence. Bobbieball —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbieball (talk • contribs) 11:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbieball: first, on a talkpage, please always end your post with ~~~~ .. this signs your posts. Don't do this in articles themselves though. Second, the consensus on Wikipedia is that it is not censored. This doesn't mean we can swear left, right, and centre, but that where appropriate (such as quotes) it is permissable. I have given you a nice menu of links to other Wikipedia policies that you might find useful as a new editor - I hope they help. Feel free to ask for further help when needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that as it is not referenced and not that important or notable it can be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nb it does have a reference. pablo_hablo. 12:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a particularly reliable reference just repeating hearsay from another source. Reference or not it is not particularly notable as a nickname unless it can be proved to be in general acceptable use. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any evaluation of the source's quality, just pointing out that it's there. Similarly, I have no idea whether this information should be included, the article's editors will determine that. But if this does stay in, it should not be censored. pablo_hablo. 13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A previous amendment to this section made by Mark83 on 18/03/2007 points out that the quote from AFM is censored. Therefore, if it’s to be reproduced (which I’ve never disputed) it should be as it appeared in that publication i.e. “censored”. Bobbieball 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

Now I would say that while the other publication may be censored, wikipedia is not censored (and the flyboys were certainly not censored) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future strategic tanker aircraft - future article title

Given it will have a service name of Voyager, where will this article move to Airbus Voyager, AirTanker Voyager? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm happy sticking with WP:COMMONNAME; when we start seeing lots of sources giving it a specific new name, we can switch to that name. In the meantime, it might be a bad idea to create a composite name. bobrayner (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft → Airbus Voyager – The RAF officially announced on 19.4.11 that the FSTA will be known as the Voyager in RAF service (see here). The page should therefore be moved from the original programme name to its in-service name. ANHL (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is the project article. The aricraft is covered at Airbus A330 MRTT. - BilCat (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is an article about the procurement project not the actual aircraft, details of Voyager are in Airbus A330 MRTT. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No need to rename this article. This article covers the UK tanker procurement programme, which was not affected by naming of the aircraft Voyager. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page move: "AirTanker Ltd." ?

The article appears to be a bit of a stub now. I would recommend moving the page to something such as AirTanker Ltd. with a condensed version on this page in the company history/development section. Technically, AirTanker are an airline/aircraft operator now so a new page should be created in any case. Bthebest (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any move, this is an article on the FSTA government procurement project nothing to do with the aircraft types or Air Tanker. dont have a problem with a separate and new article on the Air Tanker company. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for info AirTanker Services has been created. MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/A330MRTT.aspx
Triggered by \bairbusmilitary\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

This article title doesn't feel right to me anymore. The previous rename debate took place in 2011. Now the article doesn't cover a "Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft", but an operational aircraft. Surely something like Airbus A330 MRTT (RAF) would be more logical, covering the FSTA procurement and the operational RAF (and leased) aircraft? Mark83 (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dont agree the article is not about an operational aircraft but the procurement programme, the aircraft is already covered in Airbus A330 MRTT. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. With respect I really don't understand everyone's reverence to the title of the programme that delivered the aircraft - the important thing is the aircraft itself. There is little mention of CVF anymore, Wikipedia has replaced that with term with Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier. CVF, like FSTA, was simply what the article was called before it was properly named.

Also given that the RAF is the most expeditionary of all the A330 MRTT owning air forces, the article will soon become too RAF-heavy and will require a split (to this article as the operational history as well as procurement history)? Mark83 (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.armees.com/L-Europe-de-la-defense-est-franco,34063.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214151434/http://www.airbusmilitary.com/A330MRTT.aspx to http://www.airbusmilitary.com/A330MRTT.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]